Hi everyone. I'm one of the former debaters who will be participating in the zoom meeting on Thursday. If anyone's curious to read an account of my experience with insane leftist ideological capture, see here. https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-things-about-insanity-in-debate
I sure hope this experience you had doesn't make you think leftist ideology is the cause of unfair debates. It's a great example of the pendulum swinging too far and people overcorrecting. However, by highlighting these overcorrections without the historic context, what is being achieved? Sometimes it seems like fuel for a more divided nation.
Even though I agree that this type of debating and judging process is ridiculous and unfair, let's keep in mind this isn't something from the "left" (if you're into false dichotomies). In America, communists weren't given fair trials and their beliefs resulted in prosecution, not just losing a high school debate.
Examples:
Sacco and Vanzetti (1920-1927): Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were Italian-born anarchists who were convicted of robbery and murder in a highly controversial trial. Their case became a cause célèbre due to concerns that they were targeted and convicted primarily because of their anarchist and communist leanings, rather than concrete evidence of their guilt.
Hollywood Ten (1947): During the McCarthy era, ten screenwriters and directors in the American film industry, including Alvah Bessie, Dalton Trumbo, and Ring Lardner Jr., were cited for contempt of Congress after refusing to answer questions about their alleged membership in the Communist Party. They were blacklisted from the industry and some were imprisoned for their refusal to cooperate with the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC).
Ethel and Julius Rosenberg (1951): The Rosenbergs were a married couple who were accused of passing atomic secrets to the Soviet Union during the early Cold War period. They were convicted of espionage and executed in 1953. The case remains controversial, with ongoing debates about the extent of their involvement and whether their sentence was disproportionately severe.
Angela Davis (1970): Angela Davis, a prominent activist and academic, was charged with murder, kidnapping, and conspiracy in connection with a high-profile courthouse incident involving firearms. While she identified as a communist and was associated with the Communist Party USA, many believed her prosecution was politically motivated. Davis was acquitted of all charges in 1972.
Of course, these examples are debatable, as they should be, but it's important to keep in mind that the few examples we have of communist ideas being to your advantage are nothing compared to the examples where it was a disadavtage in American history.
And when it comes to the example of black people in this article, I understand why it frustrates some people, but why try and make the argument that "If you’re black, you get to keep your evidence to yourself and have a competitive advantage?" What are you trying to achieve with this? The truth is that black people to not have a competitive advantage.
Examples:
After sending out 1300 fake resumes, researchers found that resumes with more traditionally sounding black names receive 50% fewer call backs.
Black people, on average, receive a 10% longer prison sentence than white folks for the same crime.
There are now links with the chronic stress from racism being linked to heart disease, breast cancer, and hypertension.
... And I hope I don't need to list all the examples of police brutality.
I was wondering when you are going to cite the burning of our cities and the murders that accompanied these burning by avowed communists, BLM and Antifa?
Was that going to be in another post or are you looking in just one direction?
My intent wasn’t to look at this is one direction. I thought the article did an excellent job of showing when people with leftist ideologies suppressed free thought and healthy debate. I just think it’s important to provide context to show it’s not just “leftists” who do this.
Right now it is the left that is setting agenda and driving the bus. To me they show distain for the Constitution. The messiah, Obama, said in essence, he lamented the constraints the Constitution put on him and wish there was a way around it. Jimmy Carter had the same lament.
You might be right about “the left” doing more to suppress free speech in America right now, but not historically. Just look at all the times right-wing people burned books, suppressed protests, etc., Again, I understand communists are probably the most guilty of this worldwide. Well, Christian fundamentalists are up there, too. Either way, it’s not a “left/right” issue.
Also, I should point out that I’m not American and don’t have the same emotional investments with the culture wars going on. I try not to contribute to the divide by using labels, but it’s difficult.
I mentioned this to someone else who seemed rather angry with me and insulted me, rather than the argument. It seems the hegemonic classes use labels to divide and conquer. Whether it be wealthy racists hoping to marginalize and discriminate to uphold their power or the university elite hoping oppressors will check their privilege. Putting so much onus on these labels regarding our sense of self is especially dangerous when it comes to identity politics. In my view, identity politics are an insidious distraction. When these labels mix with politics, it becomes much more challenging to engage in a discussion because every attack on one of your opinions feels like an attack on your sense of self.
I won't insult you. I'll disagree with you but I won't insult you.
You are right. The pendulum has swung to the left. Sixty years ago, the US was a more conservative nation. However, it seems to me the left is rapidly moving toward communism and polls show this. The left subverts what they are doing buy pushing their communist agenda by calling socialism. There is a fine line almost undistinguishable between socialism and communism. There is no such thing as democratic socialism. All socialist countries are run by brutal dictators.
Face it the electorate is populated by the ignorant. I doubt if 98% of them have ever read a history book.
Once the far left takes over, there is no going back. we as a people will be doomed to tyranny.
I find it comical you used the word “probably” in reference to Communist atrocities.
Its pretty obvious what your ideological sympathies are. I am going to speculate global Communism created ten million Sacco and Vanzettis, with the difference that they MAY have been guilty, which cannot be said of the basement of Libyanka, Cuban prisons, or the 60 or million people who starved to death.
If you want to become a regular presence here expect to see my name a lot.
Very true! The left has swung so far to the left that it's become more aligned with how the right was years ago. I was a progressive years ago when progressives were truly progressive. Now the progressives have turned into something I don't understand. Right and Left both do-- and have done-- much to destroy healthy debates.
It's not context if the sides weren't even ideologically similar then to what they are today. The only thing that's reasonable to present is what is happening with both sides now or both sides then, if both sides were/are indeed doing it at either time point. One side now & the other side then--strikes me as temporal cherry-picking.
Nolan, a.k.a. "Born Without Borders" (please) this type of censorship is definitely from the left, where a lot of us used to be until instead of tolerance it promoted self-righteousness and force. Stop prevaricating, and really stop saying it is simply a matter of "the pendulum swinging too far." This is not about a pendulum. It is not about "mistakes were made." It is about people not taking responsibility for their ideologies. In the post above, you are one of those not taking responsibility. And you're verbose.
I completely agree that people need to take responsibility for their ideologies. I also thought the article addressed some very important and concerning issues.
I’m not sure what you mean by “type” of censorship, but people on the right have censored and suppressed free speech throughout history. Attacks on Journalists: Instances of right-wing individuals or groups physically attacking journalists or media professionals have been reported in some countries. There have been cases where right-wing activists or groups have pressured artists, performers, and cultural institutions to self-censor or cancel events that they deem offensive or contrary to their ideological beliefs Book Bans: In some cases, right-wing groups or individuals have campaigned to ban books they perceive as promoting ideas or viewpoints they disagree with. This has included attempts to remove books from school curricula or public libraries.
Anyway, I’m not saying this to defend leftist or communist ideologies. I’m very much aware of the problems communist ideologies have caused throughout history. I’m only pointing to the fact that suppressing free speech and thought isn’t just a “leftist” thing. I did this because I believe in healthy debate, free speech, and thinking from various perspectives.
Also, I’m not trying to contribute to the “left/right” divide because it’s a false dichotomy when categorizing humans, but I realize I fell victim to it.
I’m not claiming to have the answers, but it seems the hegemonic classes use labels to divide and conquer. Whether it be wealthy racists hoping to marginalize and discriminate to uphold their power or the university elite hoping oppressors will check their privilege. I might be wrong here, but labelling and categorizing people you disagree with and hope to cancel isn’t much different from labelling and categorizing people oppressors wish to silence, even if the intent comes from a more benevolent place.
Putting so much onus on these labels regarding our sense of self is especially dangerous when it comes to identity politics. In my view, identity politics are an insidious distraction. When these labels mix with politics, it becomes much more challenging to engage in a discussion because every attack on one of your opinions feels like an attack on your sense of self.
I also don't know why you decided to insult and attack me, rather than the argument. If you read closely, you can see we agree on a lot. I'm not sure why you decided to focus on what divides us, rather than focus on what we have in common. You could have provided concrete, useful examples we could discuss.
Nolan: Immature agitprop so typical of today’s authoritarian protocol-Marxist progressives. And this comes from someone who walked precincts for Democrats in the 70s. No traditional Democrat would agree with your position. Herbert Marcuse would.
No matter what your political beliefs are, you should strongly support free speech, and particularly in a debate. Otherwise, there is no actual debate, just indoctrination. If you don’t agree, feel free to try to debate the other side of that issue and claim that what you deem “wrongly think” should be silenced.
Hi Peter, I’m very much on the side of free speech and debate. That’s why I pointed to some events and research from a different view point. I’m not a fan of communism or these so-called “leftist” ideologies, but I am a fan of debate. I’m not sure what you think my position is or why you thought I made this more about politics than ideologies.
Reread what you wrote. You were clearly supported debate restrictions and were quite concerned about the appropriately severe criticism of those who stifle debate leading to a swinging the pendulum to the right. (You even cited Sacco and Vanzetti.)
That amounted to a defense of this indefensible behavior. Those judges who restrict debate should never again be judges.
You say twice it’s not from the left (it actually is) without evidence, then launch into some kind of irrelevant history lesson and then some BLM stuff. The fact is that the state of debate is atrocious and is so because of left-wing ideology 100%, which values identity groups and values “triggers” and judges who outlaw positions based on both. It’s completely ridiculous and the right, as usual, is having to assert traditional values in order to stamp down wokeness.
A Liberal is someone capable of rational argumentation who stops when the evidence no longer supports them, and who, because they sincerely want to improve the world, change their mind when necessary.
Leftists live in an infantile fantasy world where all disagreement is aggression, no quantity of evidence is ever enough, and who, because all of their ideas are bad, focus their energy and intelligence on getting and protecting power. This is the sole sincere aim.
And all Communists are Leftists, by definition. This means all Communists are inherently a threat to representative government, free speech, impartiality in the law, and equality of opportunity.
Seeking to jail or expel people who do not want to improve the system—which is the core possibility created by the Constitution—but DESTROY the system and replace it with an atavistic feudalism is nothing more or less than common sense.
I could address in depth your listing of talking points, but lack the time. I’ve done it hundreds of times. And you know what most people like you do? First, you try to pivot onto another topic. Second you start calling me names. Third, you quit, presumably to go back to your virtual or real left wing coffee shop to complain about how irrational conservatives and true moderates are. At no point do you EVER question your own self righteousness.
That makes debate an exercise I undergo to imorove my own thinking. Because I cant change or affect yours.
Lol! No, of course not. Don't work at Hunter College. Plus, I have firearms, so that would have been the first choice. What was the "un-teacherly behavior?" Did something happen in the classroom?
Yeah...that was Jahbulon. He's a deranged lunatic that's obsessed with me. He's convinced I'm Shellyne Rodiquez, a Latina who lives in NY, when I'm also not being an AI bot. Why?....because he's mentally ill.
Why was the reporter there? Was he harrassing her? Was it a machete or a knife? Maybe she feared for her life? Was he armed? More people are killed with fists than guns? I need to see the whole video.
Resolved: that those expressing strong political opinions in public are obligated to articulate clearly the basis of their beliefs, specifically the principles which they hold dear, how they define those principles, and what facts they feel are relevant. Those unable to do so should not be taken seriously, and if they then attempt to use coercive power to impose their ideas, should rightly be judged by all as Fascistic in temperament, if not specific named political committment.
Yeah, that was a bit leading, but pretty much a place I would be happy to live, and most Leftists would refuse to touch. Once you take a clear position, you can't mutate on a dime, which is the actual game they play.
I included that story in a book chapter I wrote for IGI. I was both horrified and infuriated at the judges whose biases meant teenaged debaters couldn’t win no matter how strong their arguments, evidence, and logic.
Who would have known that the evil of DEI would infest high school debate. The upside of this story is there is no obfuscation about the what and why. It is "clear and present". I debated in college under the tutelage of one of Jimmy Carter's debate coaches. This may well become the incident that is the beginning of the end of the DEI debate.
Debating debate. Interesting idea. The potentially interesting aspect is that for those who truly don't believe they should need to be able to articulate and defend clear principles such an opportunity will have no appeal. The only people likely to show up are the ones who don't need it.
I still like the idea. I'm busy and unlikely to participate, but who knows?
What part of Italy. My wife has a cousin in Ostia Antica. We love Italy, the people, the gorgeous countryside and of course the wine and food. I think my favorite city is Siena.
I am a dry red wine drinker but I love the dry white of Orvieto. I am addicted to salati frutti de mare.
Since Covid we haven't been back. I really miss it
Would it be possible to also include in the discussion on Thursday evening one of a number of debate judges whose illiberal ideaology is well known in this arena? If invited to participate would he/she even accept the invitation?
As they prepare for debate, I suggest everyone read about Harvard President Drew Faust speaking at the United States Military Academy (West Point) in 2016:
"Speaking at the U.S. Military Academy, Harvard President Drew Faust told an audience of about 800 West Point cadets and faculty members Thursday that an understanding of humanity — including what inspires people to action — is at the heart of leadership."
2016 seems so long ago, yes, the Harvard President spoke at West Point...
Bari: sorry that I didn’t see a way to send you a note outside of another story’s comments. I want to suggest a story to explore. It is the relabeling of “mass shootings” to incorporate what used to be called “gang-related” or “rival” shootings. This this seems intentional, to draw away labels from black on black shootings, while simultaneously increasing the incidences of “mass shootings” that strengthens the gun ban argument. The prompt for this note came from a CBS national evening news on Memorial Day about a shooting near Miami, FL. The intro headline was “Mass shooting”, while the report told of rival groups shooting at each other, 4-5 guns recovered, innocent bystanders shot in the crossfire, etc. It seems the categorization of this as a mass shooting is meant to obscure some behavior we no longer want to talk about, and build a narrative of epidemic mass shootings, which there are already plenty of. Many traditional media report and label similarly.
At root, debate is a structured way of asking Why a lot.
You say you want to improve humanity. Why do you believe your ideas are better? Why do you claim those of your opponent are worse? Why do you favor this method over some other?
Why do you to improve human life, and what would that look like? Why that way and not some other?
Its not unreasonable to view Platos Dialogues as debates in which Socrates always won by asking Why a lot.
All logical processes begin with core assumptions that cannot be further defended, but logic very much CAN be used to identify and map those assumptions.
It is not logical to find baby seals adoreable but it is logical to want to defend them if you do. But even there you may find baby Eskimoes adoreable too and there may be a real world, practical and unavoidable conflict between loving seals and loving people who need them to survive.
The failure to perform that sort of analysis is a core feature of Leftist thought. They want the good feels but none of the bad, and since the world rarely works that way they develop the habit of lying early on.
Hi everyone. I'm one of the former debaters who will be participating in the zoom meeting on Thursday. If anyone's curious to read an account of my experience with insane leftist ideological capture, see here. https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-things-about-insanity-in-debate
I sure hope this experience you had doesn't make you think leftist ideology is the cause of unfair debates. It's a great example of the pendulum swinging too far and people overcorrecting. However, by highlighting these overcorrections without the historic context, what is being achieved? Sometimes it seems like fuel for a more divided nation.
Even though I agree that this type of debating and judging process is ridiculous and unfair, let's keep in mind this isn't something from the "left" (if you're into false dichotomies). In America, communists weren't given fair trials and their beliefs resulted in prosecution, not just losing a high school debate.
Examples:
Sacco and Vanzetti (1920-1927): Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were Italian-born anarchists who were convicted of robbery and murder in a highly controversial trial. Their case became a cause célèbre due to concerns that they were targeted and convicted primarily because of their anarchist and communist leanings, rather than concrete evidence of their guilt.
Hollywood Ten (1947): During the McCarthy era, ten screenwriters and directors in the American film industry, including Alvah Bessie, Dalton Trumbo, and Ring Lardner Jr., were cited for contempt of Congress after refusing to answer questions about their alleged membership in the Communist Party. They were blacklisted from the industry and some were imprisoned for their refusal to cooperate with the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC).
Ethel and Julius Rosenberg (1951): The Rosenbergs were a married couple who were accused of passing atomic secrets to the Soviet Union during the early Cold War period. They were convicted of espionage and executed in 1953. The case remains controversial, with ongoing debates about the extent of their involvement and whether their sentence was disproportionately severe.
Angela Davis (1970): Angela Davis, a prominent activist and academic, was charged with murder, kidnapping, and conspiracy in connection with a high-profile courthouse incident involving firearms. While she identified as a communist and was associated with the Communist Party USA, many believed her prosecution was politically motivated. Davis was acquitted of all charges in 1972.
Of course, these examples are debatable, as they should be, but it's important to keep in mind that the few examples we have of communist ideas being to your advantage are nothing compared to the examples where it was a disadavtage in American history.
And when it comes to the example of black people in this article, I understand why it frustrates some people, but why try and make the argument that "If you’re black, you get to keep your evidence to yourself and have a competitive advantage?" What are you trying to achieve with this? The truth is that black people to not have a competitive advantage.
Examples:
After sending out 1300 fake resumes, researchers found that resumes with more traditionally sounding black names receive 50% fewer call backs.
Black people, on average, receive a 10% longer prison sentence than white folks for the same crime.
There are now links with the chronic stress from racism being linked to heart disease, breast cancer, and hypertension.
... And I hope I don't need to list all the examples of police brutality.
I was wondering when you are going to cite the burning of our cities and the murders that accompanied these burning by avowed communists, BLM and Antifa?
Was that going to be in another post or are you looking in just one direction?
My intent wasn’t to look at this is one direction. I thought the article did an excellent job of showing when people with leftist ideologies suppressed free thought and healthy debate. I just think it’s important to provide context to show it’s not just “leftists” who do this.
Right now it is the left that is setting agenda and driving the bus. To me they show distain for the Constitution. The messiah, Obama, said in essence, he lamented the constraints the Constitution put on him and wish there was a way around it. Jimmy Carter had the same lament.
You might be right about “the left” doing more to suppress free speech in America right now, but not historically. Just look at all the times right-wing people burned books, suppressed protests, etc., Again, I understand communists are probably the most guilty of this worldwide. Well, Christian fundamentalists are up there, too. Either way, it’s not a “left/right” issue.
Also, I should point out that I’m not American and don’t have the same emotional investments with the culture wars going on. I try not to contribute to the divide by using labels, but it’s difficult.
I mentioned this to someone else who seemed rather angry with me and insulted me, rather than the argument. It seems the hegemonic classes use labels to divide and conquer. Whether it be wealthy racists hoping to marginalize and discriminate to uphold their power or the university elite hoping oppressors will check their privilege. Putting so much onus on these labels regarding our sense of self is especially dangerous when it comes to identity politics. In my view, identity politics are an insidious distraction. When these labels mix with politics, it becomes much more challenging to engage in a discussion because every attack on one of your opinions feels like an attack on your sense of self.
I won't insult you. I'll disagree with you but I won't insult you.
You are right. The pendulum has swung to the left. Sixty years ago, the US was a more conservative nation. However, it seems to me the left is rapidly moving toward communism and polls show this. The left subverts what they are doing buy pushing their communist agenda by calling socialism. There is a fine line almost undistinguishable between socialism and communism. There is no such thing as democratic socialism. All socialist countries are run by brutal dictators.
Face it the electorate is populated by the ignorant. I doubt if 98% of them have ever read a history book.
Once the far left takes over, there is no going back. we as a people will be doomed to tyranny.
What country are you from?
I find it comical you used the word “probably” in reference to Communist atrocities.
Its pretty obvious what your ideological sympathies are. I am going to speculate global Communism created ten million Sacco and Vanzettis, with the difference that they MAY have been guilty, which cannot be said of the basement of Libyanka, Cuban prisons, or the 60 or million people who starved to death.
If you want to become a regular presence here expect to see my name a lot.
Very true! The left has swung so far to the left that it's become more aligned with how the right was years ago. I was a progressive years ago when progressives were truly progressive. Now the progressives have turned into something I don't understand. Right and Left both do-- and have done-- much to destroy healthy debates.
Well said.
It's not context if the sides weren't even ideologically similar then to what they are today. The only thing that's reasonable to present is what is happening with both sides now or both sides then, if both sides were/are indeed doing it at either time point. One side now & the other side then--strikes me as temporal cherry-picking.
Nolan, a.k.a. "Born Without Borders" (please) this type of censorship is definitely from the left, where a lot of us used to be until instead of tolerance it promoted self-righteousness and force. Stop prevaricating, and really stop saying it is simply a matter of "the pendulum swinging too far." This is not about a pendulum. It is not about "mistakes were made." It is about people not taking responsibility for their ideologies. In the post above, you are one of those not taking responsibility. And you're verbose.
Hi Heather,
I completely agree that people need to take responsibility for their ideologies. I also thought the article addressed some very important and concerning issues.
I’m not sure what you mean by “type” of censorship, but people on the right have censored and suppressed free speech throughout history. Attacks on Journalists: Instances of right-wing individuals or groups physically attacking journalists or media professionals have been reported in some countries. There have been cases where right-wing activists or groups have pressured artists, performers, and cultural institutions to self-censor or cancel events that they deem offensive or contrary to their ideological beliefs Book Bans: In some cases, right-wing groups or individuals have campaigned to ban books they perceive as promoting ideas or viewpoints they disagree with. This has included attempts to remove books from school curricula or public libraries.
Anyway, I’m not saying this to defend leftist or communist ideologies. I’m very much aware of the problems communist ideologies have caused throughout history. I’m only pointing to the fact that suppressing free speech and thought isn’t just a “leftist” thing. I did this because I believe in healthy debate, free speech, and thinking from various perspectives.
Also, I’m not trying to contribute to the “left/right” divide because it’s a false dichotomy when categorizing humans, but I realize I fell victim to it.
I’m not claiming to have the answers, but it seems the hegemonic classes use labels to divide and conquer. Whether it be wealthy racists hoping to marginalize and discriminate to uphold their power or the university elite hoping oppressors will check their privilege. I might be wrong here, but labelling and categorizing people you disagree with and hope to cancel isn’t much different from labelling and categorizing people oppressors wish to silence, even if the intent comes from a more benevolent place.
Putting so much onus on these labels regarding our sense of self is especially dangerous when it comes to identity politics. In my view, identity politics are an insidious distraction. When these labels mix with politics, it becomes much more challenging to engage in a discussion because every attack on one of your opinions feels like an attack on your sense of self.
I also don't know why you decided to insult and attack me, rather than the argument. If you read closely, you can see we agree on a lot. I'm not sure why you decided to focus on what divides us, rather than focus on what we have in common. You could have provided concrete, useful examples we could discuss.
Nolan: Immature agitprop so typical of today’s authoritarian protocol-Marxist progressives. And this comes from someone who walked precincts for Democrats in the 70s. No traditional Democrat would agree with your position. Herbert Marcuse would.
No matter what your political beliefs are, you should strongly support free speech, and particularly in a debate. Otherwise, there is no actual debate, just indoctrination. If you don’t agree, feel free to try to debate the other side of that issue and claim that what you deem “wrongly think” should be silenced.
Shame on you for making this all about politics.
Hi Peter, I’m very much on the side of free speech and debate. That’s why I pointed to some events and research from a different view point. I’m not a fan of communism or these so-called “leftist” ideologies, but I am a fan of debate. I’m not sure what you think my position is or why you thought I made this more about politics than ideologies.
Reread what you wrote. You were clearly supported debate restrictions and were quite concerned about the appropriately severe criticism of those who stifle debate leading to a swinging the pendulum to the right. (You even cited Sacco and Vanzetti.)
That amounted to a defense of this indefensible behavior. Those judges who restrict debate should never again be judges.
“The best cure for bad speech is more speech.”
I don’t support debate restrictions.
You say twice it’s not from the left (it actually is) without evidence, then launch into some kind of irrelevant history lesson and then some BLM stuff. The fact is that the state of debate is atrocious and is so because of left-wing ideology 100%, which values identity groups and values “triggers” and judges who outlaw positions based on both. It’s completely ridiculous and the right, as usual, is having to assert traditional values in order to stamp down wokeness.
A Liberal is someone capable of rational argumentation who stops when the evidence no longer supports them, and who, because they sincerely want to improve the world, change their mind when necessary.
Leftists live in an infantile fantasy world where all disagreement is aggression, no quantity of evidence is ever enough, and who, because all of their ideas are bad, focus their energy and intelligence on getting and protecting power. This is the sole sincere aim.
And all Communists are Leftists, by definition. This means all Communists are inherently a threat to representative government, free speech, impartiality in the law, and equality of opportunity.
Seeking to jail or expel people who do not want to improve the system—which is the core possibility created by the Constitution—but DESTROY the system and replace it with an atavistic feudalism is nothing more or less than common sense.
I could address in depth your listing of talking points, but lack the time. I’ve done it hundreds of times. And you know what most people like you do? First, you try to pivot onto another topic. Second you start calling me names. Third, you quit, presumably to go back to your virtual or real left wing coffee shop to complain about how irrational conservatives and true moderates are. At no point do you EVER question your own self righteousness.
That makes debate an exercise I undergo to imorove my own thinking. Because I cant change or affect yours.
Leftist ideology is the entire cause of this problem, whether you're willing to believe it or not.
Yep. Wish it didn't take so long to scroll past that guy's comments.
Just make sure everything ends in "Nuclear War...."
Give me a break....
Comprof2.0 Are you the one who was let go from Hunter College because of un-teacherly behavior?
Lol! No, of course not. Don't work at Hunter College. Plus, I have firearms, so that would have been the first choice. What was the "un-teacherly behavior?" Did something happen in the classroom?
Oh-- sorry. I think someone here mentioned you were (maybe it was a joke?). I need to not believe everything I read or hear.
Yeah...that was Jahbulon. He's a deranged lunatic that's obsessed with me. He's convinced I'm Shellyne Rodiquez, a Latina who lives in NY, when I'm also not being an AI bot. Why?....because he's mentally ill.
Weird. Why? I was hoping more normal types would be on this site.
No not a bot, a vicious, ill informed, ignoramus.
Last week I posted a link as did Nellie that exposed who comprof really is. The link gave where she worked with a video.
Lol. That's not me.
https://nypost.com/2023/05/24/nyc-college-professor-shellyne-rodriguez-is-f-k-cops-group-organizer/
Why was the reporter there? Was he harrassing her? Was it a machete or a knife? Maybe she feared for her life? Was he armed? More people are killed with fists than guns? I need to see the whole video.
I missed that thread. Yikes.
Here is a proposed focus for the discussion:
Resolved: that those expressing strong political opinions in public are obligated to articulate clearly the basis of their beliefs, specifically the principles which they hold dear, how they define those principles, and what facts they feel are relevant. Those unable to do so should not be taken seriously, and if they then attempt to use coercive power to impose their ideas, should rightly be judged by all as Fascistic in temperament, if not specific named political committment.
Yeah, that was a bit leading, but pretty much a place I would be happy to live, and most Leftists would refuse to touch. Once you take a clear position, you can't mutate on a dime, which is the actual game they play.
Well said. Your proposition eliminates posters like comprof from any discourse on this BBS.
I must disagree with you in the most strident of terms:
Everyone has the right to watch a pontificating advocate make an absolute fool of himself.
And, oddly, there are occasions when the fool trips over a solution that others have missed.
I included that story in a book chapter I wrote for IGI. I was both horrified and infuriated at the judges whose biases meant teenaged debaters couldn’t win no matter how strong their arguments, evidence, and logic.
Who would have known that the evil of DEI would infest high school debate. The upside of this story is there is no obfuscation about the what and why. It is "clear and present". I debated in college under the tutelage of one of Jimmy Carter's debate coaches. This may well become the incident that is the beginning of the end of the DEI debate.
Debating debate. Interesting idea. The potentially interesting aspect is that for those who truly don't believe they should need to be able to articulate and defend clear principles such an opportunity will have no appeal. The only people likely to show up are the ones who don't need it.
I still like the idea. I'm busy and unlikely to participate, but who knows?
Is there any way this is recorded? I’m in London and the time is not terrific for me to listen to this debate
I just posted the same query. I live in Italy.
What part of Italy. My wife has a cousin in Ostia Antica. We love Italy, the people, the gorgeous countryside and of course the wine and food. I think my favorite city is Siena.
I am a dry red wine drinker but I love the dry white of Orvieto. I am addicted to salati frutti de mare.
Since Covid we haven't been back. I really miss it
Would it be possible to also include in the discussion on Thursday evening one of a number of debate judges whose illiberal ideaology is well known in this arena? If invited to participate would he/she even accept the invitation?
As they prepare for debate, I suggest everyone read about Harvard President Drew Faust speaking at the United States Military Academy (West Point) in 2016:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/03/to-speak-and-move-others-to-act/
"Speaking at the U.S. Military Academy, Harvard President Drew Faust told an audience of about 800 West Point cadets and faculty members Thursday that an understanding of humanity — including what inspires people to action — is at the heart of leadership."
2016 seems so long ago, yes, the Harvard President spoke at West Point...
#GoNavyBeatArmy
This is amazing. Thank you so much for sharing light to this important topic.
Bari: sorry that I didn’t see a way to send you a note outside of another story’s comments. I want to suggest a story to explore. It is the relabeling of “mass shootings” to incorporate what used to be called “gang-related” or “rival” shootings. This this seems intentional, to draw away labels from black on black shootings, while simultaneously increasing the incidences of “mass shootings” that strengthens the gun ban argument. The prompt for this note came from a CBS national evening news on Memorial Day about a shooting near Miami, FL. The intro headline was “Mass shooting”, while the report told of rival groups shooting at each other, 4-5 guns recovered, innocent bystanders shot in the crossfire, etc. It seems the categorization of this as a mass shooting is meant to obscure some behavior we no longer want to talk about, and build a narrative of epidemic mass shootings, which there are already plenty of. Many traditional media report and label similarly.
Maybe there’s a story there . . .
does anyone know where the link is for this live conversation??
Hi Linda! You can register for the event here: https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_TwZwAGioQm-iCwTPP-Svsw
At root, debate is a structured way of asking Why a lot.
You say you want to improve humanity. Why do you believe your ideas are better? Why do you claim those of your opponent are worse? Why do you favor this method over some other?
Why do you to improve human life, and what would that look like? Why that way and not some other?
Its not unreasonable to view Platos Dialogues as debates in which Socrates always won by asking Why a lot.
All logical processes begin with core assumptions that cannot be further defended, but logic very much CAN be used to identify and map those assumptions.
It is not logical to find baby seals adoreable but it is logical to want to defend them if you do. But even there you may find baby Eskimoes adoreable too and there may be a real world, practical and unavoidable conflict between loving seals and loving people who need them to survive.
The failure to perform that sort of analysis is a core feature of Leftist thought. They want the good feels but none of the bad, and since the world rarely works that way they develop the habit of lying early on.
I don’t know where the link to this meeting would be.
Sorry, where do we register for this event?
If you're a paid subscriber, you just click on the link, I believe.
The link doesn’t take you to the login for the event
I’m glad I’m not the only one.
click on what link?? I don’t see any link to click to this conversation!
Ah, thanks. I’m used to other methods of signing up (for free) at EventBrite,
I’m already a paying member! Why did I receive this without a login??
Hi Peter! Please click here to register for this evening's event: https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_TwZwAGioQm-iCwTPP-Svsw
Sounds like a bunch of yentas getting ready to talk about a tornado. Absolutely no control over the situation, but everyone has an opinion.
Most if you voted for this and now the chickens are coming home to roost.
The law of unintended consequences?
"most of you"
Not me. I didn't vote for this idiocy and certainly don't support it.
Negative Nancy/Ned, no need to make derogatory comments. If you think the discussion is pointless then don’t show up.