"The Psychology of Progressive Hostility"

[amolitor]

"Attacking sources" boils down to "dismissing any sources which don't support my opinion" in general.

[RSL]

Not at all. There's a difference between "attacking sources" and distinguishing a difference between reliable sources and unreliable sources.

But, bottom line, sources don't really matter. In this case, what really matters is the number of violent acts by the left versus violent acts by the right. I gave Pieter a couple examples of violence or threats of violence by the left. If I were willing to take the time to do it I probably could come up with a hundred more. But all Pieter's been able to come back with is a story of a teacher being fired for teaching a point of view inimical to the views of the establishment.

Frankly, though there may be one, I can't think of a single recent case of violence or its threat by right-wingers. I can come up with a few Nazi marches, but those weren't threats; they were performances. Besides that, who says Nazis are right-wingers? "Nazi" means National Socialist party. Doesn't sound too right-wing to me.

[amolitor]

So you're not remembering the Nazi who drove his car into the crowd at the recent Nazi performance?

[Rob C]

Pieter, you overlooked one simple phrase: "with sources one actually can believe." "Google hits" isn't much of a measuring stick. Damn right I'm attacking the sources. That's the guts of the problem.

For proof of that within our own little world of snaps, just look at how often well-known images are credited to the wrong photographer and even, in many cases, the wrong models.

If there's a good side to this pile of bad information, it's in that it shows how, by contrast, the old ways of studying something in depth, pre-digital world, really did give folks some valid information and knowledge. A further problem with the Google world is that people with amost no knowledge of something can simply consult the good doctor and write what might pass, within the tiny context of a forum such as this, for a learned opinion.

[Rob C]

So you're not remembering the Nazi who drove his car into the crowd at the recent Nazi performance?

The use of the word Nazi today, especially in a country outwith Germany or Austria, seems a little far-fetched to me. But hey, the emotional kick welded to that word sure does lend lots of faux clout to the arguments of the people who use it at every opportunity.

Truth to tell, it's not far removed from the way that red has been hijacked as a political measurement.

[amolitor]

"Nazi" and "Fascist" are both just words that mean "Someone I disagree with", to be sure. But there are people in the USA who self-identify as Nazis, and it is these people that Russ is disavowing.

I will no perform the same maneuver but more efficiently:

Since "progress" in any meaningful form depends on discourse and open-mindedness, I declare that closed minded people, by definition, cannot be progressives. It therefore follows, trivially, that all progressives are more or less open-minded.

(this saves me the trouble of piecemeal disavowing whatever disagreeable wretches Russ comes up with)

[Rob C]

"Nazi" and "Fascist" are both just words that mean "Someone I disagree with", to be sure. But there are people in the USA who self-identify as Nazis, and it is these people that Russ is disavowing.

I will no perform the same maneuver but more efficiently:

Since "progress" in any meaningful form depends on discourse and open-mindedness, I declare that closed minded people, by definition, cannot be progressives. It therefore follows, trivially, that all progressives are more or less open-minded.

(this saves me the trouble of piecemeal disavowing whatever disagreeable wretches Russ comes up with)

Ah, now I understand. A guy, thinking himself the last man on Earth, leaps from the top of the Chrysler Buildng and, just before head meets cement, he hears his cellphone ring. That is progress, both vertical and spiritual.

No doubt, even if not open-minded, he will find himself at least open-headed - should he linger long enough.

You explain scientific things so well! Thank you!

;-)

[Jeremy Roussak]

Since "progress" in any meaningful form depends on discourse and open-mindedness, I declare that closed minded people, by definition, cannot be progressives. It therefore follows, trivially, that all progressives are more or less open-minded.

Even assuming that your declaration has validity (as to which I make no comment), your argument is a variant of the syllogism of the undistributed middle: "All dogs have four legs. My cat has four legs. Therefore my cat is a dog".

Jeremy

[Rob C]

Even assuming that your declaration has validity (as to which I make no comment), your argument is a variant of the syllogism of the undistributed middle: "All dogs have four legs. My cat has four legs. Therefore my cat is a dog".

Jeremy

Now I understand why, of late, I have found some arguments difficult to follow!

Thank you for the clarification.

[amolitor]

ETA: This exchange places Jeremy in an interesting position, doesn't it? By picking a fight with one of the active participants in the thread, he places himself in an awkward position in terms of moderating it. Let us see how this evolves, shall we?

No, Jeremy, it is not. There are some negations that have to be combed out, but ultimately, it's not even a syllogism. There are only two terms in play: Closed Minded People (C) and Progressive People (P).

The first statement, which I assert as true by definition, is "A member of C cannot be P" or more formally "There exist no Cs which are also Ps".

The conclusion is simply a logically equivalent re-arrangement of this "All Ps are not C".

That these are logically equivalent can be seen set theoretically, if you imagine a sort of Venn diagram, both statements merely assert that the big circle labelled C does not overlap with the big circle labelled P. Or you can apply the standard rules for distributing negations around in statements with universal and existential quantifiers, see also first order logic.

I attach the standard identity:

[RSL]

"Nazi" and "Fascist" are both just words that mean "Someone I disagree with. . .

Try telling that to a Jew who was at Auschwitz, Andrew, but be ready to run for your life.

But there are people in the USA who self-identify as Nazis, and it is these people that Russ is disavowing.

Are you saying you don't disavow these self-identified National Socialists?

Nowhere yet has Pieter given me even one example of right-wing disruption to offset the two extensively documented ones I gave him. Give me an example, Andrew or Pieter, of a case where "right-wingers" (meaning people who understand the overarching value of capitalism) have disrupted a college lecture by a visitor. There may be one out there, but I'm not aware of it.

[amolitor]

Well,  Russ, I dare say if you went back to the 1960s when the right was more in ascendance on college campuses you'd find a few examples. Nowadays, as I mentioned above, a radical fringe of the left holds certain of the reins on college campuses, so I dare say you'll be hard pressed to find contemporary examples of right wing radicals suppressing left wing speech on college campuses.

Finding examples of right wingers off campus who suppress free speech by, for instance, driving their cars into massed protesters, is a little easier.

[amolitor]

Are you saying you don't disavow these self-identified National Socialists?

No. That's not what I am saying. You can tell, because I didn't say that. If you look at the words that I used, you will notice immediately that I didn't say that.

This is the part of the show where the right wingers attempt to bait their opponents in to breaking the spiffy new forum rules by throwing around absurd, but apparently rule-compliant, accusations. Good luck with that. Discourse is gone, and now we're in an infinite regress of "no, I did not say that, stop accusing me of saying stupid things. No, no, god, I didnt say that either, where are you coming up with this? Oh, right, you're just baiting me. <censored> <censored><censored>"

[DP]

Besides that, who says Nazis are right-wingers? "Nazi" means National Socialist party. Doesn't sound too right-wing to me.

Adolf was too busy to change the name once he gutted Rem (Rohm) and Strasser the Elder.

[RSL]

Yes, I know that. Tell me what you think he intended to change the name to.

[James Clark]

Try telling that to a Jew who was at Auschwitz, Andrew, but be ready to run for your life.

Are you saying you don't disavow these self-identified National Socialists?

Nowhere yet has Pieter given me even one example of right-wing disruption to offset the two extensively documented ones I gave him. Give me an example, Andrew or Pieter, of a case where "right-wingers" (meaning people who understand the overarching value of capitalism) have disrupted a college lecture by a visitor. There may be one out there, but I'm not aware of it.

For the second time in as many pages, Russ, a few incidents do not make "data."  Read and learn.

[RSL]

Please explain what you think that means, James.

[Jeremy Roussak]

ETA: This exchange places Jeremy in an interesting position, doesn't it? By picking a fight with one of the active participants in the thread, he places himself in an awkward position in terms of moderating it. Let us see how this evolves, shall we?

There's nothing "interesting" about my position.

First, I'm not "picking a fight" with anyone, merely disagreeing; and your use of that phrase is perhaps indicative of why some threads disintegrate into abuse so easily. Secondly, as I've made clear, there is precisely zero prospect of my taking "executive" action against anyone who expresses views with which I disagree merely because I disagree with them; action will be taken against anyone who breaks the rules I set out.

Jeremy

[RSL]

There's nothing "interesting" about my position.

Jeremy

Well, it's "interesting," Jeremy, in the same sense that it's "interesting" if you're at 35,000 feet and your engine flames out.

Good luck, my friend.

[James Clark]

Please explain what you think that means, James.

Well, Russ, here's the takeaway:

Overall public support for free speech is rising over time, not falling. People on the political right are less supportive of free speech than people on the left. College graduates are more supportive than non-graduates. Indeed, a 2016 Knight Foundation survey showed that college students are less likely than the overall population to support restrictions on speech on campus. Among the public at large, meanwhile, the group whose speech the public is most likely to favor stifling is Muslims.

The alarm about student protesters, in other words, though not always mistaken about particular cases, is generally grounded in a completely mistaken view of the big-picture state of American society and public opinion, both on and off campus.

What it "means" is that anecdotal incidents where a group of lefty students can't stand to have their delicate sensibilities offended are seemingly statistically insignificant, and that one ought not to draw societal conclusions about liberals, universities, or students because of them, because said conclusions would be, in a word, wrong.  (Unless, apparently, you're shutting down the right of a Muslim to speak, in which case there are some alarming tendencies toward that particular sort of censorship.  I suspect it's not the lefty students doing that, though.)