Posted on 04/12/2019 7:48:58 AM PDT by raccoonradio
More like !THEY! feel, no, know, that your opinion is irrelevant and will go to any lengths to ensure you’re not heard because anything about your opinion is somehow hate speech. Up to and including physical assaults. Funny how being prideful of your nation and it’s accomplishments is somehow hateful. Yet condeming Trump and anyone who supports him as ‘naught-Zees” is just fine and dandy.
I can remember a time when, if I had been asked to say if a professor was Republican or Democrat, I’d have resorted to flipping a coin.
Back then, professors seemed to have the quaint notion that they’d been hired to teach their subject matter.
Do I lie to blend in? Or do I tell the truth — and risk being attacked?
When i was in college - ‘60 - ‘75 - I felt no pressure to “fit in.” I took special pleasure in being cantankerous. I argued with everyone, but always from a rational, logical position. I prided myself on trying to be intellectual. By the time I received my second Masters I felt myself educated and intellectually vigorous. I would have been embarrassed about “safe spaces” and harassing guest lecturers.
The New York Times v. Sullivan 1964 SCOTUS decision is the root of political correctness. It was unanimous but it was a Warren Court decision, and the present court has a majority of justices who know that the Warren Court did some flakey things.Sullivan is not representative of modern media and political reality. First, the plaintiff was not officially a Republican but also was in bad odor with the Court because he was a southern Democrat. Nominally a Democrat, IOW - but not recognized as such by modern Democrats. In fact, today he would be David Duke - awarded honorary Republican status by Democrats and the media (pardon the repetition).
Second, “media and Democrats” is repetitive - a fact that was actually true in 1964 but was so true that it was not debated. It was the air we breathed, there wasn’t any competition ideologically among any journalists. To be representative of reality, there would have to be serious discussion of the monopolistic nature of wire service journalism. In Sullivan that didn’t come up.
The effect of Sullivan - that people think that government officials can’t sue for libel - actually means that Republican politicians can’t sue for libel. Seeing as Democrats don’t get libeled. And the effect of that is that Democrats are entitled, not only to their own opinions, but to their own facts. And that, Dear Reader, is PC in a nutshell.
I was hospitalized for several months in 2014 in a variety of facilities. Much of the time I was in a single bed room. I often had Fox News playing on my room TV. Across the spectrum, nurses would linger in my room to watch and listen to the news. More than a few told me all the other rooms were tuned to CNN and they were desperate to hear what was really happening. It was common to hear Fox was what they watched at home but didn’t dare to do so at work.
That’s SOOOOOO last century. LOL! Times have changed. Some for the good, a LOT for the, NOT so good.
That's all I had to know!
Don't do that. Time is precious.
I know a few who actually majored in sociology. Most gaseous bloviaters you'll ever meet. Convinced it is all earthly wisdom, but it's an inch-deep ocean.
Glad I was in college in the 70’s.
For later....
“Do I lie to blend in? Or do I tell the truth — and risk being attacked?”
Not only did I lie, I went so far to the left that my fellow lefty students were appalled at my behavior and asked me to tone it down. I made Lenin look like Reagan. “Imperialist Running Dogs” taken from the Chinese was my favorite saying.
Lesson one don’t take sociology
The matter what college you go to you don’t have any of these sorts of problems in engineering and mathematics
It’s only the stupid bubbleheads who take sociology , women studies , gender studies , this and that studies that have the lack of brain capacity to be taken in by the socialists Marxists and other types of losers who hate this great nation
No one can stop free speech in the United States of America
You left Leisure studies. In my final semester of college, I had to take find one elective to complete the prerequisites for graduation. I went for the the easiest-sounding class I could find “Leisure Studies”. On my first day in the class, I was approached by an attractive asian woman who told me that I had really nice hair. I fumbled the opportunity, having never received such a complement, just said thanks, but remembered thinking that I would be scoring a lot of chicks in that class. That was until the professor steamrolled his way on stage and began to scold those of us who took the class thinking it would be a cakewalk. The guy hand obvious chip on his shoulder from having not been taken seriously by anyone who ever took the class, and made sure to hammer the point home that you were sorely mistaken if you took the class thinking it would be a breeze. The guy’s approach towards leisure studies was a foreshadowing of how today’s progressives approach comedy, excitement, fun, or free thought. He was vehemently against anyone who sought to enjoy life, and let it be known that he intended to make his students suffer. “Fair warning, this will by far be the most difficult, most work-intensive class you will ever take in all your years of college. If you signed up for this class thinking you were gonna coast your way to an easy A, you were wrong. I strongly advise you to drop this class before the deadline.” I had never seen such a mass exodus in any of my classes as I did when this guy finished yapping. At least half of us, if not more, fled for the exits and promptly dropped that turd of a class.
I posted my reply without proofreading. Re posting with corrections. You left out Leisure studies. In my final semester of college, I had to find one elective to complete the prerequisites for graduation. I went for the the easiest-sounding class I could find “Leisure Studies”. On my first day in the class, I was approached by an attractive Asian woman who told me that I had really nice hair. I fumbled the opportunity, having never received such a complement, just said thanks, but remembered thinking that I would be scoring a lot of chicks in that class. That was until the professor steamrolled his way onto the stage and began to scold those of us who took the class thinking it would be a cakewalk. The guy had an obvious chip on his shoulder from having not been taken seriously by anyone who ever took the class, and made sure to hammer the point home that you were sorely mistaken if you took the class thinking it would be a breeze. The guy’s approach towards leisure studies was a foreshadowing of how today’s progressives approach comedy, excitement, fun, or free thought. He was vehemently opposed to anyone who sought to enjoy life or his class, and let it be known that he intended to make his students suffer. “Fair warning, this will by far be the most difficult, most work-intensive class you will ever take in all your years of college. If you signed up for this class thinking you were gonna coast your way to an easy A, you were wrong. I strongly advise you to drop this class before the deadline.” I had never seen such a mass exodus in any of my classes as I did when that guy finished yapping. At least half of us, if not more, fled for the exits and promptly dropped that turd of a class.
If it is yours, a LINK or a brief explanation of Sullivan would be helpful if you want others to pay attention to your opinion without having to do research to fully grasp what you are trying to say.
Not any more:
How Identity Politics Is Harming the Sciences by Heather MacDonald
Heather Mac Donald on Racial Preferences for STEM Admissions
In 1992 my graduate class was called into a seminar. The “seminar” consisted of a harangue from local homosexual rights leaders.
At one point a woman, a student and minister’s wife asked what sort of carve out would there be for those who disagreed. They verbally attacked and pounded her until she cried and fled the room.
I sat and watched the head of the department, all the profs and the dean all standing around the periphery of the room with blank looks on their faces. No one moved a muscle.
I have never looked at another situation where PC minority is attacking others without thinking of that day.
I use the blockquote function liberally to make my posts clear and easy on the eyes. And also when I quote from somewhere else - in which case my standard practice is to use the tt function to make the quote stand out - and also, of course, I will give attribution - generally in the form of a link.a LINK or a brief explanation of Sullivan would be helpful if you want others to pay attention to your opinion without having to do research to fully grasp what you are trying to say.Standard FReeper practice is to use italics only, when quoting from the source article of a thread, but I prefer to use tt instead for that, to distinguish it from a quote of the post that I’m responding to. Since I not infrequently find myself quoting from both sources when I reply to a post, I think that’s a useful convention.
Let me emphasize up front that I’m not a lawyer. And I once tried posting the New York Times v. Sullivan decision as an FR thread, but it defeated me. It couldn’t be easily summarized. At least not by me. But what I did learn was that Sullivan was a unanimous 1964 SCOTUS decision, thus a Warren Court decision. And all the justices were preening themselves that they had protected the First Amendment. You read it and you would like to cheer - but then you remember the reality of the MSM.Plaintiff Sullivan was a Southern Democrat officeholder who objected to an ad published by The New York Times, and sued. Right away, you can see that the reality of the MSM, which we know to exist as a de facto monopoly and the Times to be component thereof, was not on the table. Even the Times itself was not the origin of the piece, it was an ad. Since Sullivan was a Democrat, you couldn’t say that SCOTUS was favoring Democrats - except that Mr. Sullivan would be an (dis)honorary Republican today.
The Sullivan decision was emphatic that even judges couldn’t (readily) sue for libel. Look at what that implies WRT Justice Kavanaugh - who was libeled mercilessly during his confirmation battle.
Suing for libel is a natural right. Justice Scalia pointed out that the freedom of the press clause of 1A refers to "the freedom . . . of the press.” Not simply to “freedom of the press," but "the freedom of the press.” His point was that freedom of the press existed at the time the First Amendment was proposed - and so did libel laws and pornography laws. IOW, “the freedom of the press” was an elegant way of saying, “this constitutional amendment doesn’t change anything - all it does is say that nothing will change due to the adoption of the Constitution.” Thus, seeking redress for libel is a right of the people including people who hold public office - and for SCOTUS to say otherwise is an abuse.
The idea of freedom of expression is to “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred thoughts contend.” The idea of the journalism monopoly (which I insist is an artifact of the AP and other wire services) is precisely to the opposite effect. Giving the MSM free rein with no fear of legal repercussions gives rise to political correctness. Because it entitles Democrats (who align themselves with the MSM) the right to their own opinions and their own facts. If you can’t sue them for libel, what keeps them from lying???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.