[ExI] outrage

[William Flynn Wallace]

This doesn't excuse anything today. The rationale and agents behind the
change are certainly different, for instance.

Regards,

Dan

Look what we are reduced to:  We had better not even spell out the N word
and of course cannot say it.  Nor can intimidated media.  We can't say
colored people but can say people of color (I have heard that 'black' is
now unacceptable).  Now I will suggest that this kind of splitting hairs is
taking on the aura of religion.  Saying the wrong thing is blasphemy, so no
kind of secular right to free speech will trump it.  It also suggests to me
a kind of 'holier than thou' attitude on the part of the speech suppressors.

So what we have is fanaticism.  This can result from an overreaction or
overcompensation to doubt.  Are they in fact free of racism themselves?
Hardly - so they are in denial.  They are demanding that others be pure in
a way that they are not, unconsciously.  Just accuse one of racism and see
if they flame you.  If they calmly say that probably most people have some
racism, then this analysis is wrong, at least for that person.  My bet is
that they will get angry.  Righteous indignation is the cliche' term for
the emotion.  (anal retentive is the cliche' term for the person).

Now this kind of interpretation can go on for pages, but I think this is
adequate to explain the facts.

bill w

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 8:14 AM, William Flynn Wallace <
> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I definitely didn’t see that one coming.  That college campuses
> > would be leading the charge to restrict free speech?  That college
> > students wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between men and
> > women?  That campuses would want “safe zones”?  Had Orwell
> > put that in the sequel to Nineteen Eighty Four, I would have
> > disregarded it as a joke.
> >
> > spike
> >
> >
> > Does anyone know if the 'safe zones' etc. were the instigation of far
> > left faculty, which then organized students, or were the students the
> > instigators?  i suspect the former.
>
> I believe it started outside of academia all together -- or, at least, off
> campus.
>
> However, we look further back, we see the Free Speech Movement (in the US)
> of the 01960s. That was to open up campuses to more free expression.
> Wouldn't that imply that before the FSM campuses were less open to free
> expression? And, if so, what we're seeing now is free expression being
> re-curtailed. In other words, the history here is not one of since the
> beginning of time universities were "free expression zones" and only in the
> last decade or two became the domain of speech codes and the like. (This
> isn't meant to be a comprehensive history of this. I'm just connecting dots
> here. I'm missing many more dots. This is just my first pass at
> explanation, so YMMV.:)
>
> This doesn't excuse anything today. The rationale and agents behind the
> change are certainly different, for instance.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>   Sample my Kindle books via:
> http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160617/3bcf4c5e/attachment.html>