# Are the liberal elites muzzling dissent?



## jks9199 (Jun 8, 2014)

Interesting piece I read today...
Watch What You Say, The New Liberal Power Elite Won't Tolerate Dissent



> In ways not seen since at least the McCarthy era, Americans are  finding  themselves increasingly constrained by a rising class&#8212;what I  call the  progressive Clerisy&#8212;that accepts no dissent from its basic  tenets. Like  the First Estate in pre-revolutionary France, the Clerisy  increasingly  exercises its power to constrain dissenting views, whether  on  politics, social attitudes or science.
> 
> An  alliance of upper level bureaucrats and cultural elites, the  Clerisy,  for for all their concerns about inequality, have thrived,  unlike most  Americans, in recent years. They also enjoy strong  relations with the  power structure in Washington, Silicon Valley,  Hollywood and Wall  Street.
> 
> ...



I'd love to hear from academics, especially, about this. I know one academic who is incredibly cautious about their online activities not being identified with their professional persona -- not  that I personally would think that anything they do online is less than a credit  to them as a person and an academic.  But, obviously, anyone else can and  should chime in...  I've seen signs myself, like the aforementioned  cancellations of speakers...  Nobody is allowed to challenge or offend  anyone else's preconceptions, it seems....


----------



## crushing (Jun 9, 2014)

Reading the articles, I found that some of the commencement speakers are  withdrawing of their own accord when met with protests and petitions.   Could it be that speakers are more (overly?) sensitive to such protests  and give up their speaking engagement much more easily than speakers of  the past?

The loudest voices decrying the cancellations of commencement speakers have been liberals.  I am not surprised by some piling on that will occur to gain a political advantage.   Such cancellations are antithetical to the liberalism that the US was founded upon.  There certainly must be a better term for this anti-liberalism than 'liberal elite.'  What is curious, other than Rice, most of the speakers withdrawing due to protests or being 'dis-invited' are liberals who have been accused of insulting much more conservative populations and communities.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 9, 2014)

The rejection of commencement speakers with differing views bothers me. Colleges should welcome people of differing opinions in order to generate debate. It seems to be that it started with students rightfully protesting a couple of outrageous choices--virtual war criminals who would not raise the level of discussion but merely see their own stock rise after having spoken at a major NYC university--but has gotten way out of hand. Condi Rice played a big role in our history--let's hear from her! I'm no fan of Dick Cheney, say, but would welcome giving him the chance to air his views. I do like to see college students politically involved so I view this more as the pendulum having swung too far from "college students don't acre at all about politics" to " college students need to chill out about politics" and I'm hopeful it'll right itself soon. Meanwhile, it's true that many of the would-be speakers are withdrawing rather than having controversy surround them, and there'll always be someone who complains, so it isn't entirely one-sided. Also, college kids are not the "liberal elite".

At least one replacement commencement speaker blasted the crowd for driving away the first choice.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 9, 2014)

crushing said:


> Reading the articles, I found that some of the commencement speakers are  withdrawing of their own accord when met with protests and petitions.   Could it be that speakers are more (overly?) sensitive to such protests  and give up their speaking engagement much more easily than speakers of  the past?
> 
> The loudest voices decrying the cancellations of commencement speakers have been liberals.  I am not surprised by some piling on that will occur to gain a political advantage.   Such cancellations are antithetical to the liberalism that the US was founded upon.  There certainly must be a better term for this anti-liberalism than 'liberal elite.'  What is curious, other than Rice, most of the speakers withdrawing due to protests or being 'dis-invited' are liberals who have been accused of insulting much more conservative populations and communities.



While several have backed out of commencements or other speaking engagements on their own accord rather than cause a disruption -- isn't that still a form of pushing their opinion out of sight?


----------



## billc (Jun 9, 2014)

> are liberals who have been accused of insulting much more conservative populations and communities.



Like who?  Compared to the list in the article...


----------



## crushing (Jun 9, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> While several have backed out of commencements or other speaking engagements on their own accord rather than cause a disruption -- isn't that still a form of pushing their opinion out of sight?



Definitely.


----------



## billc (Jun 9, 2014)

Colleges Leave Conservatives Out of Commencement Ceremonies - US News




> Conservatives are disappearing from commencement programs,  according to  Harry Enten at the data-crunching site FiveThirtyEight. Over the past  two years, the top 30 universities and top 30 liberal arts colleges  hosted 20 political commencement speakers, with nary a conservative in  their ranks. Quite a change from 10 years earlier, when political  speakers were more evenly split between liberals and conservatives.
> 
> 
> While noting the change is due in part to a difference in political  climate  10 years ago there was a Republican administration and the GOP  was more popular  Enten concludes that polarization bears the bulk of  the blame. Many people dont like hearing contrary views, he writes, so  on elite college campuses, where supporters of Democrats outnumber  Republicans, the lack of conservative speakers isnt surprising.  Perhaps not surprising, but a troubling trend these colleges should work  to reverse


----------



## arnisador (Jun 9, 2014)

It's well-established that liberalism correlates strongly with all measures of education and intelligence. You have to expect college populations to be disproportionately liberal. ("I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." --John Stuart Mill) In addition, a liberal attitude is intrinsically a part of a college's approach to knowledge. The liberal bias is built-in by it being a university in the first place. You can't have depts. of anti-climate-studies and anti-evolution that push forward the envelopes of knowledge; you have to be open to new ideas. To expect a 50-50 liberal/conservative split isn't reasonable.

Colleges should be bringing in speakers with contrary views. Commencement isn't the best time, perhaps--it's for the parents in many ways, and also, sadly, to court potential donors--but in general, this should happen. At a very liberal California college I heard a debate between Al Haig and Bruce Babbit circa 1990. That's what I expect at a college. I'd _like_ to hear from Condi Rice.


----------



## billc (Jun 9, 2014)

> It's well-established that liberalism correlates strongly with all measures of education and intelligence.



Actually, it's not...unless it is a study done by a liberal...

As to liberals and science...

http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/20/why-democrats-are-the-party-of-science/



> What are we doing wrong? Or we might turn ask: what are they doing right? In fact, there are many factors that explain the scientific community&#8217;s liberal bent, and it would be well to begin by mentioning the obvious. *One relates to bioethics. Scientists get impatient with (overwhelmingly conservative) worries about the ethical implications of certain lines of research.* Another issue relates to different attitudes towards industry. Here it is conservatives who prefer a laissez faire approach while liberals regularly enlist scientists as their allies in demanding more governmental regulation.
> 
> Then there is the matter of funding. Here the questions become quite difficult, because scientists perpetually have their hats in their hands, and it&#8217;s hard to decide how much to allot to whom. Of course, some research does prove to be a superb investment. On the other hand, scientists like wasting money as much as the next public rent-seeker, with their main distinction being that they are hard to monitor, since it often takes years of study even to get a good sense for what a particular laboratory actually does. (And by the time a person has undertaken that much study, he has usually been culturally &#8220;inducted&#8221; into the scientific community, such that he is loathe to undercut its interests.)* Liberals get in the good graces of scientists through their general willingness to splash out grants to all and sundry; conservatives, as the &#8220;stingy mama&#8221; of the American political landscape, are not so well loved.*
> 
> Putting all of these factors together, it makes some sense the scientists would lean left. But this is not enough to fully explain the depths of anti-conservative hostility among scientists.





> Liberals are right at least to suggest that conservatives can be quite contrarian with respect to certain scientific &#8220;causes.&#8221; But this stance is not (as they typically suppose) a symptom of a conservative aversion to reality, nor of an axiomatic willingness to defer to religious authority over empirically demonstrable truth.
> 
> In fact it is liberals who have become deeply confused about the true purpose of scientific research. If we consider more deeply what science really is, we will come to see that conservatives have never rejected science per se. They do, however, have a deep hostility towards those extra-scientific accretions that have enabled scientists to assume a prestigious political and spiritual role in liberal society. Unfortunately, these philosophical and political trends are unhealthy, not only for American politics, but also for science itself.
> 
> ...





> We scoff across the aisle at the harbingers of meteorological doom because we recognize in climate change the marks of an unholy scientific-moral crusade. We note the sloppiness with which the movement&#8217;s apologists slide together the various scientific, moral and political questions that are relevant to their cause. We see how they play fast and loose with the evidence. We note as well the violence with which they throw aside the inquiries of anyone who demands greater precision and accountability.
> 
> Conservatives know that these scientific-moral crusades will arise periodically whether or not the world is in trouble. Perhaps the most amusing component of the climate change circus is the appeal for righteous activism, and even personal sacrifice. Note, for example, the way in which liberals piously obsess over minor personal habits in an effort to reduce their &#8220;carbon footprints.&#8221; (Hold the pineapple, Minnesotans!) I used to find this maddeningly ludicrous. Why are we obsessing over tropical fruits when we could be having productive conversations about (say) viable energy alternatives such as fracking or nuclear power? Eventually I realized that these little sacrifices and lifestyle adjustments actually filled a psychological and spiritual need for many liberals. They were a secular variation of my Lenten fasting.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 10, 2014)

Since climate change is real, basing your case on opposition to it is a sandy foundation for an argument. Conservative opposition to evolution and climate change is both predictable and wrong. The claim that a vast conspiracy of greedy or otherwise ill-intentioned scientists is hiding the truth--liberals muzzling dissent--would be hilarious if it weren't actually hampering education of children and action on the environment. Conservatives are attempting to _create_ dissent where it does not exist--most notable with creationism/ID.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jun 11, 2014)

arnisador said:


> Since climate change is real, basing your case on opposition to it is a sandy foundation for an argument. Conservative opposition to evolution and climate change is both predictable and wrong. The claim that a vast conspiracy of greedy or otherwise ill-intentioned scientists is hiding the truth--liberals muzzling dissent--would be hilarious if it weren't actually hampering education of children and action on the environment. Conservatives are attempting to _create_ dissent where it does not exist--most notable with creationism/ID.



I think you might find many liberal religious people who strongly believe in creationism.  As to hampering education, wouldn't disallowing the teaching of creationism also be hampering education?


----------



## Rumy73 (Jun 11, 2014)

Tolerance for differing points of view is strained; and frankly, it always has been.  I think college is the best time to listen to alternate views. While some high profile cases of overly sensitive liberal agendas in this matter have made it to the press, the problem is all over. I am confident we are not hearing about this on more conservative campuses, because they are not inviting similarly situated figures of the left. Imagine Catholic University having the head of planned parenthood at commencement?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 11, 2014)

arnisador said:


> Since climate change is real, basing your case on opposition to it is a sandy foundation for an argument. Conservative opposition to evolution and climate change is both predictable and wrong. The claim that a vast conspiracy of greedy or otherwise ill-intentioned scientists is hiding the truth--liberals muzzling dissent--would be hilarious if it weren't actually hampering education of children and action on the environment. Conservatives are attempting to _create_ dissent where it does not exist--most notable with creationism/ID.



100% false.  There are many people smarter then you and I that disagree with you.


----------



## crushing (Jun 11, 2014)

oftheherd1 said:


> I think you might find many liberal religious people who strongly believe in creationism.  As to hampering education, wouldn't disallowing the teaching of creationism also be hampering education?



Do you have a specific creation story in mind?   There are many that were dreamed up prior to the great strides we've made in understanding the world around us.

Here are just a few of the documented beliefs in creationism:
List of creation myths - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 11, 2014)

crushing said:


> Do you have a specific creation story in mind?   There are many that were dreamed up prior to the great strides we've made in understanding the world around us.
> 
> Here are just a few of the documented beliefs in creationism:
> List of creation myths - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And all are just as believable as time+matter+chance=people.  However thats a different topic then what JKS posted


----------



## Tgace (Jun 11, 2014)

I find the "liberal" meme of tolerance and acceptance in stark contrast with the yelling down and insulting of more conservative opinions. It seems to be all about TOLERANCE...except for tolerating things that conflict with your worldview.

Of course many conservatives are intolerant of liberal views, but they don"t have  TOLERANCE ACCEPTANCE RESPECT tattooed across their figurative backs for the world to see and admire....walk the talk.....


----------



## crushing (Jun 11, 2014)

Yes, the Paradox of Tolerance has been brought up a few times recently.  

"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice." -Ayaan Hirsi Ali 

Unfortunately, intolerance of intolerance is sometimes branded as yelling down and insulting and given false equivalency to regular ol' intolerance.


----------



## Rumy73 (Jun 11, 2014)

I am intolerant of things, but I exercise that in a measured way. 

Since we are talking about this topic, i recall a sad series of events where birthers attempted to shout down Obama.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 11, 2014)

Rumy73 said:


> I am intolerant of things, but I exercise that in a measured way.
> 
> Since we are talking about this topic, i recall a sad series of events where birthers attempted to shout down Obama.


Im not sure you can "shout down"  The President of the United States no matter who it is


----------



## arnisador (Jun 11, 2014)

oftheherd1 said:


> I think you might find many liberal religious people who strongly believe in creationism.



The numbers are much, much lower.



> As to hampering education, wouldn't disallowing the teaching of creationism also be hampering education?



No--no more than if the aether theory, or the caloric theory, or the Eudoxian spheres theory isn't taught. (Generally, they aren't.) But what happens is conservatives pushing for the inclusion of this in science as a scientific theory--which it is not. Teaching creationism as science is simply counterfactual, and that's why it isn't considered proper for a scientific setting (but could in other settings, e.g., philosophy of science).


----------



## arnisador (Jun 11, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> 100% false.  There are many people smarter then you and I that disagree with you.



So in science we go by consensus, not the existence of a few individuals with off-the-wall views. A truly brilliant mathematician had a notoriously crackpot idea. It happens.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 12, 2014)

arnisador said:


> So in science we go by consensus, not the existence of a few individuals with off-the-wall views. A truly brilliant mathematician had a notoriously crackpot idea. It happens.


there are many more then a "few" and there is enough of them to rate equal time to present opposing views which is the topic after all and thanks for proving the point of the thread by calling any opposing thought to be "off-the-wall".


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 12, 2014)

arnisador said:


> Teaching creationism as science is simply counterfactual, and that's why it isn't considered proper for a scientific setting (but could in other settings, e.g., philosophy of science).


Its just as factual and provable as Matter+time+chance=people


----------



## arnisador (Jun 12, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Its just as factual and provable as Matter+time+chance=people



Truly, you don't know what you're talking about. Equipossible is not the same as equiprobable, and "factual" and "provable" have meaning within science.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 12, 2014)

arnisador said:


> Truly, you don't know what you're talking about. Equipossible is not the same as equiprobable, and "factual" and "provable" have meaning within science.



So prove there is no God.....

But you are doing a fine job proving the point of the thread.  I don't agree with you so I don't know what I'm talking about.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 12, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> But you are doing a fine job proving the point of the thread.  I don't agree with you so I don't know what I'm talking about.



No. It's about _how _you're disagreeing--what you consider valid reasons for science denialism. Declaring a lack of consensus where it exists on climate change, and asking to see a negative proven on religion.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 12, 2014)

arnisador said:


> No. It's about _how _you're disagreeing--what you consider valid reasons for science denialism. Declaring a lack of consensus where it exists on climate change, and asking to see a negative proven on religion.



Which this topic has nothing to do with.  But see its telling how your so busy shouting down my opinion then discussing the topic so you are in fact proving the topic.  Your a lefty in academia I disagree with you so you try to bully me with "you have no idea what your talking about"  "your a science denier"  "even smart people have Crack pot ideas"  lol its funny


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jun 13, 2014)

> Since climate change is real, basing your case on opposition to it is a sandy foundation for an argument. Conservative opposition to evolution and climate change is both predictable and wrong. The claim that a vast conspiracy of greedy or otherwise ill-intentioned scientists is hiding the truth--liberals muzzling dissent--would be hilarious if it weren't actually hampering education of children and action on the environment. Conservatives are attempting to create dissent where it does not exist--most notable with creationism/ID.



I agree there is some climate change.  The problem is in getting agreement on what is the cause.  The problem is worse since scientists propose competing theories.  I see you subtly threw in evolution.  While there is some reason to believe some 'limited' evolution, or perhaps a better word would be adaptation, (as seen in human dark skin to protect against vitamin D poison, and white skin to protect against vitamin D deficiency, or sickle cell trait and blood type A to protect against malaria) as far as I know (and I haven't been keeping up on it) we are still looking for the 'missing link' between humans and other primates.

Regardless, for myself (and no one else has to agree) any time any theory or (to me) any 'fact' disagrees with my KJV, as a matter of faith, I will stay with my Bible.  I may look for explanations to reconcile them, but if I don't find any way, I will default to the Bible.  






> Originally Posted by oftheherd1
> I think you might find many liberal religious people who strongly believe in creationism.






arnisador said:


> The numbers are much, much lower.




You may be right.  But I don't think so.  Considering the number of religious groups and denominations who have become quite liberal, I would question your use of "... much, much lower."




> As to hampering education, wouldn't disallowing the teaching of creationism also be hampering education?






arnisador said:


> No--no more than if the aether theory, or the caloric theory, or the Eudoxian spheres theory isn't taught. (Generally, they aren't.) But what happens is conservatives pushing for the inclusion of this in science as a scientific theory--which it is not. Teaching creationism as science is simply counterfactual, and that's why it isn't considered proper for a scientific setting (but could in other settings, e.g., philosophy of science).



It would seem your beliefs are circling around and heating up the ether.  :boing1:

I am not sure any conservative or liberal religious people consider creationism as a science, so much as an alternative belief system, to to the unproven 'scientific' cosmologies.


----------



## billc (Jun 18, 2014)

Yes.   Latest example...the left hates the name of the Redskins football team...Native Americans could care less...but the left can't abide the name...and since the Team won't submit peacefully, they are using the feds to take their trademark...


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 18, 2014)

billc said:


> Yes.   Latest example...the left hates the name of the Redskins football team...Native Americans could care less...but the left can't abide the name...and since the Team won't submit peacefully, they are using the feds to take their trademark...



Rather off from the topic of whether or not academia and other institutions are blocking those with dissenting views, don't you think?


----------



## billc (Jun 18, 2014)

Is this closer...

Connecticut Student Claims High School Blocking Conservative Websites



> A high school student in Woodbury, Connecticut, claims that a firewall is blocking conservative websites at his school.
> Local Fox affiliate WTIC Fox CT reports that Andrew Lampart, a senior at Nonnewaug High School, found that he was unable to get on the National Rifle Association&#8217;s website while at school and researching material for a classroom debate on gun control last month.
> &#8220;So, I went over to the other side, and I went over on sites such as Moms Demand Action or Newtown Action Alliance, and I could get on these websites, but not the others,&#8221; Lampart told Fox.
> Investigating further, he added, &#8220;I immediately found out that the State Democrat website was unblocked but the State GOP website was blocked.&#8221;
> Lampart then researched websites that focus on issues such as abortion and religion. He said he discovered that &#8220;right to life&#8221; groups were blocked by the firewall but that Planned Parenthood and Pro-Choice America were not.





> The student said he also tried to explore websites like Christianity.com and the Vatican&#8217;s website, but both were blocked. Islam-guide.com, however, was not blocked.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 18, 2014)

Yes.  But what do YOU think about it?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## billc (Jun 19, 2014)

You see this sort of thing happening all over the education system...from stopping conservative speakers from speaking outright to forcing them to bring body guards with them...simply to speak at a student forum when they don't need a body guard anywhere else...and here you have 12 years of an education system that favors the liberal view point on almost all issues from global warming to religion and which ones can be safely practiced in school, and it isn't Christianity, to politcal discussions during election time...when the two political parties are discussed, which one is more favorably portrayed in the classroom?  Even American history is taking a beating in the education system where it is guilt topic after guilt topic...


----------



## Tgace (Jun 19, 2014)

billc said:


> You see this sort of thing happening all over the education system...from stopping conservative speakers from speaking outright to forcing them to bring body guards with them...simply to speak at a student forum when they don't need a body guard anywhere else...and here you have 12 years of an education system that favors the liberal view point on almost all issues from global warming to religion and which ones can be safely practiced in school, and it isn't Christianity, to politcal discussions during election time...when the two political parties are discussed, which one is more favorably portrayed in the classroom?  Even American history is taking a beating in the education system where it is guilt topic after guilt topic...



And this is nothing new. I recall a HS class where the teacher defined "democrats" as "being for the average citizen" and "republican" as "being for the rich". That's why I registered as a democrat when I hit voting age.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc (Jun 19, 2014)

Do the elites of writing count in this thread because they are trying to muzzle conservative science fiction writers...

http://monsterhunternation.com/2014...the-worst-thing-ever-sjw-outrage-of-the-week/


----------



## Steve (Jun 19, 2014)

billc said:


> Do the elites of writing count in this thread because they are trying to muzzle conservative science fiction writers...
> 
> Correia uses a bad word, and it is the Worst Thing Ever: SJW Outrage of the Week | Monster Hunter Nation


How does a pissing match between two writers count as "liberals" muzzling "conservatives?"

You've been spamming the board with this tonight.  Must have really got you pumped up to find this guy.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 20, 2014)

Steve said:


> How does a pissing match between two writers count as "liberals" muzzling "conservatives?"
> 
> You've been spamming the board with this tonight.  Must have really got you pumped up to find this guy.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...43/?siteID=je6NUbpObpQ-N3QjXbXjLZ9ADUP1ycSDCQ



> Here's how Correia, writing on his blog,characterizes what's happened since he was nominated:
> 
> The libel and slander over the last few days have been so ridiculous that my wife was contacted by people she hasn't talked to for years, concerned that she was married to such a horrible, awful, hateful, bad person, and that they were worried for her safety. I wish I was exaggerating. Don't take my word for it. My readers have been collecting a lot of them in the comments of the previous Hugo post and on my Facebook page. Plug my name into Google for the last few days. Make sure to read the comments to the various articles, too. They're fantastic. ... I've said for a long time that the awards are biased against authors because of their personal beliefs. Authors can either cheerlead for left-wing causes, or they can keep their mouth shut. Open disagreement is not tolerated and will result in being sabotaged and slandered. Message or identity politics has become far more important than entertainment or quality. I was attacked for saying this. I knew that when an admitted right winger got in they would be maligned and politicked against, not for the quality of their art but rather for their unacceptable beliefs.
> 
> The ins and outs of politics and science fiction fandom are inside baseball to most people, though lately they've been juicier than usual. But unfortunately, this sort of thing is symptomatic of what's going on in a lot of places these days. Purging the heretics, usually but not always from the left, has become a popular game in a lot of institutions. It just seems worse in science fiction because SF was traditionally open and optimistic about the future, two things that purging the heretics doesn't go with very well.



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------

