The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a national campus free-speech organization, posted the video to their Web site. Since then, a young woman who argues with Christakis in the footage has been called the “shrieking woman” by the National Review and subjected to online harassment and death threats. Surely these threats constitute an infringement upon her free speech—a position that has scarcely been noted amid the outraged First Amendment fundamentalism. This rhetorical victory recalls the successful defense in the George Zimmerman trial, which relied upon the tacit presumption that the right to self-defense was afforded to only one party that night—coincidentally, the non-black one. The broader issue is that the student’s reaction elicited consternation in certain quarters where the precipitating incident did not. The fault line here is between those who find intolerance objectionable and those who oppose intolerance of the intolerant.
Source: Race and the Free-Speech Diversion – The New Yorker
Maybe they called her “The Shrieking Woman” because it fits?
The speech-restrictive tactics “Let’s Have a Conversation About Guns…SHIT UP YOU IDIOT!” are now being expanded to the First Amendment on Campus. Also the use of lies, dismiss when caught because there is a higher truth and purpose to achieve and then shift the blame to the other side because they got caught deceiving. This has caught Campus officials with their pantaloons and inner garments down.
This one is particularly twisted: I had caught some idiot posting pictures of racist events from years past and even in other countries as if they were happening at that moment in the University of Missouri. The original posting idiot was a troll belonging to a White Supremacist website who was displaying a photo of Abner Louima in 1997 at a hospital bed in NY as if it was some student shot overnight by the Klan.
Get it? It does not matter that it is all a lie! Because feelings and there are bad people including those who dare question the veracity of the lie! You Racist! This poor excuse for thinking human actually sides with a Nazi Wannabe and his poison than do the adult thing and face the music.
And then we have Jelani Cobb, the author of the original piece who wastes no time tying in this stomping of the First Amendment with the Trayvon Martin case. Why? Well, the damned Media tried but did a piss poor job of silencing opposing views and the truth in the case. That cannot happen again so we need to have a way to make sure only one side of the issue (the politically correct one) is heard and maybe it will spread into the courts. That way we can have people convicted not on the evidence but on the false coverage that they can develop.
I am actually having a bit of fun watching Academia being attacked by its creation. There is an old Spanish saying that goes:
Cria cuervos y te sacaran los ojos.
(Raise crows and they’ll pluck your eyes out)
I figure there is a future in the sale of white canes at assorted locales of “High Education” across the nation.
5 thoughts on “The New Fight on Two Fronts.”
Jelani Cobb says “The default for avoiding discussion of racism is to invoke a separate principle, one with which few would disagree in the abstract—free speech, respectful participation in class—as the counterpoint to the violation of principles relating to civil rights. This is victim-blaming with a software update, with less interest in the kind of character assassination we saw deployed against Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown than in creating a seemingly right-minded position that serves the same effect,” then uses two excerpts I agree with completely:
“Here is the Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf on the free speech issues at play in the Yale protests: ‘In “The Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt argued that too many college students engage in “catastrophizing,” which is to say, turning common events into nightmarish trials or claiming that easily bearable events are too awful to bear. After citing examples, they concluded, “smart people do, in fact, overreact to innocuous speech, make mountains out of molehills, and seek punishment for anyone whose words make anyone else feel uncomfortable.” What Yale students did next vividly illustrates that phenomenon.'”
“David French strikes a similar note of democratic indignation about the Missouri protesters in the National Review: ‘The entire notion that these students need a “safe space” is a lie. They aren’t weak. They don’t need protection. They’re engaged in a classic struggle for power—for now against weak, ineffectual, and cowardly opposition. Why would they debate when they’ve proven they can dictate terms? Why would they answer tough questions when they have no satisfactory answers? So they simply push the press away, and the press meekly complies. Pathetic.'”
Ah, yes, an unverifiable assertion. How about a name for the supposed friend?
“Ammosexual”. Haha, I like that one.
I’m pretty sure after Trayvon, if there was even the remotest evidence that black men were being murdered in the streets by the KKK, the media would be having a non stop orgy of anti-Right Wing, anti-gun moralizing.
Until it was revealed who those KKK members actually were, then they’d hush it up. It’s hard to maintain the narrative that Republicans are the racist party when every major racist hate crime in US history was, is, and always will be, perpetrated by Democrats.
Comments are closed.
Login or register to comment.