You assume that your points are "right" , and that your provenance does not matter.
You have it backwards.
You have it backward
If Göebbels avers that the sun rises in the east and Mother Theresa asserted that it rises in the west, who has the better provenance but who has the better point?
So, I argue that it is not I but those who argue ad hominen who are the ones who have it backward. It is not that I assume my points are right but they assume they cannot be right and so, by extension, should not be heard.
This is a very dangerous path especially in a university setting which above anywhere should be an arena for the aggressive clash of ideas. A path which leads ultimately to Dachau. I live in Germany part of the year and I witness their course of legislating PC. So they outlaw the skin heads. Then the Holocaust deniers. Then they take on the Scientologists. Whose next? They have made what was sacred in 1939 profane and what was profane, sacred. So you may not sell the swastika on e-bay but you can buy the hammer and sickle. You may no longer denigrate Jews or discriminate against homosexuals but Scientologists are labeled a cult and discriminated against by the government and its agent, the tax man. My point is that neither rightness of vision nor liberty to speak and think should be dependent on the PC flavor of the season.
Therefore, I have not called for the firing of Ward Churchill because he is a loathsome America hater even though he intruded his views into the classroom. But I say he should be fired for fraud in his provenance and for plagiarism. This Nazi, by this account, has not intruded his obnoxious views into the classroom but is receiving the punishment the faculty and administration in Colorado are loathe to administer to Churchill for his statusas a Nazi; not for what he does but for what he thinks ( This, of course, unless you give credence to the official university reason, unexcused absences. I do not give this much credence because of the manner of the firing, the absence of a hearing etc. It may well be that the university wants to set no precedent which will operate against the left, or, perhaps the university knows that it is departing from its own tradition established is cases benefiting the left- a case study validating my whole point about PC,if true.)
In the final analysis, this is Jim Robinson's forum to do with what he will. So far, he has used good judgment in controlling the forum and has prevented it from being stolen away by racist ideologues. But there is a danger on the other side which arises out of a vigilante caste determined to enforce their own version of conservatism on all of us. They do not shrink from distortion and calumny and even intimidation and false allegations of racism or antisemitism to dominate these threads. At the end of the day we conservatives must answer publicly whether our conservatism is strong enough and enlightened enough to survive in the marketplace of ideas without the need of life support which comes at a terrible price which is always exacted by the thought police.