Four things they did differently that made real conversation possible

All other Political discussion that does not affect our ability to enjoy the outdoors.
Post Reply
User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Four things they did differently that made real conversation possible

#1

Post by GregD » Fri Oct 27, 2017 6:10 pm

I like her suggestions on how to have a productive discussion in the face of intense disagreement.




User avatar
Scuba
Site Admin
Reactions:
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 10:02 pm
Location: San Antonio
Hammock: DreamHammock
Tarp: UGQ WD or Hanger
Suspension: Varies
Insulation: UGQ40 HG20

Re: Four things they did differently that made real conversation possible

#2

Post by Scuba » Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:35 pm

my problem with modern political discourse is that a lot of people think that shouting down opposing views is acceptable/appropriate. You (generic you, not you in particular) have a right to have an opinion that is different than mine, and you have the right to be wrong :) . one of my favorite classes in college was Ethics because the professor ran a tight ship, but had an incredible ability to encourage and manage a healthy debate. Unfortunately when I started Nursing School proper, that all changed, because 99.9% of the professors leaned VERY far to the left and would not tolerate any opinion that was different than theirs...and as an older, male, prior service student, I was surrounded by mostly young, indoctrinated, female snowflakes who had no tolerance for me or my opinion until they needed help with their studies and endless care plans.

My point, people need to listen and do so in a civil manner, then if you disagree, shake their hand and move on.
"I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all." - Gen James Mattis, USMC RET.
Owner/Administrator HammockHangers.net

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Four things they did differently that made real conversation possible

#3

Post by BillyBob66 » Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:40 pm

Scuba wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:35 pm
my problem with modern political discourse is that a lot of people think that shouting down opposing views is acceptable/appropriate. You (generic you, not you in particular) have a right to have an opinion that is different than mine, and you have the right to be wrong :) . one of my favorite classes in college was Ethics because the professor ran a tight ship, but had an incredible ability to encourage and manage a healthy debate. Unfortunately when I started Nursing School proper, that all changed, because 99.9% of the professors leaned VERY far to the left and would not tolerate any opinion that was different than theirs...and as an older, male, prior service student, I was surrounded by mostly young, indoctrinated, female snowflakes who had no tolerance for me or my opinion until they needed help with their studies and endless care plans.

My point, people need to listen and do so in a civil manner, then if you disagree, shake their hand and move on.
I became a nurse (RN) back in 75, completing the courses I started in 68-70 before I was gone to the military. I think the instructors and my fellow (but younger and mostly female) students were no where near as far left back then as you describe, at least not in GA. Though I was fairly left leaning myself at that time.

This is a very good video. But I think the Westboro so called Baptist Church(WBC) is an extreme - VERY extreme- version of Christianity, so much so as to bear very little relationship to the teachings of Jesus and His disciples. So much different as to not really even qualify as Christian, IMO. Your point "my problem with modern political discourse is that a lot of people think that shouting down opposing views is acceptable/appropriate." is right on. But so far at least, it seems that 90% of that problem comes from the left. Whether from Antifa, or the average university profs and students, the new attitude seems to be "you have no right to speak and must shut up, be shouted down, or suffer violence". I would expect the KKK to be the same, but they are such a minority as to be almost non-existent and a non-issue so far. For example, you find the extreme left and pro black power and anti-Israel(notice WBC is also anti-Israel!) in large #s on almost every university(not to mention throughout the media), but where is the KKK among these groups? Non-existent! And almost so among general society. I live in MS for gosh sake, and have lived in GA and AL, and I don't personally know a soul who is KKK or speaks in favor of them. Again for emphasis: I have never heard any one I know personally- even from my fellow right wingers and Baptists- speak in favor of the likes of the KKK. I have heard plenty of them speak against it. So, they and those like them are basically shutting down the speech of ZERO folks or darn near it. But the other side? It is constant ever present real threat to freedom and civilization.

Still, the larger point is the need of both sides to listen without hatred. Because if you can not even speak, what is left for you but violence? That 1st amendment is in there for a reason. though it only stops the Feds(Congress shall make no law) from keeping the people and the states from speaking, it's principle is a good one for all.

From the video, I love that "Don't assume bad intent". This is one I need to work on.
Last edited by BillyBob66 on Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Four things they did differently that made real conversation possible

#4

Post by GregD » Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:27 pm

BillyBob66 wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:40 pm
Your point "my problem with modern political discourse is that a lot of people think that shouting down opposing views is acceptable/appropriate." is right on. But so far at least, it seems that 90% of that problem comes from the left. Whether from Antifa, or the average university profs and students, the new attitude seems to be "you have no right to speak and must shut up, be shouted down, or suffer violence". I would expect the KKK to be the same, but they are such a minority as to be almost non-existent and a non-issue so far.
3 examples of shouting down opposing views and worse by groups I would not associate with "the left":

Anti-abortion protests of legal medical facilities, their staff and patients, including obstruction, threats of violence, and even murder. Coincidentally, the first anti-abortionist convicted of murdering a doctor because that doctor provided legal abortion services was recently up for parole:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/01/fl ... aring.html

Gamergate, as one example of Internet-based harassmet including threats of physical violence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy

U.S. Congress banned a member of my faith from providing an invocation. So much for following the establishment clause.
https://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/ite ... invocation

Westboro Baptist Church is a fourth example. Shouting is their modus operandi.

User avatar
Scuba
Site Admin
Reactions:
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 10:02 pm
Location: San Antonio
Hammock: DreamHammock
Tarp: UGQ WD or Hanger
Suspension: Varies
Insulation: UGQ40 HG20

Re: Four things they did differently that made real conversation possible

#5

Post by Scuba » Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:49 pm

GregD wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:27 pm

U.S. Congress banned a member of my faith from providing an invocation. So much for following the establishment clause.
https://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/ite ... invocation
Just picking nits here, but wouldn't Atheism be better described as a LACK of faith?
"I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all." - Gen James Mattis, USMC RET.
Owner/Administrator HammockHangers.net

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Four things they did differently that made real conversation possible

#6

Post by BillyBob66 » Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:15 pm

GregD wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:27 pm
BillyBob66 wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:40 pm
Your point "my problem with modern political discourse is that a lot of people think that shouting down opposing views is acceptable/appropriate." is right on. But so far at least, it seems that 90% of that problem comes from the left. Whether from Antifa, or the average university profs and students, the new attitude seems to be "you have no right to speak and must shut up, be shouted down, or suffer violence". I would expect the KKK to be the same, but they are such a minority as to be almost non-existent and a non-issue so far.
3 examples of shouting down opposing views and worse by groups I would not associate with "the left":

Anti-abortion protests of legal medical facilities, their staff and patients, including obstruction, threats of violence, and even murder. Coincidentally, the first anti-abortionist convicted of murdering a doctor because that doctor provided legal abortion services was recently up for parole:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/01/fl ... aring.html

Gamergate, as one example of Internet-based harassmet including threats of physical violence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy

U.S. Congress banned a member of my faith from providing an invocation. So much for following the establishment clause.
https://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/ite ... invocation

Westboro Baptist Church is a fourth example. Shouting is their modus operandi.
Those few example matter not, they are still a tiny minority. I said "it seems that 90% of that problem comes from the left. ", although maybe I should have said 99%. And it certainly does. Add to that, the vast majority of people from the right- such as me- condemn the behavior of tiny Westboro or murder of abortionist. Not so on the left. Has Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama or Holder/Lynch ever come out condemning Antfa of BLM? Of course not, even though they shut down speech, traffic and threaten- and sometime do- violence. So I have no doubt you can provide some miniscule # of cases of people from the right preventing others from even speaking, but my point remains: it is mostly from the liberal left. It truly is almost the standard MO of a large part of that group. Show me an example of a left winger showing up to speak, after being requested to do so, at a university or else where, and large #s of right wingers showing up to threaten violence before hand, maybe trying to burn the place down, and/or getting into the venue
and shouting down- and/or taking over the stage- refusing to allow the invited guest to utter a word that can be heard? Have you got more than a tiny # where left wing speaker have been cancelled due to threats of violence? Or even any at all?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pr ... nt-n715711

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... s-violence

http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis- ... 435864713/

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/05/31 ... -homework/
https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/32803/
(go to :53 and watch this poor white woman- and most likely an uber liberal if she is at this college- being shouted down and run off campus with other whites. She must be terrified, she looks like she could cry! "Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, These racists teachers have got to go!" ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny7BFnDI9Aw

(OK, admittedly this is Canada and not quite the subject of being shouted down, but too sweet to pass up, read about the liberal racists, and punishing the white female who refused to move to the back of the room just because she had white skin! ) http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/11/01 ... -got-ugly/

I could go on all day with this stuff, but that should be enough for now. I dare say none of these threatening people were from the right, nor were the ones who burned Ferguson and Baltimore. I'm sorry, but the great bulk of this fairly new in America don't let people with incorrect thoughts speak deal belongs to the not so liberal left. ( The liberals used to be big on free speech for all, back through at least the 60s, but that seems to be gone for them and replaced by PC speech only, IOW their speech only. Mao and Stalin would approve.


Though corrupt modern judges no doubt disagree with me, I don't think there even is an establishment clause, and if there is it has nothing to do with giving you the right to(EDIT: appear at their get together and)- what, pray? To whom? The first amendment- despite the perversion by modern liberal judges- is to protect a given Christian denomination from being oppressed by the federal government in favor of other Christian denominations. Many of the states- who sent reps to the convention to sign the constitution- had state supported churches! They were never going to sign anything that might allow the feds to have any say over their state churches and how they did religion in their sovereign state! These states would have never sent a rep who did not support the concept of their state church( such as Massachusetts for ex) and their freedom to have such , or who would have signed anything that might hint that the feds would ever have any authority in these matters. Hence their demand for additional protection(for them, the states!) in the form of the 1st amendment which said "CONGRESS shall pass no law respecting( definition in context of the times = regarding) and establishment of religion NOR prohibiting the free exercise thereof". ( even today one meaning is:"With regard or relation to; regarding; concerning." http://www.wordnik.com/words/respecting ) The entire house and senate passed a resolution, which can be seen even today in the congressional archives- that, after George Washington's 1st inauguration, the entire body would accompany him for worship at St.Paul's. ( see Wed Apr.29, page 241, left column center) https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?c ... recNum=122

Do you actually think- just as a matter of logic- that any of this bunch actually signed a constitution that they thought would give an atheist the right to give the invocation that has always- until possibly just the last few years- been given only by Christians? To think they wrote or signed something meaning that is totally illogical, or at least it seems to me. But they did immediately hire government Christian chaplains for the Congress. See Apr 27 page 216 upper right corner: https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?c ... recNum=109

So, in my view, "So much for following the establishment clause." is not valid, they are very much following the exact meaning of the 1st Amendment. Though I realize that modern liberal judges, being far from the events of that day, think otherwise.
Last edited by BillyBob66 on Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Four things they did differently that made real conversation possible

#7

Post by GregD » Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:53 pm

Competent judges wouldn't agree with you Bill because on that statement you are incorrect:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
It is in the constitution in rather plain, clear, language.

How the framers got from "all men are created equal" in the declaration of independence to establishing a government that allowed slavery was also a path of broken logic.

I agree there are many examples of bad behavior from my fellow lefties.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Four things they did differently that made real conversation possible

#8

Post by BillyBob66 » Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:41 pm

GregD wrote:
Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:53 pm
Competent judges wouldn't agree with you Bill because on that statement you are incorrect:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
It is in the constitution in rather plain, clear, language.

How the framers got from "all men are created equal" in the declaration of independence to establishing a government that allowed slavery was also a path of broken logic.

I agree there are many examples of bad behavior from my fellow lefties.
As I previously said, modern corrupt liberal leftist judges won't agree with me, but all of the founders and signers of the constitution would. You are exactly correct, it is very plain, clear language, like many of the Biblical prophets. All there in black and white. How can you or any judge offer proof that they did not mean- by the plain language of the day- that CONGRESS shall pass NO law REGARDING an establishment of religion? Since even today a major meaning of respecting is regarding? And considering the context of an abundance of circumstances such as all of these representatives of the sovereign states Congress and Senators placing a resolution in the records of BOTH houses stating that every one of them would accompany Washington to Christian worship service in St.Paul's after the inaugeration where Washington kissed the Bible, how could any judge who was not corrupted by leftist socialism disagree with me? Wouldn't the behavior of all of these reps and the Pres be called a violation of the establishment clause by these, as you call them(but not me) "competent" judges? Of course! Just think if the congress and president tried to pull of such today! But are you actually going to argue that modern, liberal judges know more about what this amendment meant than the men who sent their reps and/or signed it at that time? Our modern guys know more about this amendment - which many states sent reps to insist upon if they were going to sign on to give up some few powers to this new government- than the guys who wrote it? They know more about it than same men who were sent by their states with their official state churches, to insist upon this amendment? Really?

But all of this is probably getting OT from your original point of letting people speak, which I totally agree with. I don't think it has been OT for me to insist that most- if not all- of this(denying free speech rights) comes from the so called liberal left. You have disagreed. But I will ask you again, because I want to know about it if it exists: Do you have any videos or other evidence of any liberal speaker at a university being shouted down or threatened with violence or otherwise prevented from speaking by a right winger like me? Anything even vaguely like what was happening with that poor white woman(instructor or admin, not sure) at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington(is there a more liberal part of the country?), or her liberal male associate who the blacks wanted to run off of campus for a day due to his white skin?(I would not be surprised if both she and he are now a tad less liberal after their personal experience of racial hatred against them) I'm thinking if you can find any at all coming from conservatives acting in such a vile manner, it is going to be darned few. I, on the other hand, can provide you with many more examples, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Sadly, I am going to be able to provide you with more in the future, you know I am, don't you? Now I can't guarantee that someday soon the worm won't turn, and we will start to see the left suddenly up against the same fascism that they have been dealing out. But for now, and ever since maybe the 60s, the left almost owns this Stalinist behavior. After all, the idea of modern PC theory, and "useful idiots" probably had it's official start in atheistic communism of Marx/Lenin/Stalin/Mao/Castro/Che/Pol Pot etc. None of them much valued the free speech of those they ruled. Or free thought. Or their lives, as 50-100 million with wrong thinking would be done away with by them.
Last edited by BillyBob66 on Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Four things they did differently that made real conversation possible

#9

Post by BillyBob66 » Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:05 pm

https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/06/07 ... peaks-out/

"I recently met with a student who was angry that she was told to shut up at a student rally, based solely on the amount of pigment in her skin. She did not comply, and was called a racist. I asked her if this bothered her. She said: “No, because I am not racist.”"

Talk about brainwashing! She can not even object to or be bothered by being told to shut up because of her white skin,because to do so would make her racist. Is there any hope for the future of this country?

"To the faculty, too afraid to speak out: I urge you to walk toward the fire. After all, if this brave student is a bigot, then I guess I am too. They are just words. You will not lose your job, but you might lose your dignity.

The tale is about two men trying to save Evergreen. One is an absolute coward (Bridges) and the other is an ultimate hero (Weinstein). Who should be forced to resign? Weinstein reluctantly went on Fox News, because no other news source would pick up his story. His excellent op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal followed. Videos don’t lie, Weinstein’s logic prevailed, and cognitive dissonance set in amongst Evergreen faculty. This was the first time that I found out that those who watch Tucker Carlson are the “alt-right”. I should probably tell my family. Objections were made about whether Weinstein had mischaracterized Day of Absence/Day of Presence as “forcing” white students off campus. He didn’t, but why would this detail negate everything else that Weinstein wrote? When one is confronted with truths that contradict closely held beliefs, the mind begins to make outlandish rationalizations. The faculty email response will someday be used in psychology textbooks as a case study in group thinking......"Then our college President saw his opportunity. Evergreen administrators sent out ominous notices, labeling “free speech” advocates and persons who simply do not agree with “official” campus opinion as potentially violent. It was a desperate move, using fear tactics to rally the masses and prevent students from thinking clearly. This morning was the first time that I was actually nervous coming to campus. Not because of threats of white supremacists, but because I was worried that someone on campus would think that I might be one of them. And then we got the alert on campus. I could see the fear in some of our students faces, as I helped escort a student of color to her dormitory. Then I decided to stay on campus for a while. An administrator approached, and asked: “How did we get to this point?”

I guess safe spaces can be dangerous places.

Mike Paros DVM
Professor of Biology
The Evergreen State College.............."
Last edited by BillyBob66 on Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Four things they did differently that made real conversation possible

#10

Post by BillyBob66 » Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:23 pm

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-appal ... le/2008407

"At Evergreen State College, the revolution will be televised. And it already has been, thanks to the smartphone.

Since May 23, the 4,089-student public liberal arts college in Olympia, Washington, has been embroiled in what the media euphemistically call "student protests" over perceived racial grievances. At Evergreen State that has actually meant: invading a professor's class to taunt him with charges of racism; occupying the library and the college president's office while the campus police, ordered to stand down, barricade themselves in their headquarters; delivering F-bombs, derision, and assorted demands—firing the police chief, confiscating the guns of the rest of the police, setting up mandatory race-oriented "cultural competency" training for the faculty, excusing the protesters from their end-of-term assignments, and providing free gumbo for a radical potluck—to the cornered president, George Bridges; and creating such a threatening atmosphere for the professor in question, evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein (another target of the firing demands), that he had to hold his class on May 25 in a public park in downtown Olympia. If a photo posted on Instagram is to be taken at face value, it has also meant wielding baseball bats and posing ominously on the balconies of student apartments.

The videos, made on the phones of Evergreen State students, were ubiquitous as the activities of the 200 or so protesters culminated in a literal shutdown of the college (Evergreen State suspended operations from the afternoon of June 1 to the afternoon of June 5, even though it had been scheduled to hold the last of its spring-term classes on those days, after someone made a 911 call threatening to shoot up the campus with a .44 Magnum). The first of the videos featured the May 23 invasion of Weinstein's classroom at 9:30 a.m. by about 50 angry students provoked by what they characterized as Weinstein's racism. He had objected to a college-sponsored Day of Absence on April 10, when white students, faculty, and staff had been encouraged to make themselves scarce on campus. This video was excised from YouTube for violating the site's "harassment and bullying" policy after protesters complained it had been selectively edited to make them look like harassers and bullies. Fortunately for the curious, the much-copied video is available in whole elsewhere on the Internet (the website Heterodox Academy claims to offer a 12-minute "unedited" version) and in snippets on YouTube of a 6-minute interview that Weinstein gave to Fox News's Tucker Carlson on May 25.

The 12-minute video shows the husky, bearded Weinstein, clad in an outdoorsy-biology-prof black T-shirt, trying patiently to engage the students who have shut down his classroom in a "dialectic," as he called it. Weinstein later described himself to Carlson as a "deeply progressive person" who had supported socialist-leaning Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential primaries. But the Evergreen students captured in the May 23 video were having nothing to do with Weinstein's attempts to lift the conversation to a high-minded, fancy-word "dialectic" plane:

"This is not a discussion—you lost that one! You said racist s—! Now apologize!"

Weinstein responded: "I did not!"

"Stop telling people of color they're f— useless! You're useless!"

"Yeah, resign!" screamed another student.

"Resign!" screamed yet another................"I'm not resigning."

"Hey hey! Ho ho! Bret Weinstein has got to go!"

The video followed the students yelling the chant in unison as they tried to block the campus police (probably called in by one of Weinstein's biology students) shielding Weinstein as he exited the building.

The funniest—and also the saddest—of the videos might be called the Homework Video, or perhaps the Gumbo Video. Viewed more than 86,000 times on YouTube, it recorded the events of a May 24 meeting with Bridges in his office, which the protesters had invaded and taken over, blocking the exits while some of them checked their phones and helped themselves to what appeared to be university-supplied pizza as they sat at the college president's conference table. The 66-year-old Bridges, balding, pudgy, bespectacled, and given to sporting bow ties on dressy occasions, had the misfortune of visually calling to mind Bobby Trippe, the adipose city slicker raped by hillbillies in John Boorman's 1972 backwoods horror flick Deliverance. Subconsciously—or perhaps archetypally, since none was alive when Deliverance was ringing up the cash registers during the early 1970s—the Evergreen protesters similarly seemed to smell blood with the eager-to-please and ultimately hapless Bridges. He had already had an encounter with them the day before, when they stormed his office at 4:30 in the afternoon not long after their successful disruption of Weinstein's biology class. Their greeting, also captured in a video, had been: "F— you, George, we don't want to hear a God-damned thing you have to say." One protester had demanded that Bridges "disavow white supremacy." Bridges had meekly agreed: "I will disavow white supremacy."

Bridges assumed the presidency of Evergreen State only in the fall of 2015, after serving for 10 years as president of Whitman College, a small, well-regarded liberal-arts institution serving 1,500 students in Walla Walla, Washington. A sociologist by training, he specialized academically in studying racial disparities in the sentencing of criminal defendants, thus burnishing his liberal credentials. Those credentials received another touch of polish with his marriage to former congressional aide Kari Tupper, who had helped end the long-running political career of Sen. Brock Adams, maintaining that the Washington Democrat had sexually assaulted her in 1987. (Adams, who died in 2004, was never criminally charged but in 1992 abruptly declined to seek reelection after eight other women accused him of sexual misconduct.) Tupper for several years taught women's studies at the University of Washington in Seattle, where her husband had been a professor and dean. In August 2016 Bridges wrote an op-ed for the Seattle Times responding to a tough-love letter by University of Chicago dean of students John Ellison that had warned incoming freshman that "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" for the easily psychically bruised wouldn't be forthcoming at Chicago. Bridges countered that the University of Chicago was simply "tone deaf to the academic and developmental needs of many students."

The Evergreen State protesters at the May 24 meeting, munching their pizza slices while a jacketless, white-shirted Bridges stood abjectly before them holding a multipage list of their written demands, clearly regarded such solicitude for their sensibilities as so much contemptible weakness. The meeting opened with this exchange between a female protester and Bridges:

"All of us are students and have homework and projects and things due. Have you sent an email out to your faculty letting them know? What's been done about that?"

"It's the first thing I'll do. I have not done it yet, I will do it right now."

"So they need to be told that these assignments won't be done on time, and we don't need to be penalized for that."

Jeers and general derision followed, as Bridges tried to shush them with his free hand and make himself heard.

"Y'all can't keep doing these pointing fingers," a female student reprimanded him, after he had apologized and meekly placed the offending hand in his pants pocket.

A few minutes later Bridges pleaded over the din to let him please adjourn the meeting so he could read the list of demands: "You have to give me some privacy, folks. . . . I have claustrophobia."

That psychological condition might have resonated with the high achievers at Whitman. It went over at Evergreen State like an IED in Mosul. A T-shirted student stood up holding a plastic-cup drink and waved her hand sarcastically: "People of color have to work in threatening environments every day! Welcome! Welcome! Get to work!"

The meeting ended with the Gumbo Potluck Demand. A male student standing behind Bridges informed him that if he didn't respond to the occupying students' list by 5 p.m. that Friday, May 26, "you need to pay for a potluck."

Bridges was amenable to that order, too: "We'll be paying for a potluck anyway," he replied.

"We want gumbo!" another student shouted.

A knot of students on the other side of the table turned that into a chant: "We want gumbo!"

"Made by my mama!" shouted the young man standing behind Bridges.................................................................".

I wonder how anyone could have used the techniques described in the video from the OP, admittedly pretty good stuff, to communicate with this bunch of wild animals? No doubt most of these students would sympathize greatly with the idea of burning the homes and businesses of innocents during race riots. Personally, I have always been in favor of a significantly different response to the burning and riots in Ferguson, Baltimore etc etc, or the blocking of traffic by antifa/BLM types, than what we have recently seen. I mean SIGNIFICANTLY different. And I would like to see a significantly different response to the likes of the racist students of Evergreen State College. I do not think that anyone could have successfully communicated with these spoiled, racist brats. You either submit to them- as the college officials did for the most part, or you meet them with violence. Communication was impossible.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Four things they did differently that made real conversation possible

#11

Post by GregD » Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:10 am

BillyBob66 wrote:
Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:15 pm
Though corrupt modern judges no doubt disagree with me, I don't think there even is an establishment clause, and if there is it has nothing to do with giving you the right to(EDIT: appear at their get together and)- what, pray? To whom? The first amendment- despite the perversion by modern liberal judges- is to protect a given Christian denomination from being oppressed by the federal government in favor of other Christian denominations. ...

So, in my view, "So much for following the establishment clause." is not valid, they are very much following the exact meaning of the 1st Amendment. Though I realize that modern liberal judges, being far from the events of that day, think otherwise.
So in Bill's view, freedom of religion is freedom of Christian religion, and it is perfectly valid for the government to promote Christian religion over all others. Bill conveniently overlooks writings by some of the framers (Jefferson comes to mind) that explicitly contradict Bill's interpretation (the preservation of Monticello was initiated by a Jewish lawyer out of gratitude for Jefferson's advocacy for the not-Bill's-version of freedom of religion - or so I was told when I visitied).

Thank you Bill, for being clear about your position. It is a perfectly valid political choice.

A political choice that I myself reject. Should push ever come to shove I myself won't be picking that side.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Four things they did differently that made real conversation possible

#12

Post by BillyBob66 » Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:34 pm

GregD wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:10 am
BillyBob66 wrote:
Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:15 pm
Though corrupt modern judges no doubt disagree with me, I don't think there even is an establishment clause, and if there is it has nothing to do with giving you the right to(EDIT: appear at their get together and)- what, pray? To whom? The first amendment- despite the perversion by modern liberal judges- is to protect a given Christian denomination from being oppressed by the federal government in favor of other Christian denominations. ...

So, in my view, "So much for following the establishment clause." is not valid, they are very much following the exact meaning of the 1st Amendment. Though I realize that modern liberal judges, being far from the events of that day, think otherwise.
So in Bill's view, freedom of religion is freedom of Christian religion, and it is perfectly valid for the government to promote Christian religion over all others. Bill conveniently overlooks writings by some of the framers (Jefferson comes to mind) that explicitly contradict Bill's interpretation (the preservation of Monticello was initiated by a Jewish lawyer out of gratitude for Jefferson's advocacy for the not-Bill's-version of freedom of religion - or so I was told when I visitied).

Thank you Bill, for being clear about your position. It is a perfectly valid political choice.

A political choice that I myself reject. Should push ever come to shove I myself won't be picking that side.
Well, I can certainly see how you would reject it, but it is what it is. State's had their churches, and the primary reason for the addition of the 1st amendment was to make sure that this new central power did not get any ideas about trying to tell MA or SC how they should do church, as well as to make sure one state or group of states did not dare to think they had anything to say about the churches in another state. These various churches did things quite differently, and they wanted no interference from other states by way of the feds. You mention a Jewish man being grateful to Jefferson, but Jews worshiped the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as do Christians. Now I certainly believe the founders almost all believed that one man had no right to force another man to worship in one way or to worship at all. At least at the federal level, but I won't swear to that at the state level in places such as MA.

However, it is obvious that none, or at least a vast majority, of the founders had no interest in assuring(via the Constitution) the right of an atheist, or a Hindu or Muslim, to give their invocation in Congress. After all, as I previously pointed out, one of the first things they did was hire and pay Christian Chaplains as government employees(though I imagine the denomination varied from time to time).

They did not hire Muslims, Hindus, atheists or even Jews for this job. They did write Congressional resolutions, approved by both houses, that ALL members of Congress would attend Christian worship service with the new President right after the inauguration. ( I can not even imagine what you must think of that fact. I've got to think you do not like it, but it is what it is) I have provided proof of that with links to the copies in the archives.

They did not set aside places of worship or meditation for Muslims, Hindus, atheists or even Jews. They did setup places- in government buildings- specifically for Christian worship, which even Jefferson- almost the least devout Christian of the founders- attended faithfully. https://www.monticello.org/site/researc ... us-beliefs
Off Topic
Jefferson's religious views became a major public issue during the bitter party conflict between Federalists and Republicans in the late 1790s when Jefferson was often accused of being an atheist.3...................Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being, but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity. He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ, but as he wrote to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man."4.............Records of Thomas Jefferson's church-going habits are far from complete. However, evidence does exist of his involvement with and attendance at local churches throughout his life. His accounts record donations to a number of different churches in Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and Charlottesville.7 As a young man, Jefferson served as a vestryman in Fredericksville Parish (Albemarle County).8 Margaret Bayard Smith, in her memoir The First Forty Years of Washington Society, recalled:

During the first winter, Mr. Jefferson regularly attended service on the sabbath-day in the humble church. The congregation seldom exceeded 50 or 60, but generally consisted of about a score of hearers. He could have had no motive for this regular attendance, but that of respect for public worship, choice of place or preacher he had not, as this, with the exception of a little Catholic chapel was the only church in the new city. The custom of preaching in the Hall of Representatives had not then been attempted, though after it was established Mr. Jefferson during his whole administration, was a most regular attendant. The seat he chose the first sabbath, and the adjoining one, which his private secretary occupied, were ever afterwards by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him and his secretary.9

Henry S. Randall, who interviewed Jefferson's family members for his three-volume Life of Thomas Jefferson, claimed that Jefferson "attended church with as much regularity as most of the members of the congregation – sometimes going alone on horseback, when his family remained at home."10
And that was Jefferson!

I can see why you might want to change the Constitution or Bill of rights. It is, after all, set up to allow such a thing, and it has been amended during it's history. But it's just that I find the claims by modern folks of the intent of the first amendment as somehow being able to keep a coach- or people in the stands- from praying with the students- for example- or as requiring allowing atheists to take over the invocation in Congress- as ludicrous.

Do you suppose that modern liberal jurists know more about the Constitution and 1st amendment than the 1st SCOTUS Chief Justice- appointed by G. Washington- John Jay? I think that is a ridiculous question to even consider, obviously Jay had a much better idea of what they wanted to accomplish with the first amendment. And it is, again, what it is. John Jay said: http://www.foundingfatherquotes.com/quote/675
Off Topic
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
So I respect your right to disagree with all of that, and your right to work to change the Constitution and Bill of Rights that these men came up with. But I will not- logically can not- accept that these founders meant to write into these documents the meaning that modern judges- and folks like you- claim that it contains. I believe the things we see happen in modern times- due to some modern judges ideas of what our founding fathers meant by the 1st amendment, are strictly unconstitutional, actually setting it on it's head. If the public schools of America could and did have Christian prayer and or Bible reading- led by teachers, coaches or admin- every day in every state and DC, from before the ratification of the US Constitution and for the 1st 100+ years, you can bet your bottom dollar that this was constitutional. Remember, the authors and signers of this Const. with it's Bill of rights would have had children in these schools. They surely would have known and some would have objected if they the thought the schools(and don't forget the governments themselves) were engaging n unconstitutional behaviors! OTOH, If some perverted judge comes along over 176 years later in 1963 and says school prayer or reading the bible in government institutions is obviously against what the founders intended with their constitution, you can bet your bottom $ that he is either an idiot or much worse.

Get busy and change it if you want. But please don't blow smoke up my ass(EDIT: OK, that sounds a little harsh, trying to be funny I guess) trying to claim the founders would have been horrified for a teacher to lead the students in Christian prayer in a MS classroom. Or at the idea of not allowing an atheist to lead their invocation. Because that is just crazy, illogical and irrational. IMO, of course.

But either way, every one please be in prayer for the church and survivors/family members in Sutherland Springs, Texas.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Four things they did differently that made real conversation possible

#13

Post by GregD » Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:52 am

Bill, none of that is in the Constitution. That the Framers did not abide by the agreement that was struck doesn't change the meaning of the words that are actually in the agreement.

Should my religion have fewer legal protections because it is a non-Christian religion?

User avatar
Scuba
Site Admin
Reactions:
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 10:02 pm
Location: San Antonio
Hammock: DreamHammock
Tarp: UGQ WD or Hanger
Suspension: Varies
Insulation: UGQ40 HG20

Re: Four things they did differently that made real conversation possible

#14

Post by Scuba » Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:18 am

Since when is Atheism a religion? I am not trying to start crap, but my understanding has always been that Atheism is defined as:

1 a :a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods. b :a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods. - Merriam Webster

or

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. ... Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. - Atheists.org

And since religion is defined as - 1 :the belief in and worship of God or gods. 2 :a system of religious beliefs and practices. ---Merriam Webster


Wouldn't Atheism thus NOT fit the definition of a religion?
"I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all." - Gen James Mattis, USMC RET.
Owner/Administrator HammockHangers.net

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Four things they did differently that made real conversation possible

#15

Post by GregD » Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:31 am

Scuba wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:18 am
Since when is Atheism a religion?
I would argue that a more accurate definition of religion is the collection of random-ass superstitions that a person holds to be true without any supporting evidence or logic. Under that definition atheism would be the religion in which the collection is empty.

Post Reply

Return to “All the other Political Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest