I was saddened to hear about the violence in D.C. this weekend, with over 100 people arrested and substantial damage to property. If a march is to succeed, it should be nonviolent, as was the case with the civil rights and Vietnam marches in the Sixties (yes, I know there was some violence). If the Left is to keep the moral high ground, we simply can’t go around physically attacking those whose views we don’t like. In fact it’s ironic, because when progressives do this, they’re implicitly denying someone a REAL safe space: a space to be free to express your opinions and remain physically safe. “Safety” refers to freedom from physical attack or illegal harassment, not to freedom from hearing views you don’t like.
As a conscientious objector, I’ve always adhered to the nonviolent philosophies of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi, for if you start violence, you lose credibility.
View original post 427 more words
The entire American political system seems to be on fire. You see it to a degree in other countries, but the degree that American politics is ripping itself apart is astonishing. I’m actually surprised at this point that the violence hasn’t been worse to be honest. But I cannot believe that someone like Dan Arel is excusing this kind of behavior. There is simply no excuse for it.
I’ll be heading into the States in a few months. I’m feeling a bit of trepidation about crossing the border this time around, and what I’ll find on the other side when I do.
It’s possible a certain degree of violence among men should be considered free speech. Men scrap and then carry on as friends. Small scale physical confrontation among men is a type of expression and it some cases is completely fine
the women’s march the very next day had as far as i know no violence, and no arrests!
In the U.S., too many progressive leftists are childish. Consider what happened to Heather Mac Donald when she gave her “Diversity Delusion” speech at an American university. Activists pounded plate glass windows, Ms. Mac Donald needed to speak in an empty lecture hall and the campus police escorted her through a back door because they doubted that they could guarantee her safety.
While Mr. Michael Knowles spoke about why men ar not women, a college student poured something on Mr. Knowles’s suit coat. A policeman pinned, handcuffed and arrested the disruptive audience-member.
The day Americans heard that President Trump had won the 2016 election, some smashed store windows while other lit fires and a woman yelled “No,”
Who hadn’t learned about college students who needed hot chocolate an therapy dogs after that election?
Compare this behavior to how American Republicans reacted each time President Obama won. They told themselves that though they wanted hid opponent to win, they needed to “get behind” President Obamna and hope that he would succeed.
I’m an American post-liberal hereditary monarchist who wants to live in a Catholic kingdom where the sovereign rules for the common good. I also hold a B.A. degree in Philosophy, a subject I studied in graduate school, too, where I specialized in logic.
It seems to me that American progressive leftists get too emotional because they have little or no evidence for what they believe. They don’t apply the philosopher’s principle of charity when they impulsively(?) yell “racist,” “bigot,” “homophobe,” and more. instead, they insult others to marginalize and silence them. But during their irrational temper tantrums, they ignore an important point: Their calumnies silence only those who are not what they’re accused of.
Remember what Lord Bertrand Russell writes in the Introduction to his Skeptical Essays. They more passionately people say what they believe, the less evidence they have for it, Genuine knowers, on the other hand, argue calmly for what they, the knowers, think and wait for the arguments to convince their hearers.
Alex is right. Bratty progressive leftists my lose their credibility. But before they gain or regain it, maybe they should reflect on whether they can reason calmly enough to answer objections and convince those who disagree with them.