Published response to "reconfiguration of LDS politics"

[Gray]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Clark Goble can speak for himself, but I think he is talking about coercion. Which is what these groups engage in with their violence, vandalism and attempted intimidation. There is a fundamental difference between that a peaceful protest, whether you see it or not.

I'm sure Clark can speak for himself. 

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've never objected to peaceful protests about anything.

But make no mistake: There is a fundamental difference between peaceful protests and attempted intimidation.

 

I'm glad you're on the record now not objecting to peaceful protests again figures like Milo. Your language before was ambiguous. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

I certainly wouldn't call the vast majority of conservatives "white supremacists." Only those who self identify as such (or use some of the rebranded terms like "white nationalist" or "alt right"). Ben Shapiro edits an online publication that brands itself as  the voice of the alt right. 

 

 

Ben Shapiro is editor-in-chief of the Daily Wire. CFR that it brands itself as "the voice of the alt-right."

Ben Shapiro was a never-Trumper during the election campaign. Did you know that?

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Ben Shapiro is editor-in-chief of the Daily Wire. CFR that it brands itself as "the voice of the alt-right."

Ben Shapiro was a never-Trumper during the election campaign. Did you know that?

I was referring to his role at Breitbart. Sorry, I should have said "edited"

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-what-is-the-alt-right-a-refresher-1479169663-htmlstory.html

 

Quote

Bannon once described Breitbart News in an interview with the Investigative Fund as the "platform for the alt-right," or alternative right. It's a brand of far-right conservatism that generally embraces and promotes white nationalism, racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, transphobia and misogyny.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2017 by Gray

[Rajah Manchou]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The exact moment in time was when you tried to equate the Church of Jesus Christ with the views of extremists in so-called culture wars. Look back a few posts. It's there.

I think you've confused me with Ralph Hancock who starts off claiming that "LDS progressivism is not grounded in LDS belief" and seems to equate his fellow LDS progressives with extremists in the so-called culture wars. You know, the ones he said have spent decades wrecking the family and promoting borderless globalism and free sexual expression and other declarations of guilt by association.

I disagree with Ralph. I think the extremists in the culture war are not the LDS on either side of the political spectrum. The extremists are Coulter, Milo and anybody you might find as equally obnoxious on the left. Maybe Michael Moore?

Edited May 8, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm glad you're on the record now not objecting to peaceful protests again figures like Milo. Your language before was ambiguous. 

Say what?

Wasn't it Milo whose speech they shut down through violence, vandalism and intimidation?

 

[Rajah Manchou]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But make no mistake: There is a fundamental difference between peaceful protests and attempted intimidation.

Question, are you opposed to speech that is intended from the outset to be an attempt at intimidation?

Let's say I know that gay rights is a sensitive issue in Provo, and I think Provoans are prudish snowflakes that need to loosen up. So I announce that I will be organizing a Dangerous F****t Circus downtown with the intention of making life h*** for all the cuckservatives in town, in particular the journalists, and publishers and professors who don't agree with me. There will be strippers and drag queens camped out downtown for at least a month, and we'll sue anybody that tries to stop it, so you all better get behind it and enjoy it.

Is that free speech or is that attempted intimidation?

Edited May 8, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[Scott Lloyd]

s wel

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

I was referring to his role at Breitbart. Sorry, I should have said "edited"

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-what-is-the-alt-right-a-refresher-1479169663-htmlstory.html

 

 

 

More guilt by association. CFR that Ben Shapiro has ever identified himself with the alt-right.

And by the way, please don't attempt to mislead us by submitting hostile op-ed pieces as evidence.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Say what?

Wasn't it Milo whose speech they shut down through violence, vandalism and intimidation?

 

I'm talking about in principle. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Question, are you opposed to speech that is intended from the outset to be an attempt at intimidation?

Let's say I know that gay rights is a sensitive issue in Provo, and I think Provoans are prudish snowflakes that need to loosen up. So I announce that I will be organizing a Dangerous F****t Circus downtown with the intention of making life h*** for all the cuckservatives in town, in particular the journalists, and publishers and professors who don't agree with me. And by the way, I will sue anybody that tries to stop me so you all better get behind it and enjoy it.

Is that free speech or is that attempted intimidation?

I would denounce it vehemently. But I wouldn't attempt to shut it down via viloence, vandalism, assaults, intimidation or other forms of coercion.

 

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

s wel

More guilt by association. CFR that Ben Shapiro has ever identified himself with the alt-right.

And by the way, please don't attempt to mislead us by submitting hostile op-ed pieces as evidence.

He was editor at an alt right publication. That's more than enough evidence, regardless of what he chooses to call himself (I never made any claim about that, so your CFR has no basis). 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm talking about in principle. 

Got it.

And I disagree that my language was ambiguous. I think you had concluded in advance what my position was and that you were loath to let go of that preconception.

 

Edited May 8, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

51 minutes ago, Gray said:

The conclusion that there is a racial basis to intelligence is what makes it white supremacist pseudo scholarship.

Is Tuvel really in the same category? She seems to have gotten the typical social media response to anything remotely controversial 

As I said, there's not violence with Tuvel so it's a big difference. Yet the common theme is silencing someone for disliked conclusions regardless of argument.

Quote

The conclusion that there is a racial basis to intelligence is what makes it white supremacist pseudo scholarship.

And that's why to me you're pretty much within the same camp. You're opposing the conclusions regardless of argument and think that conclusions that go against your political views demand silencing. (You said Murray was one of the "non-sane" and thought it completely reasonable to stop them from speaking and just thought the violence was problematic) Do you understand why academics can't function if disliked conclusions are silenced regardless of argument? It undermines the entire basis of how inquiry is supposed to function in academics.

Ignore the civics issues for now and just look at academics. Imagine that we went with what mainstream conservatives thought were inappropriate conclusions. If those ideas and the people who held them were removed from academic discourse, would that be a problem?

Now realize that the bulk of universities are public universities run by state governments already under economic stress. Do you really think these actions won't lead to issues with how states fund these universities? Maybe Berkeley will get away with their game given how liberal that state is. I think though the rest of the country outside of a few places may find that alienating ones funders isn't wise.

Edited May 8, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

He was editor at an alt right publication. That's more than enough evidence, regardless of what he chooses to call himself (I never made any claim about that, so your CFR has no basis). 

So essentially you've used the conclusions from a hostile op-ed columnist who never mentioned Shapiro in an immense stretch to tar him with an unfair brush.

Did someone say guilt by association?

[Rajah Manchou]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would denounce it vehemently. But I wouldn't attempt to shut it down via viloence, vandalism, assaults, intimidation or other forms of coercion.

OK, but then other people you have nothing to do with come in and attempt to shut it down via violence.

But since you are there, exhibiting characteristics of a mob mentality, you must by guilty of silencing my free speech. I am "outraged" and decide to start a new business of professionally trolling people who dare silence me.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[clarkgoble]

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

He was editor at an alt right publication. That's more than enough evidence, regardless of what he chooses to call himself (I never made any claim about that, so your CFR has no basis). 

He publicly resigned from that publication because it was becoming alt-right and embracing Trump. He then faced worse persecution by the alt-right than nearly any other journalist. He's an orthodox Jew and faced ridiculous levels of anti-semitism. The idea floated by some (not just you -- it even turned up on NPR) that he's alt-right is ridiculous. Again I may disagree with some of his views. However saying it's part of the alt-right when arguably he was one of the biggest victims during the Trump campaign takes some gumption. He's faced countless threats of violence by the alt-right.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/gist/2016/11/ben_shapiro_on_steve_bannon_the_alt_right_and_why_the_left_needs_to_turn.html

"I mentioned earlier this Anti-Defamation League study that said that I was the No. 1 target of anti-Semitism in the journalistic world this year."

Edited May 8, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm sure Clark can speak for himself. 

He is welcome to correct me if I misunderstood him. So far he hasn't done so.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

OK, but then other people you have nothing to do with come in and attempt to shut it down via violence.

Therefore you are exhibiting characteristics of a mob mentality and are guilty of silencing my free speech and I am outraged all over Facebook and Brietbart.com and decide to start a new business of professionally trolling people who dare silence me.

Huh? You lost me.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

He publicly resigned from that publication because it was becoming alt-right and embracing Trump. He then faced worse persecution by the alt-right than nearly any other journalist.

Heh. Thanks for giving the backstory that Gray, for whatever reason, didn't provide.

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

As I said, there's not violence with Tuvel so it's a big difference. Yet the common theme is silencing someone for disliked conclusions regardless of argument.

And that's why to me you're pretty much within the same camp. You're opposing the conclusions regardless of argument and think that conclusions that go against your political views demand silencing. (You said Murray was one of the "non-sane" and thought it completely reasonable to stop them from speaking and just thought the violence was problematic) Do you understand why academics can't function if disliked conclusions are silenced regardless of argument? It undermines the entire basis of how inquiry is supposed to function in academics.

Ignore the civics issues for now and just look at academics. Imagine that we went with what mainstream conservatives thought were inappropriate conclusions. If those ideas and the people who held them were removed from academic discourse, would that be a problem?

Now realize that the bulk of universities are public universities run by state governments already under economic stress. Do you really think these actions won't lead to issues with how states fund these universities? Maybe Berkeley will get away with their game given how liberal that state is. I think though the rest of the country outside of a few places may find that alienating ones funders isn't wise.

You make it sound like the only response to his arguments has been to ban him from campuses. His arguments were debunked decades ago. But they appeal to a certain segment of society. 

I'd like to see an example of a sane, mainstream conservative getting this treatment. Maybe it happens but so far I'm just seeing examples of it happening to people on the radical fringes. 

Edited May 8, 2017 by Gray

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I'm glad you're on the record now not objecting to peaceful protests again figures like Milo. Your language before was ambiguous. 

I think the problem is that there weren't many peaceful protests.

Edited May 8, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So essentially you've used the conclusions from a hostile op-ed columnist who never mentioned Shapiro in an immense stretch to tar him with an unfair brush.

Did someone say guilt by association?

Not an op ed columnist, I'm relying on Bannon's statement that Breitbart is the voice of the alt right. Surely Bannon is in a position to know the nature of his own publication. Would a non-white supremacist work for a white supremacist publication? Seems like a stretch.  

Edited May 8, 2017 by Gray

[clarkgoble]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

You make it sound like the only response to his arguments has been to ban him from campuses. His arguments were debunked decades ago. But they appeal to a certain segment of society. 

I'd like to see an example of a sane, mainstream conservative getting this treatment. Maybe it happens but so far I'm just seeing examples of it happening to people on the radical fringes. 

Just again to note, he only faced violent protests at one college. Further what he was speaking on wasn't even the Bell Curve. The problem is that the protests were for having written the Bell Curve. 

Ben Shapiro honestly isn't on the radical fringe. Again I disagree with him on several things. But trying to portray him as fringe is ridiculous as it is with Murray.

As for a mainstream conservative, why do you keep neglecting the Portland parade I've brought up several times? Especially when honestly that's the most deeply disturbing of all the examples.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

Not an op ed columnist, I'm relying on Bannon's statement that Breitbart is the voice of the alt right. Surely Bannon is in a position to know the nature of his own publication. Would a non-white supremacist work for a white supremacist publication? Seems like a stretch.  

Clark Goble just gave us the backstory that you didn't provide about Shapiro resigning from the publication. Why didn't you mention that?

 

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

Not an op ed columnist, I'm relying on Bannon's statement that Breitbart is the voice of the alt right. Surely Bannon is in a position to know the nature of his own publication. Would a non-white supremacist work for a white supremacist publication? Seems like a stretch.  

Did you miss the whole very public resignation he made? It was a big deal in the news and was discussed for weeks. It was directly related to Trump and the rise of the alt right. BTW - did you realize he was a practicing orthodox Jew? Not exactly the favorites of white supremacists. Also while I've never liked Breitbart it's a very different place from when Breitbart himself was around. Bannon completely changed it.

Edited May 8, 2017 by clarkgoble