For those who do not have the time to watch any of the various interviews with Weinstein, I will summarize a few salient points. This was much worse than I thought before listening to the interview.
Weinstein hasn't merely been accused of being a racist without basis and he hasn't merely been yelled at. That would be bad enough. He's been stalked, physically threatened (with kidnapping and death), and harassed to the point where he is holding his classes in a downtown park instead of on campus because it isn't safe for him on campus. He has been advised that there are students who are literally, physically searching the campus, door to door, and car by car, for him.
But that isn't the worst of it. The worst of it is that elements of the administration and faculty are at least passively complicit, and in some cases, maybe actively. The university president isn't supporting him at all, has said nothing to tamp any of this down, and won't even allow the police on campus to protect him. This man should be fired, and an investigation should be pursued into his conduct. In that order. Any university president who fails and refuses to physically protect his own employees should be out of a job.
That's been the right wing media's MO for a while. They basically troll for some isolated instance of illiberalism that they can feed back to their base as the epitome of all that is liberalism.
I'm just glad you are here in this thread. I was beginning to think it was just ideological war all day every day here. Just as the actions of these students ought to be repudiated by the Left, lest they be taken to represent the Left at large, the actions of bad actors on the Right need to be called out and repudiated by the Right as well.
The sad irony is you'd get shouted down a lot of places by liberals, as you were trying to voice this.
Notice you won't even get the cowards on this forum to even acknowledge there's a problem, let alone go "hey, you know, you're right. "
It's funny to me how the left just dismisses everything as "Fox news!" and now their new favorite boogyman that's taken up residence under every lefty's bed.. the utltra scary, all powerful, 'alt right!' OOOOOOOOO!!! scary!
So the fact that there's fucking days on a college campus where people are excluded- BASED ON RACE! Nope! Doesn't exist! Fox News!!! Alt right boogyman!! WAHHH!!
Videos showing numbskull, authoritarian-minded leftists shouting down people, calling people racist for objecting to race-based exclusions on campus.... FOX NEWS!!! ALT RIGHT!! WAHHH!!!
Just look at this thread. No ability what-so-ever to deal with REALITY, just whine about Fox news and then sweep the actual SUBJECT under the rug. That's all you're going to get from your fellow 'progressives'. (Joke term). None will even address the problem- the delusional psychos here (and indicative of large numbers of leftists) actually think the terms 'snowflake' and 'safe space' and all the thing their fellow leftists are ridiculed for (FOR CREATING IN REALITY!) are just inventions and that they can level the insult against anyone that points it out! Just read any loony thread here that even approaches this subject.
But good luck if you think you'll get any of your fellow regressives to wake up. Too busy worrying about Fox News and the 'alt right' boogyman hiding under the bed.
Yeah man but why would they do that? The problem at this Liberal utopia isn't Leadership non-action, 'the problem' is this non-conforming teacher. I mean, the temerity of this guy to not conform, WhoTF does he think he is? I for one enjoy the culmination of Liberalism as expressed by these True Believer students. At least they're open in their actions as dictated by theirprogrammingBeliefs.
I find your speculations about what motivates liberals to be...predictable. Yet you know less than you think you do.
Very few liber[als support this sort of behavior, particularly liberals of the gen x or baby boom gen. This is mainly an issue with millennials in college right now.
The trouble is the partisan atmosphere.
When this is presented as a right wing talking point from conservative sources, we remember back to the last 20 of these talking points and how they turned out to be exaggerated or completely false. Not scrutinizing it very closely is a reflexive response. Which is why I decided to post here after hearing the Weinstein interview.
It's not like you guys give all that much credence to stories about bad behavior of conservatives, including our current commander-in-chief. Pretty much everything we present is written off as a product of liberal bias and/or liberal conspiracy. So don't be surprised when your allegations, even when they happen to be true, are initially greeted with suspicion. It's a case of the conservative who cried wolf.
Lol, mmmkay.
Sure they support it, they're just to old and - for most - have jobs and life duties to fulfill. If they could waive the bounds of law and be accountable to only their own ideals, they'd be right out SJW with these young idiots.
No! You don't say! You mean when Hollywood, the majority of the Media, and the vast bulk of education if filled with Lib leanings/indoctrination/propaganda, the atmosphere becomes partisan?! That a tipping point in the social programming starts to be reached where non-adherence (perceived or otherwise) to said indoctrination becomes untenable to the newly immersed in programming masses? Who knew?!
I really don't follow "conservative media" so I couldn't say, but I suspect it's far more of an issue of there is so little Media representation on the Right, vs. the massive Media representation on the Left (and now with social media that becomes even greater), then factor in Hollywood, that there is such little opportunity for Lefty insanity to be effectively covered, much less aired if it ever was, that we never hear about the majority of the stupidity - but can just watch it ourselves in daily life. Of course, Lefty Hollywood/Media will police themselves, they're trustable in that regard /sarc. Hell, those unbiased professors can even throw in a "study" how their propaganda arm isn't biased at all lol. Supah trustable!
That's been the right wing media's MO for a while. They basically troll for some isolated instance of illiberalism that they can feed back to their base as the epitome of all that is liberalism.
Yes, that's an accurate description of their MO. The trouble is that in this case, it's more than isolated. Not only did this involve a fairly large number of students, but there is complicity from the administration. While the complicity has made this much worse than the usual outcome at other schools, the underlying behavior of these students is far from confined to Evergreen. There are too many stories of this nature to just assume that this is not a real problem.
Bret Weinstein is concerned that behavior like this is threatening to undo real progress that has been made in civil rights. He has reason to be.
He's presenting on conservative media because they are willing to let him tell his story (yes, primarily because conservative media wants to paint liberals as these psychotic loons). Weinstein doesn't seem worried about that because, as he expresses in the interview, he no longer feels he aligns with left or right wing politics even though he still considers himself a progressive. This is because in both cases he believes the mechanisms in place are broken. They encourage to much blind obedience and not enough conscious dialogue, where individuals are open to seeking out truth instead of just trying to help their team "win".That must be why Weinstein is offering to be a posterchild for the conservative media. I'll charitably chalk this up your naivete.
He's presenting on conservative media because they are willing to let him tell his story (yes, primarily because conservative media wants to paint liberals as these psychotic loons). Weinstein doesn't seem worried about that because, as he expresses in the interview, he no longer feels he aligns with left or right wing politics even though he still considers himself a progressive. This is because in both cases he believes the mechanisms in place are broken. They encourage to much blind obedience and not enough conscious dialogue, where individuals are open to seeking out truth instead of just trying to help their team "win".
That must be why Weinstein is offering to be a posterchild for the conservative media. Let's charitably chalk this up to your naivete.
So you consider Fox news and the Klan to be reasonable comparisons? The claim that all conservatives are the equivalent to the Klan is even worse than those saying that these college students at Evergreen are representative of progressives.He knows the benefits of being one of the good ones better than his defenders would admit. Next he's probably going to klan rallies to brag about how "progressive/lefist" he is.
I think you really ought to listen the Weinstein interview, then get back to me. He has exceptionally good reasons for speaking out here, and he wants exposure in mainstream media. He took an interview with Tucker Carlson because that is the maximum exposure he was offered.That's why he wrote the op-ed for the WSJ when he was permitted to do so. I don't blame him for wanting to speak out. He has few options for doing so at Evergreen. And what he has to say here is important.
Listen to him. If you detect even if slightest hint that he's a closet racist or a closet conservative, or if you can find any fault with anything this man is saying or doing, let me know.
He knows the benefits of being one of the good ones better than his defenders would admit. Next he's probably going to klan rallies to brag about how "progressive/lefist" he is.
Notice his other interview is with Dave Rubin who's basically a less gay version of Milo Y. Worth reiterating that he's apparently smarter than you.
So you consider Fox news and the Klan to be reasonable comparisons? The claim that all conservatives are the equivalent to the Klan is even worse than those saying that these college students at Evergreen are representative of progressives.
In this interview which you clearly did not listen to, Weinstein said, among other things, that there are real racial inequities, and serious ones, for example, in the judicial system. He says the students are displacing their legitimate concerns onto our universities, because the universities are soft targets, and targets of opportunity. He's concerned that by crying racism in the wrong context, they are jeopardizing their credibility if or when they get around to applying the charge where it belongs.
This hardly sounds like someone I expect to see at a Klan rally any time soon. Are you taking wagers on this prediction?
It's the Rubin interview that I linked so one would assume that I know who Rubin is.
Dave Rubin is hardly a "less gay version of Milo Y." I find it hilarious that you would make that comparison and impugn my intelligence. Rubin isn't even remotely racist.
I'm sure he's showing that "concern" by acting the posterchild for right wing victimization.
You could also make the argument Milo isn't racist per se either. He just appeals to a certain sort by design.
No, he's not. You don't seem to have the slightest clue as to what he's actually doing because you're arguing from a position of ignorance.
One could make that argument, but I wouldn't. MY is either racist or he deliberately appeals to those who are. Neither of those things is true of Dave Rubin. Rubin has nothing to do with the alt right. It's unclear if it's even appropriate to label him conservative.
I don't sympathize with the messages typically associated with Fox, and I'm glad we both agree it is not equivalent to the Klan. However, I understand sometimes a person has to use the communication channels available, and so I judge each message based on the merits of its arguments. Until you are willing to take the time to actually listen to Weinstein's perspectives, I see no point in continuing this back and forth.Pretty obvious the implication that the klan is to the right of Fox, even if Fox is meant as a safe harbor for them. This is evident enough when Fox & friends choose to highlight AA & political correctness as the Real racism.
No, Milo is technically not racist, he makes very careful certainty of this.
Dave Rubin's show slogan is literally: "Care about free speech? Tired of political correctness? Like discussions about big ideas?". Gee, I wonder what "big ideas" necessarily require dismissal of PC and "free speech".
So either Weinstein is as naive as you or--I don't think he is.
I don't sympathize with the messages typically associated with Fox, and I'm glad we both agree it is not equivalent to the Klan. However, I understand sometimes a person has to use the communication channels available, and so I judge each message based on the merits of its arguments. Until you are willing to take the time to actually listen to Weinstein's perspectives, I see no point in continuing this back and forth.
I don't think that everyone who believes that PC has gotten out of hand is a raging conservative. His views on the topic are essentially identical to those of Bill Maher, who is hardly a conservative.
One need not tow the party line on every issue to not be the ideological enemy. Rubin thinks that excessive PC is authoritarian and isn't truly progressive at all. I don't agree with him on every issue, but I think he's correct about that. Going over everyone's language with a fine toothed comb and applying the obscene social stigma of racism to everyone deemed to be out of line is NOT liberal. Anyone who thinks so knows nothing about liberalism or what it has stood for over the past several hundred years.
Milo also makes sense sometimes if you take it away from the context around him. This is all a political game pretty carefully orchestrated by professionals. I think your better option here is to insist that Weinstein shares in the naivety.
I'm not saying he's conservative, he & peers like Milo just play to people with those tendencies. Notice I've never said Milo is racist; I don't even necessarily think Trump is racist.
This is basically the same thing as that Judith Curry shill who started becoming a "skeptic".
What I said about Milo is that he's either racist or he's intentionally appealing to those who are. I would add that it's pretty clear he's doing so for personal aggrandizement.
Judith Curry is trying to be an iconoclast, probably because she's a mediocre climate scientist and this is how she can make a name for herself.
I can definitely see the comparison between those two.
Rubin is a different animal altogether. He doesn't say things to get a rise out of people. He really doesn't say all that much that is sensationalist or offensive. He just thinks that PC has gotten out of hand. I only agree with about half of his opinions, but I find nothing he says to be outside the realm of reason and I have no impression that he's trying to be a douche just to get attention and ratings.
Enough said about Rubin. You'll either take the time to watch some of his interviews, or you won't. I highly recommend his interview with Sam Harris in addition to the Weinstein interview.
So you are going to assign naivety to a person that you won't even take the time to listen to. Brilliant.Milo also makes sense sometimes if you take it away from the context around him. This is all a political game pretty carefully orchestrated by professionals. I think your better option here is to insist that Weinstein shares in the naivety.
So you are going to assign naivety to a person that you won't even take the time to listen to. Brilliant.
Hardly surprising when backwards idiots can't figure out why smart/educated people are students of the western liberal enlightenment.
No, he's not. You don't seem to have the slightest clue as to what he's actually doing because you're arguing from a position of ignorance.
Hardly surprising when backwards idiots can't figure out why smart/educated people are students of the western liberal enlightenment.