What are your thoughts re Hegelian Dialectic & CRT

[Ken]

Perhaps because being for free speech tout court is immoral and a fools errand

And that could be the case. But neither side has been willing to say that, so far. They just claim to be all about free speech, but then describe their political foes as somehow not being the kind of speech that’s free.

Agreed

Free speech as a First Amendment principle is only about GOVERNMENT restraint of speech. It has nothing to do with the decisions of non-government institutions about the speech that they want to promote or discourage. And it also has nothing to do with the decisions of any institution, government or otherwise when it comes to choosing what speech it wants to promote, publish, or amplify.

So, for example, a public university is perfectly free to pick and choose which speakers it decides to elevate by providing them with a paid platform on their campus. And they are free to use whatever criteria they want to for selecting things like speakers at official events. And if they choose not to elevate and amplify speakers who advocate for things like white supremacy, race wars, holocaust denial, violent communist revolution, pedophilia, or any of thousands of other unsavory topics that is not only their right, but it is their job. Likewise, public schools and universities have an equal right and responsibility to determine and screen what sorts of materials they buy for their libraries and include in their courses. None of that is controversial and none of it raises any First Amendment concerns. My First Amendment rights are not violated if Harvard University refuses to give me a speaking spot at one of their assemblies or refuses to buy my self-published screed on my own personal obsessions. Likewise, my First Amendment rights are not violated if FOX news refuses to give me a 1/2 hour time slot to show my pictures from our most recent family trip to Chile.

It is even appropriate for private media sources like Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, and others to have content standards for material posted on their PRIVATE servers and to take down information that violates said standards. Whether it is misinformation, calls for violence, personal attacks, or whatever. In fact, that is what they SHOULD be doing. And none of that raises any First Amendment concerns. You do NOT have a First Amendment right to have your own personal ravings broadcast around the world by a private company.

About the only time that the First Amendment really comes up is for things like prior restraint where the government goes to court to order a Newspaper or media outlet NOT to publish or broadcast certain information. Like the Pentagon Papers. Or the NSA information stolen by Edward Snowden. And they have to meet pretty strict criteria in order to do so, usually related to national security.

There is no First Amendment freedom of speech right to use whatever platform you want to say whatever you want. Not in the US and not anywhere else in the world either. For example, I'm a public school teacher. Even though I work for a public school I absolutely DO NOT have a First Amendment right to teach my students anything I want, tell them anything I want, promote any views that I want, or promote any books or other materials that I want. And my free speech rights are NOT being violated if I can't promote whatever views I want in class.

[Josh]

The topic at hand is students of universities engaging in political speech in their own free time. Nothing you posted about was relevant.

Like it or not, a majority of the student bodies at major universities doesn’t think we should be tolerating an apartheid state run by a lunatic extreme right wing politician who is gutting the judiciary and doing anything to hold on to power. Perhaps they came to their ideas after listening to anti-Trump rhetoric.

[Ken]

The topic at hand is students of universities engaging in political speech in their own free time. Nothing you posted about was relevant.

Like it or not, a majority of the student bodies at major universities doesn’t think we should be tolerating an apartheid state run by a lunatic extreme right wing politician who is gutting the judiciary and doing anything to hold on to power. Perhaps they came to their ideas after listening to anti-Trump rhetoric.

No, it is much more than that.

Students are occupying public buildings
Students attacking others for their speech and opinions
Students are pressuring schools to censor, fire people, or promote their preferred viewpoints
Students are demanding that institutions divest or invest public money in ways that they approve

I generally think universities should tolerate all of this sort of speech. It has been a part of university life forever and always will be. But there is a line when it comes to intimidation, threats, violence, and attacks on others. But that is more about conduct than speech. I don't have a right, for example, to round up a group and come disrupt your church service with lots of shouting and threats. Whether it is at your private church property, or whether you are meeting in a public space like a school or university. That raises questions of conduct not speech.

And honestly, a lot of it isn't students at all. My daughter comes across pro-Palestinian protests on her campus on her way to class and work. She says she suspects the majority of them aren't even students at all but local "professional" leftists who flock to this sort of thing. Many are too old to be students. A lot of it is the same crowd who has showed up at every leftist protest for the past decade from Occupy Wall Street to Black Lives Matter to Pro Choice to Anti-Trump to anti-gun violence, ANTIFA, etc. etc. etc.

[temporal1]

(i think) “the topic at hand” is focus on big university LEADERS+POLICIES, i.e., unhappy billionaires rethinking donations.
They seem to think students aren’t in control of everything, that not all is “innocent+organic.”

NPR / After a disastrous testimony, three college presidents face calls to resign / 5min

On Wednesday, the presidents of Harvard, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania testified before the House on antisemitism on college campuses. All three are facing calls to resign.

.. That was quick:

CNBC / UPenn President Liz Magill, board chair both resign following backlash over congressional antisemitism testimony
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/09/upenn-p ... mony-.html


This was posted on Page 8:

.. From 2015-2020, campuses that received money from Middle Eastern donors reported an average 300% more antisemitic incidents.

There’s a worthwhile interview on Page 5, viewtopic.php?t=6221&start=40
“Ben Shapiro with James Lindsay / James Lindsay Knows More About This Than Anyone / 57min”
(Indoctrination in Schools)

horseshoes


Falco - thoughts??

[temporal1]

Note new topic: College Turmoil
viewtopic.php?t=6301

[Falco Knotwise]

Did you know that even the term “cancel culture” comes straight from Hegelian dialectics? (As that idea has been appropriated by neomarxists, anyway.)

When a thesis is opposed by an antithesis, the antithesis has the effect of negating or “canceling” the thesis, so that the thesis will be subsumed and transformed in a higher synthesis. (A sort of compromise.)

The word for “cancel” in German is Aufhebung. It is a central concept in Hegelian dialectics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufheben# ... ufheben%20(%5Bˈ%CA%94a%CA%8A̯fˌhe%CB%90bm̩%2C%20%2Db%C9%99n,%22%2C%20and%20%22transcend%22.

So, somebody who represents the oppressive status quo (the thesis) gets “canceled” by a group of activists (who represent the antithesis to the status quo) and supposedly a beautiful new life form results from the clash.

Then the antithesis becomes the status quo (the thesis) and the process repeats itself till perfect freedom is achieved at last.

[Ken]

Did you know that even the term “cancel culture” comes straight from Hegelian dialectics? (As that idea has been appropriated by neomarxists, anyway.)

When a thesis is opposed by an antithesis, the antithesis has the effect of negating or “canceling” the thesis, so that the thesis will be subsumed and transformed in a higher synthesis. (A sort of compromise.)

The word for “cancel” in German is Aufhebung. It is a central concept in Hegelian dialectics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufheben# ... ufheben%20(%5Bˈ%CA%94a%CA%8A̯fˌhe%CB%90bm̩%2C%20%2Db%C9%99n,%22%2C%20and%20%22transcend%22.

It's definitely a real thing.

For example, go to rural Texas and advocate for gun control. Or just talk about how Trump lost. And watch how fast you get "canceled"

[Falco Knotwise]

Did you know that even the term “cancel culture” comes straight from Hegelian dialectics? (As that idea has been appropriated by neomarxists, anyway.)

When a thesis is opposed by an antithesis, the antithesis has the effect of negating or “canceling” the thesis, so that the thesis will be subsumed and transformed in a higher synthesis. (A sort of compromise.)

The word for “cancel” in German is Aufhebung. It is a central concept in Hegelian dialectics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufheben# ... ufheben%20(%5Bˈ%CA%94a%CA%8A̯fˌhe%CB%90bm̩%2C%20%2Db%C9%99n,%22%2C%20and%20%22transcend%22.

It's definitely a real thing.

For example, go to rural Texas and advocate for gun control. Or just talk about how Trump lost. And watch how fast you get "canceled"

Yes, well, the neomarxists would just say it’s a natural process, so of course it happens on both sides. It’s just the right doesn’t tend to know that or think systematically about it, like neomarxists do. I’m just pointing out where the term comes from.

Of course, I’m fully expecting you to argue none of this is relevant to real life. There’s nothing to see here, folks!

We see things differently. That’s okay, Ken.

[Ken]

Did you know that even the term “cancel culture” comes straight from Hegelian dialectics? (As that idea has been appropriated by neomarxists, anyway.)

When a thesis is opposed by an antithesis, the antithesis has the effect of negating or “canceling” the thesis, so that the thesis will be subsumed and transformed in a higher synthesis. (A sort of compromise.)

The word for “cancel” in German is Aufhebung. It is a central concept in Hegelian dialectics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufheben# ... ufheben%20(%5Bˈ%CA%94a%CA%8A̯fˌhe%CB%90bm̩%2C%20%2Db%C9%99n,%22%2C%20and%20%22transcend%22.

It's definitely a real thing.

For example, go to rural Texas and advocate for gun control. Or just talk about how Trump lost. And watch how fast you get "canceled"

Yes, well, the neomarxists would just say it’s a natural process, so of course it happens on both sides. It’s just the right doesn’t tend to know that or think systematically about it, like neomarxists do. I’m just pointing out where the term comes from.

Of course, I’m fully expecting you to argue none of this is relevant to real life. There’s nothing to see here, folks!

We see things differently. That’s okay, Ken.

Cancel culture is just a fancy name for enforced political/social conformity. It happens in every group and culture. So yes, it is a real thing. What is ridiculous is to think it is just something found on college campuses or some such. In fact, that is probably a pretty tame version. Try coming out as gay in an Amish church and watch how fast you get "canceled" Or announce as a evangelical Republican politician that you support abortion rights. Or for that matter, ask Liz Cheney about cancel culture in the MAGA world for having the temerity of thinking that Donald Trump should be held accountable.

In fact, the whole current charade of a Republican party primary is a perfect exhibit of cancel culture. Look at the recent embarrassing spectacle of Nikki Haley being afraid to admit to the root cause the Civil War. And look at how all the candidates stumble all over themselves to announce they will pardon Trump. They are all terrified of being "canceled" for having some sort of politically incorrect position.

So yes, it is a real thing and relevant to real life.

[JimFoxvog]