TexasCHLforum.com

No, seriously, watch the video... He identifies as a liberal democrat who supports progressive causes. He also wants to hear from conservatives about their view points which they may disagree with. Some faith in humanity restored.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06 ... puses.html

College students and professors delivered a dire warning to Capitol Hill Tuesday that free speech on campus is coming under "attack," telling lawmakers that conservative views are in danger of being "shut down."

Students who say they've faced “considerable backlash” for exercising First Amendment rights testified as part of a packed panel of witnesses before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"In classrooms, liberal arguments are often treated as unquestionable truths," said Zachary Wood, a 21-year-old student at Williams College in Massachusetts.

Other views, he suggested, are not welcome. “I cannot name a single conservative speaker that has been brought to campus by the administration,” Wood said.

He might be smart, but he's preaching to a brick wall. Academia isn't just disinterested in hearing conservative or libertarian ideas and speech, they are terrified of conservative and libertarian ideas and speech.

Why? Because their precious ideals not only do not stand up to logical examination, they are already disproved by history. Intellectual honesty - if they were capable of it - would compel them to admit that their ideas are bankrupt. Therefore, there can be no free marketplace of ideas permitted on campus.

If forced to compete in the marketplace of ideas, progressivism loses every single time; and the reason it loses is also the reason that conservative and libertarian ideas win. Progressivism treats human nature as if it didn't exist, and it is therefore not considered as a variable in their calculus. On the other hand, conservative and libertarian ideas count on the human nature factor; they require human nature to be considered in order for the ideas to work. Indeed, just as any honest scientist can tell you, the observer is almost certain to influence the outcome of the observation in some way, just by the fact of his being involved in it (Observer Effect). Progressives claim to "believe in science" rather than human nature, but they deny the idea that their own individual human nature affects the formulation of their ideas. They are science-deniers.

This is why, the more ideological the progressive is, the more he/she sees themselves as indispensable to the administration of the system - because they see themselves as "enlightened" compared to others, and it is therefore their natural right to be part of the ruling class. In other words, they are both (A) driven by the same need to come out on top that informs and motivates capitalists, and (B) they are very authoritarian, because that is the only justification they can offer for why they belong being on top instead of someone else ....which is why liberty wanes as progressivism waxes, and visa versa.

Progressivism is a cancer.

But they spread that cancer by playing on the very basest of human nature; emotion. One of the few things that can be manipulated. However, emotional responses can be mitigated, by rational thought, so, they want to prevent rational thought from invading their cocoon, of control.

I think I've had the discussion with someone. I said communism "sounds" like a utopian society...and it COULD work....if it weren't for human nature.

The Annoyed Man wrote:He might be smart, but he's preaching to a brick wall. Academia isn't just disinterested in hearing conservative or libertarian ideas and speech, they are terrified of conservative and libertarian ideas and speech.

Why? Because their precious ideals not only do not stand up to logical examination, they are already disproved by history. Intellectual honesty - if they were capable of it - would compel them to admit that their ideas are bankrupt. Therefore, there can be no free marketplace of ideas permitted on campus.

If forced to compete in the marketplace of ideas, progressivism loses every single time; and the reason it loses is also the reason that conservative and libertarian ideas win. Progressivism treats human nature as if it didn't exist, and it is therefore not considered as a variable in their calculus. On the other hand, conservative and libertarian ideas count on the human nature factor; they require human nature to be considered in order for the ideas to work. Indeed, just as any honest scientist can tell you, the observer is almost certain to influence the outcome of the observation in some way, just by the fact of his being involved in it (Observer Effect). Progressives claim to "believe in science" rather than human nature, but they deny the idea that their own individual human nature affects the formulation of their ideas. They are science-deniers.

This is why, the more ideological the progressive is, the more he/she sees themselves as indispensable to the administration of the system - because they see themselves as "enlightened" compared to others, and it is therefore their natural right to be part of the ruling class. In other words, they are both (A) driven by the same need to come out on top that informs and motivates capitalists, and (B) they are very authoritarian, because that is the only justification they can offer for why they belong being on top instead of someone else ....which is why liberty wanes as progressivism waxes, and visa versa.

Progressivism is a cancer.

WOW, excellent post TAM!