Disclaimer: I am positively biased towards Sargon of Akkad, so if he says, something is like this and that, I expect that he has done fact-checking. I will first do a write-up and then voice my opinion if they differ.
Yesterday I have watched the following video by Sargon of Akkad:
I recommend watching the videos, as this will basically just be reiterating what the video says.
------ start -----
Progressives are calling themselves Liberals, even though they are not.
In general these are the points that most Liberals agree on:
Individualism, Personal Liberty, Equality of Opportunity, Rule of Law, Economic Freedom, Freedom of Expression, Political Freedom, Democracy
1. Individualism
Everybody is a individual and his or her interests, achieve precedence over interest of the state or the society.
-Personal Liberty: A individual may do as he pleases, only limited by a authority of a politically organized society to secure public health, safety, moral or other recognized interests.
How do progressives attack this: If you voice a unpopular opinion, or do something some people don't approve of, that is legal, a social mob will be send after you.
Recent examples:
- Bernie Sanders being shut down on his own stage (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...anders_why_the_protesters_are_so_hard_on.html)
- Tim Hunt doing sexist jokes (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/13/tim-hunt-hung-out-to-dry-interview-mary-collins)
- Nasa scientist wearing a shirt that is deemed improper (http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/13/7213819/your-bowling-shirt-is-holding-back-progress)
While I do agree that all of these are doing something wrong, I don't agree that the repercussion they have been receiving are just.
-Equality of Opportunity: All people should be treated similarly, unhampered of artificial barriers or prejudices or preferences. Jobs should go to the person "most qualified"
How do progressives attack this: By setting up jobs that are "woman only" or "race specific", instead of focusing on individuals.
What is meant by this:
- Setting up a quota for a certain gender or race implies that this gender or race is inherently less qualified and needs a quota to get the job. /*please read my opinion on this further down, as I disagree to some extend.
- If there are members of a majority race that are at a disadvantage (white poor people), they don't get the same advantages as well of members within minorities.
Instead of giving advantage based on race or gender, it should be given based on the disadvantage of each individual.
http://www.ibtimes.com/harvard-admi...accuses-university-bias-against-asian-1925779
2. Rule of Law
This adds into the points of Personal Liberty.
-The right to a fair trial.
Everybody charged with a penal offense has the right for a fair trial, and has to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
How do progressives attack this: By turning the burden of prove onto the defended instead of the complainant. This mainly happens during rape accusations.
-Magazine reporting on rape allegations before fact checking
3. Economic Freedom
Economic Freedom is the ability of members of the society to undertake economic directions and actions.
Which leads directly to Free Market: The prices for wares and services are agreed on by 2 individuals, in which supply and demand rule, with no restrictions from the government, price-setting monopoly or other authorities.
How is this being attacked: By using social pressure via social media, against products they don't personally approve of.
- Removing a spiderwoman cover that was deemed sexist: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...g-uproar-over-new-Spider-Woman-character.html
- GTA 5 banned in some stores in Australia: https://www.change.org/p/target-wit...mmit-sexual-violence-and-kill-women/u/8910751
- Advertisements getting pulled: https://www.change.org/p/proteinworld-arjun-seth-remove-are-you-beach-body-ready-advertisements
- Caitlyn Jenner http://mashable.com/2015/08/24/caitlyn-jenner-halloween-costume/ */read my opinion below
Why is this to be considered problematic: Because it is censorship.
4. Freedom of Expression:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire
This section is about people who have opinions both I and Sargon are disagree with, but are still in favor of letting them speak.
- Freedom of Assembly
It is the right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend their ideas.
How is it being attacked:
By removing the ability to assemble for people you don't agree with.
Examples:
- A pickup-artist being forced out of countries (http://www.theguardian.com/australi...p-artist-julien-blanc-to-quit-australian-tour)
- a pickup-artist getting attacked physically without him doing anything. really worthwhile to watch.
-sending bomb threats to conventions of both Gamergate and Anita Sharkessian http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...sarkeesian-feminist-games-critic-cancels-talk
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...-event-evacuated-after-multiple-bomb-threats/
Why is this problematic: Because where do you draw the line? If somebody has a stupid idea, let him speak and argue with them.
-Freedom of the press
Freedom of communication and expression through mediums.
How is it being attacked: By requesting censorship of certain articles in media.
Examples:
- Remove Page 3 because it features naked women: https://www.change.org/p/david-dinsmore-take-the-bare-boobs-out-of-the-sun-nomorepage3
- Charlie Hebdo Massacre: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30708237
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejo...-of-speech-speech-free-from-consequences.html
-Freedom of Speech
Freedom of voicing an opinion without the fear of political consequences.
Examples:
-France banning certain things on twitter: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/02/free-speech-twitter-france
-Person getting prosecuted for disagreeing with people: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...l-could-have-enormous-fallout-for-free-speech
-Some things standing above critique: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/oct/06/ben-affleck-bill-maher-sam-harris-islam-racist
Opinions:
-Christopher Hitchens: https://dotsub.com/view/1280390f-4061-4a70-bf2c-3b05f3332fec
Excerpt:
" I'll be very daring, and summarize all three of these great gentlemen of the great tradition of especially English liberty in one go: what they say is: Its not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear, and every time you silence somebody you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something. In other words your own right to hear and be exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her view. Indeed as John Stewart Mill said, if all of society were agreed on the truth and beauty and value of one proposition, all except one person it would be most important in fact it would become even more important that that one heretic be heard because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view."
-We cannot allow censorship and silencing of individuals http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2015/feb/14/letters-censorship?CMP=twt_gu
-What happened to Free Speech: http://www.torontosun.com/2015/07/20/what-happened-to-free-speech
-Freedom of Thought:
The freedom of having an opinion different from somebody elses opinion.
How is it being attacked: By saying "My way is the right way, and your way is hate speech".
Examples:
- Band being too white: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...obeat-band-shokazoba-too-white_n_4174231.html
- Seinfeld Comedy: http://www.usmagazine.com/entertain...are-too-pc-now-censorship-hurts-comedy-201586
- Safe spaces: http://www.theguardian.com/educatio...-or-free-speech-crisis-debate-uk-universities
-Abortion debates: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol....-Free-speech-is-under-assault-on-campus.html
-NUS no platform policy https://www.staffsunion.com/pageassets/union/council/resources/No-Platform-2.pdf (who determines what is a prejudiced view?)
Opinions:
- Censorship is not right: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/07/censorship-campus-no-way-fight-fanatics
- Jerry Seinfeld: http://www.salon.com/2015/07/19/its...undermining_free_speech_expression_liberties/
- Free speech is last century: www.spectator.co.uk/features/9376232/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/
-On "No Platform" http://www.newstatesman.com/sarah-d...out-attacking-individuals-deemed-disagreeable
"Even bad ideas need a platform, so they can be challenged and not go unchecked"
-Slow death of free speech: http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/9187741/the-slow-death-of-free-speech-2/
"The aim of liberalism is to make the poor richer and not the rich poorer"
-I'm afraid of my students: http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid
-Political Freedom
Political freedom (also known as political autonomy or political agency) is a central concept in history and political thought and one of the most important (real or ideal) features of democratic societies.[1] It has been described as a relationship free of oppression[2] or coercion;[3] the absence of disabling conditions for an individual and the fulfillment of enabling conditions;[4] or the absence of life conditions of compulsion, e.g. economic compulsion, in a society.[5] Although political freedom is often interpreted negatively as the freedom from unreasonable external constraints on action,[6] it can also refer to the positive exercise of rights, capacities and possibilities for action, and the exercise of social or group rights.[7] The concept can also include freedom from "internal" constraints on political action or speech (e.g. social conformity, consistency, or "inauthentic" behaviour.)[8] The concept of political freedom is closely connected with the concepts of civil liberties and human rights, which in democratic societies are usually afforded legal protection from the state.
Examples of violations:
-Conservative Professors are being bullied for holding the "wrong" political view:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/20886/
ttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majority-on-campus-yes-were-biased/?page=all#
-right wing means bigot and racist: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...iversity-conservatives-forced-to-grow-tougher
-Democracy
Examples:
-http://www.quora.com/How-is-democracy-progressive-if-the-majority-of-voters-dont-really-understand-the-issues-of-the-country
-http://www.ocregister.com/articles/democracy-655904-millennials-progressives.html
--- Done ---
My opinion on the matter:
I consider it dangerous to say that a topic is not ok to debate about. Why? Because I don't trust anyone with being able to determine whether or not something is a topic that is debatable. Even if they are on the complete opposite side of the spectrum, I still think they should be encouraged to speak. People have the right to be offended.
* on the topic of quotas: There are some jobs, where it is difficult to determine the merits, so in these jobs quotes can actually be a decent tool. In universities it is fairly easy to determine the merit, by looking at their h-index. That is basically how many times they have been cited.
* Jenner Halloween costume: If Caytlin Jenner herself objects to it, it should be taken down. Otherwise nope.
* On calling Right-wingers racists: Even if they are, we still have to listen to them, because their points might hold merit.
Yesterday I have watched the following video by Sargon of Akkad:
I recommend watching the videos, as this will basically just be reiterating what the video says.
------ start -----
Progressives are calling themselves Liberals, even though they are not.
In general these are the points that most Liberals agree on:
Individualism, Personal Liberty, Equality of Opportunity, Rule of Law, Economic Freedom, Freedom of Expression, Political Freedom, Democracy
1. Individualism
Everybody is a individual and his or her interests, achieve precedence over interest of the state or the society.
-Personal Liberty: A individual may do as he pleases, only limited by a authority of a politically organized society to secure public health, safety, moral or other recognized interests.
How do progressives attack this: If you voice a unpopular opinion, or do something some people don't approve of, that is legal, a social mob will be send after you.
Recent examples:
- Bernie Sanders being shut down on his own stage (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...anders_why_the_protesters_are_so_hard_on.html)
- Tim Hunt doing sexist jokes (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/13/tim-hunt-hung-out-to-dry-interview-mary-collins)
- Nasa scientist wearing a shirt that is deemed improper (http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/13/7213819/your-bowling-shirt-is-holding-back-progress)
While I do agree that all of these are doing something wrong, I don't agree that the repercussion they have been receiving are just.
-Equality of Opportunity: All people should be treated similarly, unhampered of artificial barriers or prejudices or preferences. Jobs should go to the person "most qualified"
How do progressives attack this: By setting up jobs that are "woman only" or "race specific", instead of focusing on individuals.
What is meant by this:
- Setting up a quota for a certain gender or race implies that this gender or race is inherently less qualified and needs a quota to get the job. /*please read my opinion on this further down, as I disagree to some extend.
- If there are members of a majority race that are at a disadvantage (white poor people), they don't get the same advantages as well of members within minorities.
Instead of giving advantage based on race or gender, it should be given based on the disadvantage of each individual.
http://www.ibtimes.com/harvard-admi...accuses-university-bias-against-asian-1925779
2. Rule of Law
This adds into the points of Personal Liberty.
-The right to a fair trial.
Everybody charged with a penal offense has the right for a fair trial, and has to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
How do progressives attack this: By turning the burden of prove onto the defended instead of the complainant. This mainly happens during rape accusations.
-Magazine reporting on rape allegations before fact checking
3. Economic Freedom
Economic Freedom is the ability of members of the society to undertake economic directions and actions.
Which leads directly to Free Market: The prices for wares and services are agreed on by 2 individuals, in which supply and demand rule, with no restrictions from the government, price-setting monopoly or other authorities.
How is this being attacked: By using social pressure via social media, against products they don't personally approve of.
- Removing a spiderwoman cover that was deemed sexist: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...g-uproar-over-new-Spider-Woman-character.html
- GTA 5 banned in some stores in Australia: https://www.change.org/p/target-wit...mmit-sexual-violence-and-kill-women/u/8910751
- Advertisements getting pulled: https://www.change.org/p/proteinworld-arjun-seth-remove-are-you-beach-body-ready-advertisements
- Caitlyn Jenner http://mashable.com/2015/08/24/caitlyn-jenner-halloween-costume/ */read my opinion below
Why is this to be considered problematic: Because it is censorship.
4. Freedom of Expression:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire
This section is about people who have opinions both I and Sargon are disagree with, but are still in favor of letting them speak.
- Freedom of Assembly
It is the right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend their ideas.
How is it being attacked:
By removing the ability to assemble for people you don't agree with.
Examples:
- A pickup-artist being forced out of countries (http://www.theguardian.com/australi...p-artist-julien-blanc-to-quit-australian-tour)
- a pickup-artist getting attacked physically without him doing anything. really worthwhile to watch.
-sending bomb threats to conventions of both Gamergate and Anita Sharkessian http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...sarkeesian-feminist-games-critic-cancels-talk
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...-event-evacuated-after-multiple-bomb-threats/
Why is this problematic: Because where do you draw the line? If somebody has a stupid idea, let him speak and argue with them.
-Freedom of the press
Freedom of communication and expression through mediums.
How is it being attacked: By requesting censorship of certain articles in media.
Examples:
- Remove Page 3 because it features naked women: https://www.change.org/p/david-dinsmore-take-the-bare-boobs-out-of-the-sun-nomorepage3
- Charlie Hebdo Massacre: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30708237
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejo...-of-speech-speech-free-from-consequences.html
-Freedom of Speech
Freedom of voicing an opinion without the fear of political consequences.
Examples:
-France banning certain things on twitter: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/02/free-speech-twitter-france
-Person getting prosecuted for disagreeing with people: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...l-could-have-enormous-fallout-for-free-speech
-Some things standing above critique: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/oct/06/ben-affleck-bill-maher-sam-harris-islam-racist
Opinions:
-Christopher Hitchens: https://dotsub.com/view/1280390f-4061-4a70-bf2c-3b05f3332fec
Excerpt:
" I'll be very daring, and summarize all three of these great gentlemen of the great tradition of especially English liberty in one go: what they say is: Its not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear, and every time you silence somebody you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something. In other words your own right to hear and be exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her view. Indeed as John Stewart Mill said, if all of society were agreed on the truth and beauty and value of one proposition, all except one person it would be most important in fact it would become even more important that that one heretic be heard because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view."
-We cannot allow censorship and silencing of individuals http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2015/feb/14/letters-censorship?CMP=twt_gu
-What happened to Free Speech: http://www.torontosun.com/2015/07/20/what-happened-to-free-speech
-Freedom of Thought:
The freedom of having an opinion different from somebody elses opinion.
How is it being attacked: By saying "My way is the right way, and your way is hate speech".
Examples:
- Band being too white: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...obeat-band-shokazoba-too-white_n_4174231.html
- Seinfeld Comedy: http://www.usmagazine.com/entertain...are-too-pc-now-censorship-hurts-comedy-201586
- Safe spaces: http://www.theguardian.com/educatio...-or-free-speech-crisis-debate-uk-universities
-Abortion debates: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol....-Free-speech-is-under-assault-on-campus.html
-NUS no platform policy https://www.staffsunion.com/pageassets/union/council/resources/No-Platform-2.pdf (who determines what is a prejudiced view?)
Opinions:
- Censorship is not right: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/07/censorship-campus-no-way-fight-fanatics
- Jerry Seinfeld: http://www.salon.com/2015/07/19/its...undermining_free_speech_expression_liberties/
- Free speech is last century: www.spectator.co.uk/features/9376232/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/
-On "No Platform" http://www.newstatesman.com/sarah-d...out-attacking-individuals-deemed-disagreeable
"Even bad ideas need a platform, so they can be challenged and not go unchecked"
-Slow death of free speech: http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/9187741/the-slow-death-of-free-speech-2/
"The aim of liberalism is to make the poor richer and not the rich poorer"
-I'm afraid of my students: http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid
-Political Freedom
Political freedom (also known as political autonomy or political agency) is a central concept in history and political thought and one of the most important (real or ideal) features of democratic societies.[1] It has been described as a relationship free of oppression[2] or coercion;[3] the absence of disabling conditions for an individual and the fulfillment of enabling conditions;[4] or the absence of life conditions of compulsion, e.g. economic compulsion, in a society.[5] Although political freedom is often interpreted negatively as the freedom from unreasonable external constraints on action,[6] it can also refer to the positive exercise of rights, capacities and possibilities for action, and the exercise of social or group rights.[7] The concept can also include freedom from "internal" constraints on political action or speech (e.g. social conformity, consistency, or "inauthentic" behaviour.)[8] The concept of political freedom is closely connected with the concepts of civil liberties and human rights, which in democratic societies are usually afforded legal protection from the state.
Examples of violations:
-Conservative Professors are being bullied for holding the "wrong" political view:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/20886/
ttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majority-on-campus-yes-were-biased/?page=all#
-right wing means bigot and racist: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...iversity-conservatives-forced-to-grow-tougher
-Democracy
Examples:
-http://www.quora.com/How-is-democracy-progressive-if-the-majority-of-voters-dont-really-understand-the-issues-of-the-country
-http://www.ocregister.com/articles/democracy-655904-millennials-progressives.html
--- Done ---
My opinion on the matter:
I consider it dangerous to say that a topic is not ok to debate about. Why? Because I don't trust anyone with being able to determine whether or not something is a topic that is debatable. Even if they are on the complete opposite side of the spectrum, I still think they should be encouraged to speak. People have the right to be offended.
* on the topic of quotas: There are some jobs, where it is difficult to determine the merits, so in these jobs quotes can actually be a decent tool. In universities it is fairly easy to determine the merit, by looking at their h-index. That is basically how many times they have been cited.
* Jenner Halloween costume: If Caytlin Jenner herself objects to it, it should be taken down. Otherwise nope.
* On calling Right-wingers racists: Even if they are, we still have to listen to them, because their points might hold merit.
Last edited: