you don't have to end this with "I'm a conservative." you made that quite clear when you pointed to a racist being rightly chastised for likening the violently oppressed people of the Gaza strip to vicious dogs as an example of campuses "stifling the free exchange of ideas."
You seem to be under the impression that folks like matt walsh are causing an image problem for the conservative movement. You are wrong. What they are doing is shining a spotlight on your side's actual problem: your ideas are at best bad, and at worst outright evil. Consider getting better ones?
The problem with conservative academic thought is that almost all of it is the product of white supremacist grift mills that pay people to write articles and pay other people to read them. Almost none of it is a genuine product of study and reflection. Instead it is the output of paid shill, and is such dreck that no one will read or listen to it without a financial incentive.
Cancel culture is the turning of a one-way conversation into a two-way conversation and the manifestation of cancel culture that most offends conservatives is telling people who suck, that they suck.
I'm hesitant to label the grifter class as the "academic" wing of the conservative right. That just simply isn't accurate. Many on the right like myself see right through it.
As for the white supremacist stuff, where are you getting this?
"Behind the structure of racism lies a set of ideas that legitimizes its existence. This is the ideology of white supremacy. White supremacy is a worldview sedimented in institutional practices to ensure that white people stay in control of the systems and structures that control our society. By white supremacy I don’t mean the groups of white nationalists, KKK, and Aryan Nation members who openly espouse racial genocide, exclusion, separation, or repatriation. I mean instead the idea that whites, because of their superior intellect and reasoning power, should be in control of decision-making for society as a whole. White supremacy perpetuates the notion that whites should naturally hold the most powerful positions in business, the judiciary, the legislature, the military, and the media because they think better than nonwhites. Whites are held to be able to use reason more effectively and think more logically, and therefore be more objective in their decision-making processes. This reflects the enduring power of European Enlightenment thought and its privileging of reason and objective analysis, seen particularly in positivism and scientism.
White supremacy view people of color, by way of contrast, as moved by passion and raw emotion, easily inflamed and therefore not to be trusted with decision-making authority. White supremacy views emotion in mostly negative ways, as an unreliable interference with coolly objective decision-making. In the case of people of color, emotion is viewed as something that is quickly converted into aggression and inflamed mob violence. So the ideology of white supremacy places whiteness as the preferred norm in society, white people as the natural authorities in any situation, and white knowledge (and forms of white knowledge production) as the most valid of humankind. White supremacy is frequently denied by its perpetrators (such as me) even as it’s being disseminated. The authors in this book view white supremacy as the philosophical foundation of racism and believe that progress in the area of racial justice depends on dismantling this powerful and all-pervasive ideology." (p.4)
Teaching Race: How to Help Students Unmask and Challenge Racism by Stephen D. Brookfield and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2019.
K that sounds like a load of BS to me. It's unfair as it creates "white supremacists" out of people who don't pay much attention to race. In other words, much like the mentality of Robyn D'Angelo, white supremacy is inevitable because of countless reasons that people aren't even aware of.
Furthermore, the same logic can be used for Black Supremacy (for example) in predominantly black countries. Or Indian supremacy in predominantly Indian societies. Why is it that we only single out the traditionally white societies?
It appears to me that, in order to truly dismantle white supremacy, one must essentially get rid of whiteness, which can only utterly by done by committing mass genocide.
Does this advocate for the genocide of white people to rid the world of white supremacy?
The problem with the "restraint and civility" argument for conservatives on college campuses is that it ignores the asymmetry of the current situation.
Shields and Dunn were far too optimistic in their assessment of how feasible it is to be a conservative professor today. The far-left movement that's ascendant on campuses today wants conservatives on campus rooted out, defamed, and destroyed. The purges and roadblocks are ongoing, from the DEI statement litmus tests for hiring (alongside plenty of other discriminatory behind-the-scenes behavior) to the recently proposed California Community College and recently passed UMass-Boston hiring and promotion frameworks that mandate require rigid ideological conformity on campus in teaching, research, and service. There is no reasonable path for conservatives to respond to this; you are "causing harm" with your words and not showing sufficient dedication to "anti-racism" in your actions if you evince an iota of non-conformity, and those will soon be grounds for termination (they already are for exclusion in hiring).
Yes, there is a large "moderate middle" of center-left professors who do worry a bit about the excesses of the radical crowd, but it's clear that most will not stand up to the radicals who run the faculty committees, plot with students to take down recalcitrant colleagues, and browbeat the admins (or become them). Conservative academics who used to brush aside the excesses of the left on campus have been changing their tune in the last year or two.
I too wish that conservatives could contribute to a robust intellectual atmosphere on campus by appealing to the better angels of human nature and having real debates and discussions rather than pure provocation. That would, indeed, be a better approach. But I fear that such debate is impossible to have anymore on an increasing number of campuses if you value your job.
I don't think provocations and FoxNews-style theatrics by the students will help much either, but at least such actions might goad otherwise clueless GOP politicians into taking campus reform more seriously and, dare we hope, effectively address the worst excesses through legislation and regulation (yes, this is unlikely, but a forlorn hope is better than none).
Merely stating a small disagreement has become tantamount to "white supremacy" and wrongthink. Merely by expressing that disagreement, you get lumped into a category that's a big fabrication. The JK Rowling fiasco is evidence of that. If you state that women and men are different, you get labeled as a white supremacist. What's a "reasonable conservative" to do about this? It's a pendulum and only natural that we push harder and harder because of how absurd the entire thing is.
Its a very unfortunate term, Randy, I agree. But the way it is used these days, it does not mean the KKK. It is meant to convey the domination of status quo interests that happen to be white. You might still disagree with the basic point, but it is less inflammatory than the language suggests.
So being called a "white supremacist" is not really that Inflammatory? I don't understand your point. Most people still consider "white supremacy" as an allusion to the KKK. Do words even have meaning anymore?
Also, how are we supposed to have discussions with people when it's automatically called "white supremacy", thus shutting down the discussion entirely?
As a Christian with "traditional Christian beliefs" (aka biblical beliefs), by the logic that you seem to portray, I am by default a "white supremacist"? What do you suggest people like myself do when we get labeled as such? Should we just accept and embrace it? Frankly, the tactic of just writing people off as white supremacist is a shunning tactic to silence dissent. Am I just supposed to accept that and just... Be silent? I don't get it.
How is labeling someone a white supremacist a valid argument? Or is it only valid because "it is less Inflammatory than the language suggests"?
This is the beauty of the newly broad definition of "white supremacy": if challenged on its validity, those lobbing it will retreat to the structural differences argument, e.g. differences in wealth by race. But it also allows activists and academics to use the term against anyone they dislike or disagree with and still get the shock value that our society has (rightly!) attributed to the term "white supremacy." It's a perfect motte-and-bailey argument.
And yes, you are supposed to just take it. Any response other than immediately defaulting to a fetal crouch and pledging to "do better" will then get labeled "white fragility" and will likely lead to more severe consequences.
Every single person or group mentioned here is a grifter looking to make a few bucks (lots of bucks, really) off outrage. Ben Shapiro, YAF, etc. All grifters and don't have our best interests in mind, but rather have their own. I'm not going to defend them. However, I'm not going to lump them in the category of "populist" either, as almost everyone who's interested in these subjects knows how they are grifters.
I will say this though, it is hilarious. Mainstream conservatism has a lot of grifters too, as does liberalism. It's inevitable. The key is to try to avoid these people as much as possible. The grouper gang pointed this stuff out, but they got labeled evil and racists or whatever. And the gatekeeper grifter class likes it that way.
you don't have to end this with "I'm a conservative." you made that quite clear when you pointed to a racist being rightly chastised for likening the violently oppressed people of the Gaza strip to vicious dogs as an example of campuses "stifling the free exchange of ideas."
You seem to be under the impression that folks like matt walsh are causing an image problem for the conservative movement. You are wrong. What they are doing is shining a spotlight on your side's actual problem: your ideas are at best bad, and at worst outright evil. Consider getting better ones?
The problem with conservative academic thought is that almost all of it is the product of white supremacist grift mills that pay people to write articles and pay other people to read them. Almost none of it is a genuine product of study and reflection. Instead it is the output of paid shill, and is such dreck that no one will read or listen to it without a financial incentive.
Cancel culture is the turning of a one-way conversation into a two-way conversation and the manifestation of cancel culture that most offends conservatives is telling people who suck, that they suck.
I'm hesitant to label the grifter class as the "academic" wing of the conservative right. That just simply isn't accurate. Many on the right like myself see right through it.
As for the white supremacist stuff, where are you getting this?
Here is an example:
White Supremacy
"Behind the structure of racism lies a set of ideas that legitimizes its existence. This is the ideology of white supremacy. White supremacy is a worldview sedimented in institutional practices to ensure that white people stay in control of the systems and structures that control our society. By white supremacy I don’t mean the groups of white nationalists, KKK, and Aryan Nation members who openly espouse racial genocide, exclusion, separation, or repatriation. I mean instead the idea that whites, because of their superior intellect and reasoning power, should be in control of decision-making for society as a whole. White supremacy perpetuates the notion that whites should naturally hold the most powerful positions in business, the judiciary, the legislature, the military, and the media because they think better than nonwhites. Whites are held to be able to use reason more effectively and think more logically, and therefore be more objective in their decision-making processes. This reflects the enduring power of European Enlightenment thought and its privileging of reason and objective analysis, seen particularly in positivism and scientism.
White supremacy view people of color, by way of contrast, as moved by passion and raw emotion, easily inflamed and therefore not to be trusted with decision-making authority. White supremacy views emotion in mostly negative ways, as an unreliable interference with coolly objective decision-making. In the case of people of color, emotion is viewed as something that is quickly converted into aggression and inflamed mob violence. So the ideology of white supremacy places whiteness as the preferred norm in society, white people as the natural authorities in any situation, and white knowledge (and forms of white knowledge production) as the most valid of humankind. White supremacy is frequently denied by its perpetrators (such as me) even as it’s being disseminated. The authors in this book view white supremacy as the philosophical foundation of racism and believe that progress in the area of racial justice depends on dismantling this powerful and all-pervasive ideology." (p.4)
Teaching Race: How to Help Students Unmask and Challenge Racism by Stephen D. Brookfield and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2019.
K that sounds like a load of BS to me. It's unfair as it creates "white supremacists" out of people who don't pay much attention to race. In other words, much like the mentality of Robyn D'Angelo, white supremacy is inevitable because of countless reasons that people aren't even aware of.
Furthermore, the same logic can be used for Black Supremacy (for example) in predominantly black countries. Or Indian supremacy in predominantly Indian societies. Why is it that we only single out the traditionally white societies?
It appears to me that, in order to truly dismantle white supremacy, one must essentially get rid of whiteness, which can only utterly by done by committing mass genocide.
Does this advocate for the genocide of white people to rid the world of white supremacy?
The problem with the "restraint and civility" argument for conservatives on college campuses is that it ignores the asymmetry of the current situation.
Shields and Dunn were far too optimistic in their assessment of how feasible it is to be a conservative professor today. The far-left movement that's ascendant on campuses today wants conservatives on campus rooted out, defamed, and destroyed. The purges and roadblocks are ongoing, from the DEI statement litmus tests for hiring (alongside plenty of other discriminatory behind-the-scenes behavior) to the recently proposed California Community College and recently passed UMass-Boston hiring and promotion frameworks that mandate require rigid ideological conformity on campus in teaching, research, and service. There is no reasonable path for conservatives to respond to this; you are "causing harm" with your words and not showing sufficient dedication to "anti-racism" in your actions if you evince an iota of non-conformity, and those will soon be grounds for termination (they already are for exclusion in hiring).
Yes, there is a large "moderate middle" of center-left professors who do worry a bit about the excesses of the radical crowd, but it's clear that most will not stand up to the radicals who run the faculty committees, plot with students to take down recalcitrant colleagues, and browbeat the admins (or become them). Conservative academics who used to brush aside the excesses of the left on campus have been changing their tune in the last year or two.
I too wish that conservatives could contribute to a robust intellectual atmosphere on campus by appealing to the better angels of human nature and having real debates and discussions rather than pure provocation. That would, indeed, be a better approach. But I fear that such debate is impossible to have anymore on an increasing number of campuses if you value your job.
I don't think provocations and FoxNews-style theatrics by the students will help much either, but at least such actions might goad otherwise clueless GOP politicians into taking campus reform more seriously and, dare we hope, effectively address the worst excesses through legislation and regulation (yes, this is unlikely, but a forlorn hope is better than none).
THIS!
Merely stating a small disagreement has become tantamount to "white supremacy" and wrongthink. Merely by expressing that disagreement, you get lumped into a category that's a big fabrication. The JK Rowling fiasco is evidence of that. If you state that women and men are different, you get labeled as a white supremacist. What's a "reasonable conservative" to do about this? It's a pendulum and only natural that we push harder and harder because of how absurd the entire thing is.
Its a very unfortunate term, Randy, I agree. But the way it is used these days, it does not mean the KKK. It is meant to convey the domination of status quo interests that happen to be white. You might still disagree with the basic point, but it is less inflammatory than the language suggests.
So being called a "white supremacist" is not really that Inflammatory? I don't understand your point. Most people still consider "white supremacy" as an allusion to the KKK. Do words even have meaning anymore?
Also, how are we supposed to have discussions with people when it's automatically called "white supremacy", thus shutting down the discussion entirely?
As a Christian with "traditional Christian beliefs" (aka biblical beliefs), by the logic that you seem to portray, I am by default a "white supremacist"? What do you suggest people like myself do when we get labeled as such? Should we just accept and embrace it? Frankly, the tactic of just writing people off as white supremacist is a shunning tactic to silence dissent. Am I just supposed to accept that and just... Be silent? I don't get it.
How is labeling someone a white supremacist a valid argument? Or is it only valid because "it is less Inflammatory than the language suggests"?
I honestly don't understand.
This is the beauty of the newly broad definition of "white supremacy": if challenged on its validity, those lobbing it will retreat to the structural differences argument, e.g. differences in wealth by race. But it also allows activists and academics to use the term against anyone they dislike or disagree with and still get the shock value that our society has (rightly!) attributed to the term "white supremacy." It's a perfect motte-and-bailey argument.
And yes, you are supposed to just take it. Any response other than immediately defaulting to a fetal crouch and pledging to "do better" will then get labeled "white fragility" and will likely lead to more severe consequences.
And henceforth, I will just say to folks, "you'll have to forgive, I'm a white supremacist and a little bit slow"
True, right-wing collectivists are also against freedom
Every single person or group mentioned here is a grifter looking to make a few bucks (lots of bucks, really) off outrage. Ben Shapiro, YAF, etc. All grifters and don't have our best interests in mind, but rather have their own. I'm not going to defend them. However, I'm not going to lump them in the category of "populist" either, as almost everyone who's interested in these subjects knows how they are grifters.
I will say this though, it is hilarious. Mainstream conservatism has a lot of grifters too, as does liberalism. It's inevitable. The key is to try to avoid these people as much as possible. The grouper gang pointed this stuff out, but they got labeled evil and racists or whatever. And the gatekeeper grifter class likes it that way.