Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Scott Lloyd

Published response to "reconfiguration of LDS politics"

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This. Free speech is the right to speak. Protesting that scum should not be allowed on your college campus does not qualify and it is not censorship. Let them rant on street corners or blogs instead.

 

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Fascists do work within the system. Trump is not a fascist in the classical sense. He might be a kind of prototype now-fascist but we have to wait and see. He speaks much of the language of fascism. 'We were once great but that has been stolen from us by traitor/foreigners in our midst who must be dealt with. I will restore our former glory/make us great again.'

Fascists initially work within the system and then by their very nature they reject the system and just try and do things directly. Of course because the system is important for things to work usually fascists have problems. (Despite being famous for the phrase, Mussolini didn't get the trains to run on time.

The problem with appealing to rhetoric is that such rhetoric is pretty common even among non-fascists. Xenophobia and scapegoating is hardly unique to fascism. Otherwise FDR is definitely a fascist. He did far worse than Trump has even imagined or promoted at his worst. In 1940 he talked of a fifth column of traitorous Italian and German immigrants for instance. He actually rounded up all the Japanese and put them in internment camps. Yet oddly he gets labeled a fascist far less frequently than Trump is.

But I'm glad you acknowledge Trump isn't a fascist. I remain convinced that the overreaction to Trump ends up playing into his hand. Further it makes legitimate criticism of his many bad actions and policies easy to dismiss by his supporters.

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

It stopped being about free speech a looong time ago. Now they are just cashing in on the protections the Constitution provides for their immature theatrics. I think conservatives would benefit from nipping these embarrassments in the bud.

The big problem I have with the left, especially the media, on these matters is that they are ironically giving these people the very attention they crave. Richard Spenser was a minor figure who could only get 200 people out to his convention. Then he was constantly paraded around by the press and given free publicity by being punched by protestors. People like Milo and Coulter want to be protested. If people would ignore them and stop talking about them they'd lose all their power.

But as I said, while these alt-right figures are despicable that doesn't justify in the least the actions of the alt-left which are far, far worse than anything the alt-right has done thus far.

Edited by clarkgoble
Spelling typo fixed

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am not going to play the false equivalency game between the two. I do not really like either of them but Obama was hopeful that doctors would not need to change. He was wrong. Trump lies about easily checked facts repeatedly on an almost daily basis. They are not the same.

Most presidents have lied or practiced wishful thinking in their promises in some way. Some lied to get away with something. Some lied because they (rightly or wrongly) thought the lie was in the public's best interest to believe. Some lied to sell a bill of goods. Our current president lies casually and about things that do not even matter. It is a new low for the office. Again, I am not going to try pretend Trump and Obama or Trump and George W. Bush or Trump and ClInton are playing on the same field or even playing the same game.

You are trying to do what Trump did when he was criticized for supporting a dictator like Putin who does terrible things. He sputtered about how the United States was not innocent either. While true and the US has done terrible things that does not mean the US and Russia are on an equal moral playing field. Admittedly if people like Trump are now going to hold the Presidency regularly we might get there at some point but thankfully not yet.

Thirty-six times! And he wasn't just expressing hope that doctors would not need to change. He was making flat assertions. Promises.

Have you seen this video where Nancy Polosi mumbles, babbles and backpedals in trying to explain the you-can-keep-your-plan mantra before trying to change the subject? It's hilarious. Where's your Polosi-with-a-long-nose Photoshop project?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCTuQDDEDRg

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think the thugs at Berkeley, MIddlebury College and elsewhere are being called liberal fascists because they are behaving like fascists. Endeavoring to shut down free speech is fascist behavior.

That's not actually even remotely close to what fascism is.

Quote

fas·cism ˈfaSHˌizəm/Submit noun an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

Protests and rioting have nothing to do with fascism - typically fascists try to shut down protesters. 

 

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So because you don't like what some people say or you don't regard them as "serious political thinkers," you excuse shutting down free speech. I find that very disturbing. Again, it's fascist-like behavior.

Not being a "serious political thinker" would rule out some contributors to this board. Shall we shut them down too?

No one is shutting down free speech. Milo is free to continue to advocate for child abuse or whatever he's on about these days. That doesn't mean that he is allowed to have a forum everywhere he wants one. I've never been invited to speak on any college campus either, I don't think that's affected my freedom of speech. 

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's not actually even remotely close to what fascism is.

Protests and rioting have nothing to do with fascism - typically fascists try to shut down protesters. 

 

 

It's a matter of semantics. Call it mob rule, if you like. Trying to silence dissent is what fascists do. And it's what mobs do.

 

Quote

No one is shutting down free speech. Milo is free to continue to advocate for child abuse or whatever he's on about these days. That doesn't mean that he is allowed to have a forum everywhere he wants one. I've never been invited to speak on any college campus either, I don't think that's affected my freedom of speech. 

Again, this isn't about Milo. It's about thugs and mobs trying to impose their will on everybody else -- and succeeding, in some cases, such as at Berkeley.

Look at the most recent posts by clarkgoble. He apparently detests Trump as much as you do, but he gets it.

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's a matter of semantics. Call it mob rule, if you like. Trying to silence dissent is what fascists do. And it's what mobs do.

In your view is protesting a speech some kind of anti-American act? 

 

Quote

 

Again, this isn't about Milo. It's about thugs and mobs trying to impose their will on everybody else -- and succeeding, in some cases, such as at Berkeley.

Thugs and mobs, eh? Sounds dramatic!

It really is about Milo, though. He's a despicable character. You don't get the same kind of opposition to sane speakers. 

Edited by Gray

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Gray said:

No one is shutting down free speech. Milo is free to continue to advocate for child abuse or whatever he's on about these days. That doesn't mean that he is allowed to have a forum everywhere he wants one. I've never been invited to speak on any college campus either, I don't think that's affected my freedom of speech. 

Again by focusing in on Milo and Coulter who are about as far from academic as there is we avoid the very serious real issues of free speech on campus. What happened to Charles Murray seems the key problem. If people can shut down legitimate talks by intimidation and fear we're in a whole world of hurt. I'd also note the parade outside of Portland that was shut down because of threats of what would happen if people from the Republican party participated. To say that sort of thing isn't fascist like seems deeply problematic. Fascists shut down any political speech they didn't like. To say, "they could go somewhere else" is to miss the very nature of the intimidation.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Gray said:

You don't get the same kind of opposition to sane speakers. 

You need to read more news. Allison Stanger, professor of international politics and economics, was injured at the Middlebury College protests where they stopped Murray from speaking and then stopped even a video version of the talk.

I think it's fine to disagree strongly with academics like Murray. I definitely don't agree with much he wrote in the Bell Curve. But to say "sane speakers" are the only ones not facing the level of opposition is just factually false.

Further let's be clear that in nearly all these cases these were speakers who had been approved by the university whose speech was shut down by protestors. This isn't akin to BYU in the least. Worse if this continues to be successful by far left students and outsiders all it will do is tell the far right that they have to engage in the same tactics to get what they want. So anyone who thinks only one side will do this is deluding themselves.

Edited by clarkgoble

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

You need to read more news. Allison Stanger, professor of international politics and economics, was injured at the Middlebury College protests where they stopped Murray from speaking and then stopped even a video version of the talk.

I think it's fine to disagree strongly with academics like Murray. I definitely don't agree with much he wrote in the Bell Curve. But to say "sane speakers" are the only ones not facing the level of opposition is just factually false.

Thanks for sharing. It looks like it was really directed at Murray, who is another "non-sane" speaker, but Dr. Stanger's intentions were noble. That doesn't excuse the violence, but perhaps it makes it easier to understand how it could happen.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/opinion/understanding-the-angry-mob-that-gave-me-a-concussion.html

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thirty-six times! And he wasn't just expressing hope that doctors would not need to change. He was making flat assertions. Promises.

Have you seen this video where Nancy Polosi mumbles, babbles and backpedals in trying to explain the you-can-keep-your-plan mantra before trying to change the subject? It's hilarious. Where's your Polosi-with-a-long-nose Photoshop project?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCTuQDDEDRg

I do not like Pelosi either. You seem to assume I am a liberal. I want to support Republicans. If Kasich had gotten the nomination I would have gladly voted for him. Instead we get the likes of Cruz and Trump. The Republicans have lost their way.

Abd again, I am not playing false equivalency. Obama was wrong. He hoped currently existing plans would not be shaken up by the legislation and for some he was right. I think he hoped it would end up being true for all or almost all but he was wrong. It was deceptive. No one could make that promise even pre-ACA. You could not guarantee a doctor and your insurance policy would continue to renew their contracts with each other. I shook my head when I first heard Obama say that. 

Not in the same league as Trump who generates new lies on an almost daily basis. Both are bad. One is much much worse.  Obama also apologized for those statements. I will not hold my breath waiting for Trump to admit he deceived us.

Also, that is not my photoshop. I just found it. I am not excited enough about this thread to make a photoshop of every political liar ever. We would have to make one of Jackson, Lincoln, Polk, McKinley, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan, and many more.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again by focusing in on Milo and Coulter who are about as far from academic as there is we avoid the very serious real issues of free speech on campus. What happened to Charles Murray seems the key problem. If people can shut down legitimate talks by intimidation and fear we're in a whole world of hurt. I'd also note the parade outside of Portland that was shut down because of threats of what would happen if people from the Republican party participated. To say that sort of thing isn't fascist like seems deeply problematic. Fascists shut down any political speech they didn't like. To say, "they could go somewhere else" is to miss the very nature of the intimidation.

I'm certainly not advocating for mob violence, of the sort, for instance, that Donald Trump instigated against protesters at his rallies. We live in a very politically charged environment. The white nationalists have a lot of people spooked, leading to violence on both sides. 

Share this post


Link to post

You and every US citizen has the right of freedom of speech. By the same token you don't have the right to force me to pay for it, or to incite violence.

SEE https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/26/ann-coulter-already-made-her-point-about-free-speech-going-to-berkeley-anyway-would-have-been-reckless/?utm_term=.5fc0fdfcb31c

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, Gray said:

In your view is protesting a speech some kind of anti-American act? 

Oh, for crying out loud! It's not just protesting a speech. It's mob violence. It's vandalism. It's preventing the exercise of civil rights, speech, free flow of information.

Quote

Thugs and mobs, eh? Sounds dramatic!

No more dramatic than the situation calls for.
 

Quote


It really is about Milo, though. He's a despicable character. You don't get the same kind of opposition to sane speakers. 

 

MIlo is the go-to character for leftist mobs and their apologists to distract from what they're doing, which is to impose their will on others through mob violence. And intimidation of university administrators and others.

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm certainly not advocating for mob violence, of the sort, for instance, that Donald Trump instigated against protesters at his rallies. We live in a very politically charged environment. The white nationalists have a lot of people spooked, leading to violence on both sides. 

CFR that Trump instigated mob violence at his rallies.

Share this post


Link to post

This thread has drifted afield. I predict the mods will shut it down unless we can get back on topic. Maybe we can salvage it.

Does anyone else have a comment on the Deseret News op-ed piece by Dr. Hancock?

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR that Trump instigated mob violence at his rallies.

He's being sued for that right now:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/02/a-judge-rules-trump-may-have-incited-violence-and-trump-again-has-his-own-mouth-to-blame/?utm_term=.42c708396d95

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/judge-trump-no-protection-campaign-rally-speech-inciting-violence-n741731

 

And again:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-legal-fees-punch-protester-2016-3

Quote

Last month, Trump pledged to pay the legal bills for supporters who "knocked the crap" out of anyone who was considering throwing tomatoes at the former reality-television star.

"If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them," Trump said. "Just knock the hell — I promise you, I'll pay the legal fees."

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Oh, for crying out loud! It's not just protesting a speech. It's mob violence. It's vandalism. It's preventing the exercise of civil rights, speech, free flow of information.

No more dramatic than the situation calls for.


MIlo is the go-to character for leftist mobs and their apologists to distract from what they're doing, which is to impose their will on others through mob violence. And intimidation of university administrators and others.

Do you have any examples of mobs forming against speakers who aren't white supremacists, apologists for sexual violence against children, and general trolls? Maybe that would help support your point. If you didn't want it to be about characters like Milo and Ann Coulter, who is it about? 

Edited by Gray

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Gray said:

Do you have any examples of mobs forming against speakers who aren't white supremacists, apologists for sexual violence against children, and general trolls? Maybe that would help support your point. If you didn't want it to be about characters like Milo and Ann Coulter, who is it about? 

I lack familiarity with what Milo has said/done but I know of nothing in the writings or speeches of Coulter that would mark her as a white supremacist, apologist for sexual violence against children. And "general troll" seems to be your code phrase for "anybody who says things I don't like." Which is an attitude characteristic of the mob mentality.

 

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I lack familiarity with what Milo has said/done but I know of nothing in the writings or speeches of Coulter that would mark her as a white supremacist, apologist for sexual violence against children. And "general troll" seems to be your code phrase for "anybody who says things I don't like." Which is an attitude characteristic of the mob mentality.

 

 

Milo is following Coulter's model pretty closely - saying inflammatory and racist things to get a rise out of people and make money. They get rich from making people angry. They're trolls, by definition. It's not a code. They both got famous not based on substance but on controversy. 

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/05/ann-coulter-is-having-a-day-on-twitter/

 

Edited by Gray

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Does anyone else have a comment on the Deseret News op-ed piece by Dr. Hancock?

This is the comment form the Hancock article that came to mind when you mentioned Berkeley:

"No matter how unpopular such “[cultural] wars” may be in certain circles, Latter-day Saints could never abandon the Christian responsibility to resist the emerging ethic of sexual expression and gender-identity entitlement that often threatens to prevail at the expense of society’s immense interest in fostering stable families. And it’s also worth noting that there would never be so-called “culture wars” if progressives had not assiduously pursued a half-century-long goal of overturning the traditional consensus on biologically intact families."

I had just read Milo's recent comments (below) on Facebook laying out his response to Berkeley and it seems to me that he, and several anonymous donors, fancy him as the fresh face of this 'culture war' with a whole new tactic called "epic trolling". 

Quote

America is on a precipice but I am going to yank you back. The US must stay strong and stay free and the Dangerous Faggot will always be there to say so. We are going to make publishers, professors and journalists who threaten free speech famous -- and ashamed.

I'm suing Simon and Schuster for $10m to send a message that conservatives and libertarians will not take it lying down any more. (Unless they want to!) I am going to blow a hole in the publishing industry forever.

I am going to make UC Berkeley the center of free speech whether university administrators and local Antifa thugs like it or not.

And I'm returning for a massive US tour that will run for seven months. I am back, more powerful and more fabulous than ever. And I am going to fight for you. Thank you for standing by me. And welcome to the age of MILO."

Is this the kind of speech you want representing the conservative Christian movement? I'm guessing conservatives are going to have a cultural civil war on their hands real soon and conservative Mormons are going to find a lot more in common with progressive Mormons than they do with the new right. I think that is the political reconfiguration Fluhman is talking about.

Edited by Rajah Manchou

Share this post


Link to post

The subject is "reconfiguration of LDS politics". In at least one case there has been a reconfiguration, and that is with me and my extended family. I was a Republican until the election of George W. Bush. I didn't vote for Bush. When the Iraq War came along, I became even more disillusioned with the Republican party but still I remained a registered Republican. In 2008, because I could not support a ticket with Sarah Palin on it, I voted for Obama.  In 2012 I voted for Mitt Romney. In 2016, when Trump became the Repub nominee, I officially left the Republican party. I am now a registered Democrat.

Both parties are offensive to me, but right now the Democratic party is less offensive to me than the Republican.

Interesting what has happened in my large extended family. Before the election of 2000, 90% of my extended family would have identified as Republican. By 2008, this had probably dropped to 70-80%. Now I would guess it's around 60%. We are all LDS, and 60-70% are active/believing.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Gray said:

Milo is following Coulter's model pretty closely - saying inflammatory and racist things to get a rise out of people and make money. They get rich from making people angry. They're trolls, by definition. It's not a code. They both got famous not based on substance but on controversy. 

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/05/ann-coulter-is-having-a-day-on-twitter/

 

That's a very subjective statement.

Again, shutting down free speech -- or excusing such deprivation of civil rights -- based on subjective opinion is characteristic of the mob mentality.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

This is the comment form the Hancock article that came to mind when you mentioned Berkeley:

"No matter how unpopular such “[cultural] wars” may be in certain circles, Latter-day Saints could never abandon the Christian responsibility to resist the emerging ethic of sexual expression and gender-identity entitlement that often threatens to prevail at the expense of society’s immense interest in fostering stable families. And it’s also worth noting that there would never be so-called “culture wars” if progressives had not assiduously pursued a half-century-long goal of overturning the traditional consensus on biologically intact families."

I had just read Milo's recent comments (below) on Facebook laying out his response to Berkeley and it seems to me that he, and several anonymous donors, fancy him as the fresh face of this 'culture war' with a whole new tactic called "epic trolling". 

Is this the kind of speech you want representing the conservative Christian movement? I'm guessing conservatives are going to have a cultural civil war on their hands real soon and conservative Mormons are going to find a lot more in common with progressive Mormons than they do with the new right. I think that is the political reconfiguration Fluhman is talking about.

Guilt by association.

Another characteristic of mob mentality.

This thread, if nothing else, is showcasing that mentality very well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Gray said:

Do you have any examples of mobs forming against speakers who aren't white supremacists, apologists for sexual violence against children, and general trolls? Maybe that would help support your point. If you didn't want it to be about characters like Milo and Ann Coulter, who is it about? 

Again, not to repeat myself, but Charles Murray is a pretty good example. Ben Shapiro is an other. (And he got constantly attacked by the alt-right as well) Video below on Shapiro

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/31421/

But the real problem is that now groups can just threaten violence and shut things down. They don't even need the violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...