TRUMP - Some people think......... How do you feel?

[Luce NDs]

The last article I posted doesn't contain solutions, but it does contain some well thought out critical observations.

In the above article, I see the repackaging of an old idea, yeah. Air-dropping iPhones vs. pamphlets. I suppose they could, for the sake of some variety and competition, drop some Samgung smart phones, maybe a few hundred thousand Blackberries, too.

I do think that somehow what needs to happen is regime change, or to change the mind, and the course, of the regime. Maybe Dennis Rodman can persuade Kim on the benefits of a freer (ish) society.

Distributive intelligence ... instead of retribution of the same causing tribulation?

 

[Luce NDs]

Alt right copies alt left intelligence and thus mutual corruption ... a God-inspired scheme to succeed!

That's pure reflection .. unless hung up in the reflective veil ... resembles a' mire-aura item ... some refuse the process of temporal hang up in the mid St!

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

No I don't think the alt right copies alt left intelligence. I think they are attempting to subvert the good in the world that has been born out of ages of human struggle... and have it for themselves. The forces behind the alt-right revere historical monsters. They are using useful idiots, troll armies of entitled Peter Pans, as minions, and taking advantage of those who espouse tolerance and compassion, to subvert and pervert some very hard earned concepts gained on the road to equality. Thus, destroying progress. They think it's fun now - until they are not fit enough to compete and the same ideas they revere, the same leaders they follow, come back to bite.

It's like that poem written about the Nazis...

First they came for the (fill in the word)

And I was not a (fill in the word)...

Then they came for me and there was no one left to protect me.

 

[Luce NDs]

No I don't think the alt right copies alt left intelligence. I think they are attempting to subvert the good in the world that has been born out of ages of human struggle... and have it for themselves. The forces behind the alt-right revere historical monsters. They are using useful idiots, troll armies of entitled Peter Pans, as minions, and taking advantage of those who espouse tolerance and compassion, to subvert and pervert some very hard earned concepts gained on the road to equality. Thus, destroying progress. They think it's fun now - until they are not fit enough to compete and the same ideas they revere, the same leaders they follow, come back to bite.

It's like that poem written about the Nazis...

First they came for the (fill in the word)

And I was not a (fill in the word)...

Then they came for me and there was no one left to protect me.

You are all alone except for your private self ... an internalized entity ... meant to preserve intimacy ... a self-screwed sensation!

Ask Scroo wedged in the midst ...

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

What is the end game of the alt-right (why aren't people asking that before giving equal consideration to their ideas) ? To where, what kind of society, does their moral compass point?

Why does it require espousing viscous undermining hate of minorities and social justice, to support free speech? Again, what is the end game, the likely logical conclusion of this illogic?

Maybe I am all alone - or not. I don't know. There are few people other than here that I discuss big issues with. Most are not interested. Though, I'm pretty sure there are at least a few people out there who are coming to some of the same realizations I am.

 

[Northwind]

Why does it require espousing viscous undermining hate of minorities and social justice, to support free speech? Again, what is the end game, the likely logical conclusion of this illogic?

I would suggest you listen to this podcast Suppressing unwanted views never works: James Turk on campus free speech debates

And read this editorial on the subject: How free expression is being gagged by anti-Trump backlash - Macleans.ca

Not only are censorship and suppression fatal to the purpose of the university, they undermine the foundation of democratic society.

 

[Luce NDs]

Con formation is the lighter's IDE ... freedom is in the dark and thus abstract hue ...

Observed as a shadowy science ...

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I would suggest you listen to this podcast Suppressing unwanted views never works: James Turk on campus free speech debates

And read this editorial on the subject: How free expression is being gagged by anti-Trump backlash - Macleans.ca

Okay...but how did that work out for Germany just before WW2? What we are seeing is not a fight for free speech but the struggle for freedom of minorities and women being upended and subverted. I don't think people are seeing that. But the very fact that they've co opted and undermined progressive jargon representing progressive values. It purposely paralyzes progressive social justice and democracy...Nazis did the same. They did the same with Lugenpress (declaring reporting against them "fake news"). It's being repackaged by a the alt-right as "red pilling", including Scott Adams gas lighting followers into believing any legitimate concerns are "hallucinations".

Some of it appears to be satire, a lark, being spread by mischievous young men - who may not know or have the maturity to care what they are being used for - but it's very nefarious. This is not a case of being open to bright new ideas to change society for the better. It's rebranding of old evils and modernizing of old propaganda tactics.

They're using liberals tendency for tolerance and inclusiveness against us. They see it as a weakness they can exploit. And what better place to incubate it then at Universities with young people? Steve Bannon is waiting for the 4th turning (look it up).

I've been told I'm a terrible communicator so if anyone actually does agree with me jump in and make better arguments.

 

[Luce NDs]

Communication is corrupted because of the rite of conservation ... a last NG affection? Sometime we just 'ave to let go ... come again as divined th' ought ... an half of nothing as defined by Ø it opens up with a psi ... 3 pronged thingy as trifled trident ... 3 bites later ... and you know you're stabbed by life ... missal an aeous anon ... yet to come?

It's tuff things we don't know but have a BS that we do ... yet as incarnate we don't ...

 

[Northwind]

Okay...but how did that work out for Germany just before WW2?

How did what work? The articles I posted spoke of why censoring and creating "safe spaces" doesn't work. In fact, the author linked suppression of speech to the increase in "alt-right" because the people who should speak out against it and think critically want it silenced. Putting it out in the open exposes it for what it is. Pre-WWII Germany censored speech. I honestly do not know what you are referencing with your question.

Did you listen to the podcast or read the editorial before you responded?

Some of it appears to be satire, a lark, being spread by mischievous young men - who may not know or have the maturity to care what they are being used for - but it's very nefarious. This is not a case of being open to bright new ideas to change society for the better. It's rebranding of old evils and modernizing of old propaganda tactics.

I fail to understand how this applies to my post. Please explain.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I can't listen because I'm not at home and don't have earphones. I'll address later. In about 2 hrs if that's ok.

The last paragraph - I'm just saying that "including every voice/ idea" or giving it equal validity - is where the alt-right is exploiting what they see as a liberal weakness. To let them subvert democratic and social justice values and progress - they're "gaming/ trolling" progressive ideals -is fatal. To deny them a voice - then charges us with being non-inclusive and hypocritical. It's a quandry. But the Nazis managed to gain mainstream acceptance with some of the same propaganda tactics (now modernized - covertly as memes - and sped up with social media) - and universities helped incubate the nazi "school of thought".

 

[Northwind]

I understand what you're saying Kimmio. It doesn't really apply to the point I raised in the article. Yes, some propaganda that the Nazis used is still in use from all sides. That is not is being argued. This professor suggests that making universities "safe spaces" where controversial topics cannot be discussed is actually giving the alt-right more power because no one is challenging their ideas. He cited one of the recent protests where people came and protested peacefully. That took the steam out of the alt-right group's statements. If they had not been there, the alt-right group would have had more airtime that they did not deserve.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I understand what you're saying Kimmio. It doesn't really apply to the point I raised in the article. Yes, some propaganda that the Nazis used is still in use from all sides. That is not is being argued. This professor suggests that making universities "safe spaces" where controversial topics cannot be discussed is actually giving the alt-right more power because no one is challenging their ideas. He cited one of the recent protests where people came and protested peacefully. That took the steam out of the alt-right group's statements. If they had not been there, the alt-right group would have had more airtime that they did not deserve.

Before it slips past - please explain to me how Nazi style propaganda is being "used by all sides". I think I do have an argument with that. Because we are not just talking about tactics but intentions and "end game" - which is not as nefarious "on all sides".

 

[Northwind]

Before it slips past - please explain to me how Nazi style propaganda is being "used by all sides". I think I do have an argument with that. Because we are not just talking about tactics but intentions and "end game" - which is not as nefarious "on all sides".

I'll get to that later. I'm busy at choir right now.

Please don't use that as a way to avoid the other question.

 

[Northwind]

Before it slips past - please explain to me how Nazi style propaganda is being "used by all sides". I think I do have an argument with that

Well the main thing I mean is anything we do to shut down discourse by demonizing the other side. Whenever we dismiss "the other" with a label, we are doing what Hitler did. I am well aware that is a strong statement. Nevertheless, I have seen it done on all sides. Even the hypnotist, "manipulator" has something valid to add to the discussion.

Because we are not just talking about tactics but intentions and "end game" - which is not as nefarious "on all sides".

Yes we may be. At the same time, we only know the behaviors. We never know the actual intentions of the person unless we ask.

Now, please answer my questions.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I'll get to that later. I'm busy at choir right now.

Please don't use that as a way to avoid the other question.

I wasn't trying to avoid the other question. I wanted to extract that point before it slipped my mind because I almost missed it.


I listened to the podcast and read the article (most of the same points were discussed). I agree with what a lot of Professor Turk has to say, he makes sense. I wish he was here to speak to a couple of observations and questions I have though.

First, he makes the point that the civil rights movement made gains because of free speech. I absolutely agree. The mainstream society at that time - particularly the Southern white middle class - would've found much of what MLK or Malcolm X or student protestors, calling for the end of segregation, abhorrent. However, their speech was against the establishment in an effort to bring about social justice and equality.
The alt-right represents, in many ways, the new American establishment. Arguably, with Steve Bannon having just stepped down as a WH advisor, and having served on the National Security council, with access to classified information and channels to powerful contacts - and now back to Brietbart as a de facto wingman and perveyor of state propaganda masquerading as a news outlet - the alt right 'is' the new status quo. So, this "renaissance of Hate", (dark Renaissance, as Richard Spencer, alt-right representative refers to it) is the new establishment for the time being. I think that hasn't quite sunk in for a lot of people. It's hard to swallow, kind of makes me nauseous. Especially here in Canada we feel a bit more alienated from it - but we are not as isolated from it as we think. So, the context is quite different from the civil rights movement - because it is the new establishment "gaming" (conning) people into believing they are actually a counter culture fighting oppression, when they are the oppressor. On steroids - with a renewed sense of legitimacy and permission to voice their views, and agenda.

[FONT=Open Sans, sans-serif]Another question is, given the context - does the stifling of hate speech always end badly, really? Hasn't suppressing it, drawing a line, kept the haters on the margins? And opening it up - hasn't that just given the new status quo more oxygen to thrive? Prof.Turk didn't touch on that, really. Neither he, nor most of us, have ever lived through a time like this. The alt-right is emerging, as the state sponsored status quo in the U.S. And I would argue that our limits on free speech have prevented the level of blatant bigotry and racial violence seen down there. There are haters, but they have had to keep their hateful views to themselves in civilized society - and that has allowed for more diversity to thrive here. I would really like to speak to a German Jew who lived through the holocaust to find out their thoughts on this issue - because they would have a better perspective from experience. [/FONT]

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Well the main thing I mean is anything we do to shut down discourse by demonizing the other side. Whenever we dismiss "the other" with a label, we are doing what Hitler did. I am well aware that is a strong statement. Nevertheless, I have seen it done on all sides. Even the hypnotist, "manipulator" has something valid to add to the discussion.



Yes we may be. At the same time, we only know the behaviors. We never know the actual intentions of the person unless we ask.

Now, please answer my questions.

It's not the intentions of the individual. It's the forces behind a movement.

 

[Northwind]

Another question is, given the context - does the stifling of hate speech always end badly, really? Hasn't suppressing it, drawing a line, kept the haters on the margins? And opening it up - hasn't that just given the new status quo more oxygen to thrive? Prof.Turk didn't touch on that, really.

He did address it. He cited a recent protest where people quietly opposed the alt-right people and that caused the alt-right group to lose their power. When they are shut down they complain about being shut down. That gives them more power and airtime.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

He did address it. He cited a recent protest where people quietly opposed the alt-right people and that caused the alt-right group to lose their power. When they are shut down they complain about being shut down. That gives them more power and airtime.

Allowing them to give a lecture legitimizes their ideas - and provides a way to make money off of them to continue the propaganda and amass more wealth and power. And, regardless, they have state complacency and/ or support in the U.S. Protesters holding up signs means nothing to them. They are "super-trolls". It may be cathartic for the protestors.

Seeing as they have taken troll tactics to new heights in the real world, and subverted progressive language - they have also made debate almost next to impossible. Their response is now a glorified version of "I know you are but what am I?" With "cuck" or something added to the end.

 

[Northwind]

I disagree. It can be a chance to challenge them and think critically about the issues. Obviously some ideologies are so out there that it is hard to support them having a stage.

In the late 80's there was a professor at UWO in London, Ontario who studied his theory that different races had different physical attributes which made them smarter or not. I think he put Asians on the top, whites in the middle and blacks in the bottom. Of course that was highly controversial. People did not want him to get any airtime. David Suzuki had a debate with him on TV. The professor's views were seen as the ridiculous theories they were. He has slidden into oblivion. I'm afraid that today, with universities being "safe zones" afraid of triggering people or airing ANY controversy, this would not happen. Of that happened, he'd probably strengthen his views behind the scenes and find support. He would then risk becoming more legitimate than he deserves.

Universities especially, should have a variety of view and be willing to challenge the status quo.