SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?_r=0
WE progressives believe in diversity, and we want women, blacks, Latinos, gays and Muslims at the table — er, so long as they aren't conservatives. Universities are the bedrock of progressive values, but the one kind of diversity that universities disregard is ideological and religious. We're fine with people who don't look like us, as long as they think like us.
O.K., that's a little harsh. But consider George Yancey, a sociologist who is black and evangelical. "Outside of academia I faced more problems as a black," he told me. "But inside academia I face more problems as a Christian, and it is not even close."
I've been thinking about this because on Facebook recently I wondered aloud whether universities stigmatize conservatives and undermine intellectual diversity. The scornful reaction from my fellow liberals proved the point.
"Much of the 'conservative' worldview consists of ideas that are known empirically to be false," said Carmi. "The truth has a liberal slant," wrote Michelle. "Why stop there?" asked Steven. "How about we make faculties more diverse by hiring idiots?"
To me, the conversation illuminated primarily liberal arrogance — the implication that conservatives don't have anything significant to add to the discussion. My Facebook followers have incredible compassion for war victims in South Sudan, for kids who have been trafficked, even for abused chickens, but no obvious empathy for conservative scholars facing discrimination.
The stakes involve not just fairness to conservatives or evangelical Christians, not just whether progressives will be true to their own values, not just the benefits that come from diversity (and diversity of thought is arguably among the most important kinds), but also the quality of education itself. When perspectives are unrepresented in discussions, when some kinds of thinkers aren't at the table, classrooms become echo chambers rather than sounding boards — and we all lose.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 29 2016, @05:06AM
I think the core issue here is that liberal and conservative no longer make much sense in today's society.
Being a liberal is fundamentally about freedom. This entails marrying who you like, putting what you like into your body, and so on. It also entails that as a society we do all we can to improve the lives of as many people as possible. However, and this is where 'modern' liberalism begins to diverge, it also entails the freedom to say what you like and an active avoidance of infringing on the freedoms of others. Features of modern liberalism today include:
And so on. These are not liberal values. These are authoritarian or fascist values. There's a quote that's been attributed to countless individuals and that is because it is self evident upon reflection, but shocking at first:
There are two types of fascists: fascists and anti-fascists.
And many liberals today have become just as fascist as those they demonize such as Rush Limbaugh. Consequently I think the real distinction between people today is not necessarily conservative vs liberal, but authoritarian vs libertarian. And in a world of social media echo chambers reinforcing increasingly radical views, authoritarianism is seeing a sharp spike from both sides. Let the authoritarians and fascists on both sides have their little battles of trying to see who can silence and attack the most people that disagree with them. I'll take the level-headed conservatives on my 'side'. I may disagree with them ideologically, but we can work on that because we're willing and able to listen and abide the other side. And that I think is a far more important and fundamental factor than our opinions on welfare, regulation, or even social values.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 29 2016, @06:35AM
The real problem is the acceptance of post-modernism - i.e. the rejection of reason. As the many comments here show in their personal anecdotes, there are many examples nowadays of both liberals and conservatives believing they deserve to be taken seriously while they wilfully disregard reason and evidence. If you want to improve the situation, I suggest you all make an effort to apply the correct labels since clearly "liberal" and "conservative" are not relevant to the current conversation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 29 2016, @06:49AM
Agreed, but this is the transition moment. You see, liberal philosophy and its offspring (modernism, post-modernism) were made for revolutionary purposes. It is meant to sow discontent, upset norms, undermine certain established institutions and create a somewhat chaotic social environment. Once complete power is assumed, the leaders of the liberal movement (mostly operating in the shadows) who rode in on the back of liberalism will enforce their own conservatism. That's what we are about to witness.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 29 2016, @07:05AM
> Once complete power is assumed, the leaders of the liberal movement (mostly operating in the shadows) who rode in on the back of liberalism will enforce their own conservatism.
You have unwittingly described the arc of the republican party. They were the driving force behind the anti-slavery movement. But then they won the civil war and their people assumed power in washington. At which point the lucrative effects of being connected to power began to turn them away from caring about racism and towards caring about (a) their own wealth and (b) maintaining power. But that corruption began to visibly surface during the civil rights era and culminated in the metastasis of Trumpism through the body of the party.
I doubt "liberalism" will go through the same process because it knows no specific party. As the democratic party has been co-opted by wealth, it has also strayed from liberalism, they just haven't traveled as far down that path as the republican party has. But the principles remain, just reinvented by another generation as evidenced by Bernie Sanders, BLM, Occupy, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 29 2016, @07:49AM
Both sides are of the same coin, there was nothing unwitting in (my) original post :)
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 29 2016, @02:40PM
All that you have said is, history repeats itself. And, that statement only affirms what GP said to start with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 29 2016, @04:36PM
I think the core issue here is that liberal and conservative no longer make much sense in today's society.
Actually, the core here is the misappropriate of the terms "liberal" and "conservative." If you've taken a course on Western History (possibly especially in regard to the Enlightenment), you see that "liberal" had a different meaning. See Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. [wikipedia.org] (standard caveats of anybody-can-edit apply).
So back then you had the idea monarchy/theocracy vs liberalism. This ended up being pulled into a three-way split with the introduction of communism.
The confusion comes from the splitting of liberalism into a left-liberal and right-liberal. Left Liberals tend to think that the massive social changes were causing problems for society and they would need to compromise on some enlightenment ideals to survive (see: the rise of communism, so if they didn't relieve some of people's suffering there could be a complete revolution), whereas Right Liberals were harder-line "we've figured things out, they'll sort themselves out in the end, it's for the greater good."
This is the "conservative" vs "progressive" debates you see now... in the end they are all classic liberals. Just different flavors of it.
For example, when's the last time you heard a American Republican proposing that presidential positions should extended or the position made heritable (a classical conservative position)? When's the last time you heard of an American Democrat proposing nationalizing the airlines (a classical communist position)?