0 comment Saturday, August 23, 2014 | admin
David Thompson gives us his take, as always interesting, on the recent controversies over 'hate speech,' for example in the Islamic Awareness Week at Tufts University.
Fear and Hate
It should, I think, be unnecessary to point out that claims of being offended don�t, in themselves, entitle one to anything in particular, and certainly not rights of unilateral censorship. But we live in strange times and some repetition may be in order. As I wrote back in May 2005:
In this fashionable rush to condemn those who cause offence, we are in danger of overlooking something important. All grievances are not of equal merit. Nor are they deserving of equal sensitivity or accommodation. Whether or not a person is offended may not depend on what is actually said or written, which may be perfectly coherent, measured in tone and serious in intent. The perceived offence may depend on the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the supposedly aggrieved party... Very civil and inarguable comments can, for instance, cause "offence" to someone who is determined to be offended for political gain and determined to exploit the pretence of being hurt. Indeed, the pantomime of being conspicuously aggrieved can be a form of passive-aggressivism - a way to express hostility or dominance while hiding being the role of victim. This tactic is widely employed by the morally incontinent and by bullies of all kinds.
In light of those comments, the following may be of interest. Mike Adams has developed a similar line of thinking and arrived at an interesting, and quite helpful, definition of "hate speech":
Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener�s inability to offer an intelligent response. Because this inability to offer an intelligent response is due to one of two reasons, there are really two different types of hate speech: (1) Speech that is too dumb to merit an intelligent response, and (2) Speech for which the listener is too dumb to offer an intelligent response.''
Good commentary from both Thompson and Mike Adams.
Thompson says, of Adams' ideas:
If, as Adams suggests, "hate speech" is defined by the listener�s inability to tolerate dissent or formulate an intelligent response, then advantage is given to those who least deserve it. Those who resort to threats and howls of impropriety gain leverage over people who are prepared to listen and rebut with argument and evidence. Thus, moral incontinence, idiocy and bullying prevail.''
All in all, it's an interesting piece. The entire thing should be read, and please do read the discussion thread, which, sadly, illustrates yet another example of neocon/right-liberal political correctness, in which the bogeymen assume the usual guise of 'racists and bigots.' The Klan are invoked, and poor old James Watson is again given a drubbing for his comments. I notice however that as usual nobody has a cogent argument with which to refute anything Watson has said, but I guess you don't need one if you have noble motives such as defending the downtrodden victims.
Is there any hope of disabusing the 'conservative' apostles of political correctness? They seem quite convinced that they are the epitome of 'conservative' righteousness. They seem to have no inkling that they are following along two steps behind their left counterparts, as regards their adherence to PC.
Somebody coined the term 'the righteous Right' to describe conservative Christians, but I am inclined to use that term for the PC adherents on the 'right' who get the vapors when somebody says something politically incorrect. Get the smelling salts. Maybe they are the 'self-righteous right.' Or maybe some of the commenters are actually liberals of the garden variety. It's getting so hard to tell these days.
Fear and Hate
It should, I think, be unnecessary to point out that claims of being offended don�t, in themselves, entitle one to anything in particular, and certainly not rights of unilateral censorship. But we live in strange times and some repetition may be in order. As I wrote back in May 2005:
In this fashionable rush to condemn those who cause offence, we are in danger of overlooking something important. All grievances are not of equal merit. Nor are they deserving of equal sensitivity or accommodation. Whether or not a person is offended may not depend on what is actually said or written, which may be perfectly coherent, measured in tone and serious in intent. The perceived offence may depend on the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the supposedly aggrieved party... Very civil and inarguable comments can, for instance, cause "offence" to someone who is determined to be offended for political gain and determined to exploit the pretence of being hurt. Indeed, the pantomime of being conspicuously aggrieved can be a form of passive-aggressivism - a way to express hostility or dominance while hiding being the role of victim. This tactic is widely employed by the morally incontinent and by bullies of all kinds.
In light of those comments, the following may be of interest. Mike Adams has developed a similar line of thinking and arrived at an interesting, and quite helpful, definition of "hate speech":
Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener�s inability to offer an intelligent response. Because this inability to offer an intelligent response is due to one of two reasons, there are really two different types of hate speech: (1) Speech that is too dumb to merit an intelligent response, and (2) Speech for which the listener is too dumb to offer an intelligent response.''
Good commentary from both Thompson and Mike Adams.
Thompson says, of Adams' ideas:
If, as Adams suggests, "hate speech" is defined by the listener�s inability to tolerate dissent or formulate an intelligent response, then advantage is given to those who least deserve it. Those who resort to threats and howls of impropriety gain leverage over people who are prepared to listen and rebut with argument and evidence. Thus, moral incontinence, idiocy and bullying prevail.''
All in all, it's an interesting piece. The entire thing should be read, and please do read the discussion thread, which, sadly, illustrates yet another example of neocon/right-liberal political correctness, in which the bogeymen assume the usual guise of 'racists and bigots.' The Klan are invoked, and poor old James Watson is again given a drubbing for his comments. I notice however that as usual nobody has a cogent argument with which to refute anything Watson has said, but I guess you don't need one if you have noble motives such as defending the downtrodden victims.
Is there any hope of disabusing the 'conservative' apostles of political correctness? They seem quite convinced that they are the epitome of 'conservative' righteousness. They seem to have no inkling that they are following along two steps behind their left counterparts, as regards their adherence to PC.
Somebody coined the term 'the righteous Right' to describe conservative Christians, but I am inclined to use that term for the PC adherents on the 'right' who get the vapors when somebody says something politically incorrect. Get the smelling salts. Maybe they are the 'self-righteous right.' Or maybe some of the commenters are actually liberals of the garden variety. It's getting so hard to tell these days.
Labels: Conservatives, First Amendment, Free Speech, Hate Speech, Political Parties
0 comment Thursday, June 5, 2014 | admin
Does this presage a crackdown on the Internet?
Is it possible that this might lead to moving against sites or blogs that, say, excerpt from copyrighted media materials? Of course it would probably involve those who express unpopular or dissident views (which of course would exempt the Left; much as they like to posture and preen as being 'dissidents', they are the establishment now).
And what about the significance, if any, of the government agency that is doing this? What on earth does this kind of thing have to do with the purported role of that department?
Thoughts?
Is it possible that this might lead to moving against sites or blogs that, say, excerpt from copyrighted media materials? Of course it would probably involve those who express unpopular or dissident views (which of course would exempt the Left; much as they like to posture and preen as being 'dissidents', they are the establishment now).
And what about the significance, if any, of the government agency that is doing this? What on earth does this kind of thing have to do with the purported role of that department?
Thoughts?
Labels: Civil Liberties, Constitution, First Amendment, Free Press, Free Speech
0 comment Tuesday, April 29, 2014 | admin
We all know it's happening.
But one of the recent casualties of an apparently new campaign to exclude politically incorrect content is the video to which I linked several posts back, entitled 'Was America Ever a White Nation?' The video was an excerpt from the documentary called A Conversation About Race.
Of course honest conversations about race are still highly taboo in our society, so it's not surprising that some politically correct vigilante reported the video in question.
I view a lot of videos on You Tube, but to be honest, You Tube is a morass of idiocy when it comes to the comment section following the videos. You Tube seems to be the playground of a great many barely literate leftists, most of whom seem to be adolescents, in spirit if not in years. No matter what the content of a video may be, for instance, such an innocuous thing as the carol ''Good King Wenceslas", someone has to leave nasty comments of a political nature. Accusations of 'racism' and 'hate' abound among the misspelled and crude comments which litter the threads.
Personally I haven't registered at You Tube, so I cannot post comments or 'flag' videos as abusive. But it's evident that the many pestilential leftists who post there flag any video they deem as 'hateful' or 'racist.' I wonder how much of this our side does? Perhaps we ought to start being as free with flagging videos as ''offensive'', just as the leftists and multicultists do with anything even remotely favorable to our side and our culture.
I generally feel that debating or arguing with leftists and multicultists is a waste of time and energy, but I do think it would be a good thing if more pro-White, pro-Western people spoke up and left thoughtful and well-phrased comments so that the leftists won't win the day by default.
And as far as the left's wanton complaining and snitching on anything they dislike, it would seem that both sides could play at that game. It might throw a monkey-wrench into the works to start flagging You Tube videos lavishly, especially those which are unfriendly to our people and cause. For too long, the left has shouted everybody else down, and monopolized the public debate on virtually everything. When is our side going to start making a showing?
I grant you, political correctness being the devouring monster that it is, our side will be censored and banned all over the place, but even if comments stand for a short time, they have a chance of being seen by a few, at least. I personally think there's little chance of converting the lost, but there might be people who are vacillating, or who haven't yet really heard both sides fully, who might be open to hearing our side. That goes for other more neutral forums too; we can make our case in a reasonable, civilized way whenever and wherever we can. I used to do a great deal more posting on 'mainstream' forums and boards, but I find I have little time for it these days. Still, I think we need to make our voices heard, and not concede the field to the left everywhere.
But one of the recent casualties of an apparently new campaign to exclude politically incorrect content is the video to which I linked several posts back, entitled 'Was America Ever a White Nation?' The video was an excerpt from the documentary called A Conversation About Race.
Of course honest conversations about race are still highly taboo in our society, so it's not surprising that some politically correct vigilante reported the video in question.
I view a lot of videos on You Tube, but to be honest, You Tube is a morass of idiocy when it comes to the comment section following the videos. You Tube seems to be the playground of a great many barely literate leftists, most of whom seem to be adolescents, in spirit if not in years. No matter what the content of a video may be, for instance, such an innocuous thing as the carol ''Good King Wenceslas", someone has to leave nasty comments of a political nature. Accusations of 'racism' and 'hate' abound among the misspelled and crude comments which litter the threads.
Personally I haven't registered at You Tube, so I cannot post comments or 'flag' videos as abusive. But it's evident that the many pestilential leftists who post there flag any video they deem as 'hateful' or 'racist.' I wonder how much of this our side does? Perhaps we ought to start being as free with flagging videos as ''offensive'', just as the leftists and multicultists do with anything even remotely favorable to our side and our culture.
I generally feel that debating or arguing with leftists and multicultists is a waste of time and energy, but I do think it would be a good thing if more pro-White, pro-Western people spoke up and left thoughtful and well-phrased comments so that the leftists won't win the day by default.
And as far as the left's wanton complaining and snitching on anything they dislike, it would seem that both sides could play at that game. It might throw a monkey-wrench into the works to start flagging You Tube videos lavishly, especially those which are unfriendly to our people and cause. For too long, the left has shouted everybody else down, and monopolized the public debate on virtually everything. When is our side going to start making a showing?
I grant you, political correctness being the devouring monster that it is, our side will be censored and banned all over the place, but even if comments stand for a short time, they have a chance of being seen by a few, at least. I personally think there's little chance of converting the lost, but there might be people who are vacillating, or who haven't yet really heard both sides fully, who might be open to hearing our side. That goes for other more neutral forums too; we can make our case in a reasonable, civilized way whenever and wherever we can. I used to do a great deal more posting on 'mainstream' forums and boards, but I find I have little time for it these days. Still, I think we need to make our voices heard, and not concede the field to the left everywhere.
Labels: Censorship, First Amendment, Freedom Of Expression, Freedom Of Speech, Hate Speech, Thought Crime
0 comment Monday, April 28, 2014 | admin
I've decided that this 'honest dialogue' thing is a good idea, and in the interest of contributing to the discussion, I thought it might be useful to remind ourselves of some of the 'dialogue' contributed by others over the last 15 or 20 years, when many of us were not really paying attention.
"At no moment in my life have I ever felt as though I were an American." - Toni Morrison
"The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean Algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, and Ballanchine ballets don't redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history." - Susan Sontag
"Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them." - Mary Frances Berry, Civil Rights Commission head, 1991
"Go back to Simi Valley, you skunks! Go back to Woodland Hills! Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get
out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people, it is your duty to die. . . ." - Augustin Cebada, quoted by Barbara Coe, in Reconquista: The Takeover of America, 1991
"We have an aging white America. They are dying. They are ****ting in their pants with fear! . . . I love it!" - 'Professor' Jose Angel Gutierrez, ibid.
"I am writing this essay sitting beside an anonymous white male that I long to murder." - 'Professor' bell hooks [sic], from A Killing Rage
"And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem." - African Studies 'professor', Dr. Kamau Kambon
''When I consider the enormity of the white man's crimes against humanity ... Against the poor. Against my mother and my father. Against me ... I think ... Let the earth marinate in poisons. Let the bombs cover the ground like rain. For nothing short of total destruction will ever teach them anything!' - Alice Walker, 'In Search of Our Mother's Gardens'
Also see here for more from Walker along these lines : What can the White man say to the black woman?
"When talking about the history of this great country, one can never forget that America was built upon the genocide of Native Americans and enslavement of African people. To say otherwise is criminal." - Spike Lee, quoted in LA Times, 7/7/2000
"I'm convinced AIDS is a government-engineered disease. They got one thing wrong, they never realized it couldn't just be contained to the groups it was intended to wipe out. So, now it's a national priority. Exactly like drugs when they escaped the urban centers into white suburbia." - Spike Lee (again), quoted in Detroit Free Press, 9/9/1992
This is just a small sampling of the 'dialogue' to date, as contributed by the other side, the only side which gets heard in our useless media. Our side has been oddly silent thus far, except for the occasional protest 'not me, I'm no racist', which, to be fair, is about all we are allowed to say in this rigged 'dialogue.'
But in principle I think dialogue could be a good thing, and I expect to have more to say on this, though I have a feeling it is not what our masters want to hear.
"At no moment in my life have I ever felt as though I were an American." - Toni Morrison
"The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean Algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, and Ballanchine ballets don't redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history." - Susan Sontag
"Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them." - Mary Frances Berry, Civil Rights Commission head, 1991
"Go back to Simi Valley, you skunks! Go back to Woodland Hills! Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get
out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people, it is your duty to die. . . ." - Augustin Cebada, quoted by Barbara Coe, in Reconquista: The Takeover of America, 1991
"We have an aging white America. They are dying. They are ****ting in their pants with fear! . . . I love it!" - 'Professor' Jose Angel Gutierrez, ibid.
"I am writing this essay sitting beside an anonymous white male that I long to murder." - 'Professor' bell hooks [sic], from A Killing Rage
"And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem." - African Studies 'professor', Dr. Kamau Kambon
''When I consider the enormity of the white man's crimes against humanity ... Against the poor. Against my mother and my father. Against me ... I think ... Let the earth marinate in poisons. Let the bombs cover the ground like rain. For nothing short of total destruction will ever teach them anything!' - Alice Walker, 'In Search of Our Mother's Gardens'
Also see here for more from Walker along these lines : What can the White man say to the black woman?
"When talking about the history of this great country, one can never forget that America was built upon the genocide of Native Americans and enslavement of African people. To say otherwise is criminal." - Spike Lee, quoted in LA Times, 7/7/2000
"I'm convinced AIDS is a government-engineered disease. They got one thing wrong, they never realized it couldn't just be contained to the groups it was intended to wipe out. So, now it's a national priority. Exactly like drugs when they escaped the urban centers into white suburbia." - Spike Lee (again), quoted in Detroit Free Press, 9/9/1992
This is just a small sampling of the 'dialogue' to date, as contributed by the other side, the only side which gets heard in our useless media. Our side has been oddly silent thus far, except for the occasional protest 'not me, I'm no racist', which, to be fair, is about all we are allowed to say in this rigged 'dialogue.'
But in principle I think dialogue could be a good thing, and I expect to have more to say on this, though I have a feeling it is not what our masters want to hear.
Labels: Ethnic Differences, Ethnic Division, First Amendment, Freedom Of Expression, Political Correctness