The Reality of the Rise of an Intolerant and Radical Left on Campus

The view that college campuses are hotbeds of radical leftists and Antifa is a myth. The media likes to show them because they do stupid shit thats filmable. Colleges are a condensed mixing pot of different cultures and ideas, so its not surprising that students develop a more tolerant, all inclusive worldview which is far more akin to democrat than republican.

Also people like to malign teachers with "they are all marxists". When is the last time you took a college course? Theres not alot of room for ideology in 75 percent of the studies, and the other 25% are literally designed for the democrat friendly systems of support and care.

business, engineering, science, medicine - wheres the ideology

social services, arts and humanities, etc -obviously more friendly to diversity.

People need to drop the pejorative "marxist" from their vocabulary. It's thrown around to slight anyone who believes in universal healthcare, minimum wage etc, when in reality only tiny numbers want us to be like Venezuela or 1950's china. If you want to talk about radical leftists it also depends where you are. Berkeley? a campus of 20,000 might have 150 that will rally as Antifa. UCLA, USC, Texas AnM, you are down to a few dozen guys in their pajamas

me: fiscal republican, socially democrat. Business major.
 
We see this specific argument over and over again yet people don't seem comfortable with a possible scenario.

What if we see more activism from the left because they're the group most willing to challenge a broken system? That the reason the right has less activism is because they lack the courage to stand up to that broken system. They are more willing to suffer silently and call it "strength".

Of course, that assumes that something is wrong with the system....

Well, if the most recent election is any indication, the members of the right are quite disillusioned with the system as their side has presented it. Yet, rather than overtly challenge that system, they allowed it continue abusing them and mocked the left for saying something. If Trump's election indicates that the GOP no longer understood their base...why didn't the base say something before? The left has been openly refuting the GOP's choice of direction, the Trump supporters should have been too.

So, there's a possibility that the left is just less willing to get fucked by the system?

Not saying it's the most likely explanation but it's certainly something to think about.
 
Once you tie in PR with psychology, you can see the rest pretty clearly.

Sigmund Freud was Bernay's uncle and they knew each other well
Straight out of the KGBs playbook. Now I know the genesis of their methods. Good stuff.

So, let them speak and also let them get shouted down?

Sunlight is a great disinfectant. If their ideas are truly toxic it's better for them to be put on display so they can be properly countered, rather than hidden from view where they gain a certain appeal of mystery and "what if". Idiocy is usually self evident, so why not let them show it to the world? Unless your afraid of uncomfortable truths.
 
So in the 5,300 colleges in America, there were 15 disinvitatons as a result of leftist protests?
 
We see this specific argument over and over again yet people don't seem comfortable with a possible scenario.

What if we see more activism from the left because they're the group most willing to challenge a broken system? That the reason the right has less activism is because they lack the courage to stand up to that broken system. They are more willing to suffer silently and call it "strength".

Of course, that assumes that something is wrong with the system....

Well, if the most recent election is any indication, the members of the right are quite disillusioned with the system as their side has presented it. Yet, rather than overtly challenge that system, they allowed it continue abusing them and mocked the left for saying something. If Trump's election indicates that the GOP no longer understood their base...why didn't the base say something before? The left has been openly refuting the GOP's choice of direction, the Trump supporters should have been too.

So, there's a possibility that the left is just less willing to get fucked by the system?

Not saying it's the most likely explanation but it's certainly something to think about.
A few things....

I wouldnt suggest the left, as it exists today, is more willing to challenge a broken system. I wouldnt even suggest they are challenging anything. The whole battle from the left today is misguided and cowardly. Rather than challenge the economic status quo, it fights a safe war over identity in the safe places of college campuses.

The right is very active. From the tea party to the Trump party, they are online and networking on a whole other level.

I wouldn't interpret protests as activism or anything meaningful at all. The left is stuck in this spider hole from the sixties "go out and bang your drums and sing" sorry, doesn't work and no one cares.

Trump's election did not hinge on the GOP base, he had the base because the base falls in line on Tuesday. It hinged on voters who used to vote Democrat throughout the rust belt, the very people the Clinton machine abandoned.

As far as the base goes, voting for Trump was tied to absolving themselves of their guilt for supporting Bush and Cheney.

Everyone knows the system is broken. The disagreement surrounds what is breaking it. And neither side is really addressing that.
 
So in the 5,300 colleges in America, there were 15 disinvitatons as a result of leftist protests?

You're missing the point, Jack. The line goes up!

Like this one...

1A3tHoC.png
 
The main issue is that some of these people (Goody, Spencer, etc) are using borderline hate speech. Hate speech is not free speech. Some of these alt- right / right wing extremist speakers have inspired others to cause violence and people have died and people have also been seriously injured (see Charlottesville).

I agree that freedom of speech is important and I don't have a solution.

So, let them speak and also let them get shouted down?

Borderline hate speech is still not hate speech. Hate speech is illegal the way watching and producing child porn and incest porn is illegal, and rightfully so. But it still doesn't stop people from getting as close to the line as legally possible.

As long as it doesn't cross the legal parameter, we as a society have decided that while it's gross, it's acceptable (maybe even useful the way an emergency valve is useful). We can't arrest them, we can't keep them from watching what they watch. At best we can rightfully call them out, or legally agitate for new legislation, but that's about it. To me this is a necessary compromise.

There's always going to be a sizeable chunk of people who will champ at the bit of your sensibilities. It's impossible to reign it all in. It's very important t evolve a manageable perspective to deal with, otherwise you either go crazy, end up looking like and asshole or both.

People get influenced by all sorts of stuff. When I was a kid a lot of people felt just a strongly about a rock (metal?) group called Judas Priest http://home.bt.com/news/on-this-day...cide-pact-american-teen-claims-11364030171228
and then Ice -T with his song "Cop-killer"
http://teamrock.com/feature/2015-10-28/the-cop-killer-controversy

And even before all that I remember being in Catholic elementary school being told that I wasn't to play Dungeons and Dragons because there had been rumors of kids killing themselves over it.

All nonsense. People have to remember how durable they actually are.
 
The view that college campuses are hotbeds of radical leftists and Antifa is a myth. The media likes to show them because they do stupid shit thats filmable. Colleges are a condensed mixing pot of different cultures and ideas, so its not surprising that students develop a more tolerant, all inclusive worldview which is far more akin to democrat than republican.

Also people like to malign teachers with "they are all marxists". When is the last time you took a college course? Theres not alot of room for ideology in 75 percent of the studies, and the other 25% are literally designed for the democrat friendly systems of support and care.

business, engineering, science, medicine - wheres the ideology

social services, arts and humanities, etc -obviously more friendly to diversity.

People need to drop the pejorative "marxist" from their vocabulary. It's thrown around to slight anyone who believes in universal healthcare, minimum wage etc, when in reality only tiny numbers want us to be like Venezuela or 1950's china. If you want to talk about radical leftists it also depends where you are. Berkeley? a campus of 20,000 might have 150 that will rally as Antifa. UCLA, USC, Texas AnM, you are down to a few dozen guys in their pajamas

me: fiscal republican, socially democrat. Business major.
The people getting STEM degrees are still required to go to social science classes and be fed neo-left propaganda. The people getting social science degrees still have take math classes and learn...math. There is a difference; the education industry, among other things, serves as a platform for neo-left ideaology, as that voice is inherently heard on campuses, regardless of what discipline you enter. Right wing voices will only be heard on small, mostly segregated parts of campus.
 
Borderline hate speech is still not hate speech. Hate speech is illegal the way watching and producing child porn and incest porn is illegal, and rightfully so. But it still doesn't stop people from getting as close to the line as legally possible.

As long as it doesn't cross the legal parameter, we as a society have decided that while it's gross, it's acceptable (maybe even useful the way an emergency valve is useful). We can't arrest them, we can't keep them from watching what they watch. At best we can rightfully call them out, or legally agitate for new legislation, but that's about it. To me this is a necessary compromise.

I agree. If you are going to draw a line such as hate speech laws, it must have a clear foundation that will allow you distinguish between objectional speech, and impermissible speech. If the argument is that objectional speech should be outlawed because it could allow for impermissible speech it ceases immediately to be a slippery slope, and becomes more of a yellow brick road. For example, why could you not then argue that speech that could lead to objectionable speech that could lead to impermissible speech should also be outlawed?

To me that line should exist, and it is incitement. Not denial, or obscenity, or hatred, but incitement. It's worked pretty well so far in Canada.
 
I mean, r u tryna tell me that you wouldn't try to fist bump @salamander ?

Yes I would. But I fist bump everybody. Colleagues, girls, etc..

When I did BJJ I even used to fist bump everyone after the costumary hand slap before and after a roll ! And literally everyone did it with me.
 
We see this specific argument over and over again yet people don't seem comfortable with a possible scenario.

What if we see more activism from the left because they're the group most willing to challenge a broken system? That the reason the right has less activism is because they lack the courage to stand up to that broken system. They are more willing to suffer silently and call it "strength".

Of course, that assumes that something is wrong with the system....

Well, if the most recent election is any indication, the members of the right are quite disillusioned with the system as their side has presented it. Yet, rather than overtly challenge that system, they allowed it continue abusing them and mocked the left for saying something. If Trump's election indicates that the GOP no longer understood their base...why didn't the base say something before? The left has been openly refuting the GOP's choice of direction, the Trump supporters should have been too.

So, there's a possibility that the left is just less willing to get fucked by the system?

Not saying it's the most likely explanation but it's certainly something to think about.

Isn't it just that the right is by definition more OK with the status quo? Though today's right in America is increasingly radical rather than conservative.
 
You're missing the point, Jack. The line goes up!

If the trend continues--not the one from 2016-2017 or from 2000-2015 but the one from 2000-2016--it'll be about one per college per year in another quarter century.
 
I am not sure that I understand your post.

What I mean is that for all the "left" posturing in the USA, most of them are actually free-trade / open border neo-liberals.

Well the SJW ones protesting on campus are not. They are not in the same faction as the liberals. It is really not that different than Europe and there are a bunch of overlapping segments on the Venn diagram that are being converged into one with these kinds of comments.
 
I am not sure that I understand your post.

What I mean is that for all the "left" posturing in the USA, most of them are actually free-trade / open border neo-liberals.

Well the SJW ones protesting on campus are not. They are not in the same faction as the liberals. It is really not that different than Europe and there are a bunch of overlapping segments on the Venn diagram that are being converged into one with these kinds of comments.
 
If the trend continues--not the one from 2016-2017 or from 2000-2015 but the one from 2000-2016--it'll be about one per college per year in another quarter century.

It's true. The evidence is irrefutable: just read the author's books. He was kind enough to provide multiple links to their amazon pages throughout the article, as well as the odd dead link.
 
I agree. If you are going to draw a line such as hate speech laws, it must have a clear foundation that will allow you distinguish between objectional speech, and impermissible speech. If the argument is that objectional speech should be outlawed because it could allow for impermissible speech it ceases immediately to be a slippery slope, and becomes more of a yellow brick road. For example, why could you not then argue that speech that could lead to objectionable speech that could lead to impermissible speech should also be outlawed?

To me that line should exist, and it is incitement. Not denial, or obscenity, or hatred, but incitement. It's worked pretty well so far in Canada.

I agree with everything except your sig:

Canadiens: 26-35 (lol)
Leafs: 42-23

It's our year
 
I agree with everything except your sig:

Canadiens: 26-35 (lol)
Leafs: 42-23

It's our year

What's going to happen is you'll get to the ECF, someone will highstick Matthews, it won't be called, and Leafs fans will never, ever, ever shut up about it, ever again.
 
Well the SJW ones protesting on campus are not. They are not in the same faction as the liberals. It is really not that different than Europe and there are a bunch of overlapping segments on the Venn diagram that are being converged into one with these kinds of comments.

Are they not ? I would venture that they are much, much more neo-liberal than they believe, even if they like to see themselves as some sort of revolutionaries.

They are for open borders, are they not ? Free movement of workers goes hand-in-hand with a deregulated labor market.

Aren't they against any form of protectionism, because they see it as nationalism/populism ?

They elect the parties that are the most in favour of free-trade, don't they, while they oppose the parties that want to limit it (think Trump/Brexit/Front National/etc.).

I could go on and on, but I really have the feeling that they are the free trade capitalists' most useful idiots, currently.

Just wanted to add : it is also what explains that big companies try to cater to these people. Their ideology converges with big companies' interests, which in turn explains why the media are playing along.
 
Back
Top