Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (167628)	4/15/2003 5:32:59 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1594625

Flynn was not not invited. He was invited and got booed down. That's a bigger example of intolerance. You don't have to invite speakers you don't like but if they are invited you should either stay away or let them present their case without shouting them down. He went to a university known as a hot bed of liberal radicalism and tried to present his conservative views on a controversial subject. And you're surprised that he got heckled? Not surprised at all. But it still is an example of liberal intolerance. And it wasn't just occasional heckling. He was shouted down. His material was torn down and burned. He was called a nzai and a murderer and was threatened. The campus authorities made no attempt to adequately protect the speaker. hat's the equivalent of a white guy in black face going to all black party. No it isn't. It an attempt to seriously discuss ideas not, like a white guy in blackface at an otherwise all black party, an attempt to offend. But it was effectively censored by those who don't even want to hear, or let other people here these ideas. W. Connerly goes to a predominately black university to promote what many consider to be racist views. He's invited to speak but he's surprised at the response. Why? The though that the views are racist is nonsense. I don't know if he was surprised by the response or not but such responses, often organized planned responses are an example of intolerance and an attempt to shut out some ideas from the discussion. Also Ward Connerly was not the only example in that link. Come on, Tim, the guy's been a student at Cornell for 9 years. What does that tell you.......he's an idiot Did it say that he is still an undergrad? He's in his late twenties and he's debating guys in their late teens and he thinks they're acting like kids.......well, duh....they are still kids! Mostly 18 to mid twenties. Almost all of them can vote or go to war for their country. Many of them can legally drink. They aren't expected to act like immature 5 year olds having a temper tantrum. And even 5 year olds would get a very negative reaction if they started tearing things up and burning them or screaming so loud that someone invited to speak could not be heard. townhall.com This one is just too silly. Many of the things mentioned in that link are silly but they are also real. I'm glad you think that they are silly but that doesn't stop them from being examples of liberal intolerance. newsmax.com I thought this one might be analogous but frankly, it turned out to be more stupid stuff. Its not surprising that the Olympic Committee made 18 the cut off point........I thought 21 was the standard. And of course, the boy scouts were not to be allowed to wear their uniforms......its not that kind of event. This guy is looking for trouble where there is none. Unless he is flat out lying it doesn't seem that he is looking for trouble where there is none. See below. As for "of course, the boy scouts where not allowed to wear their uniforms...its not that kind of even." They have been allowed at every previous Olympics in the US. ____________________ "First it has a policy that no volunteers can be under 18. That means most Scouts can’t volunteer, since most are under 18. As for Scouts over 18, they can volunteer as long as they don’t wear the Scout uniform. God forbid they wear their Scout uniforms at the Olympics. Boy Scouts won’t be participating in the Olympic ceremonies, as Boy Scouts have done in every other Olympic Games sponsored on American soil – because, as Shaw notes, they can’t wear their Boy Scout uniforms and would have to "wear whatever costumes are appropriate for the production." No, the SLOC is not excluding the Boy Scouts, it just created policies that are. How clever. " ___________________ As for the Boy Scouts using the auditorium at the National Zoo I would say that is again liberal intolerance. You might argue that we should be intolerant of such organizations. I would disagree. In any case, the girl trying to stop her boyfriend from drinking Snapple is an attempt at social pressure to insure conformity. The head of the Hall of Fame used his clout and political views to exclude. Your right that it is a bit silly but the silliness is on the side of their person trying to ensure the conformity. Social pressure is less abusive then government intervention but not less then just not inviting someone to a private function because you disagree with their political ideas. If anything it is even more intrusive because it is trying to change someone else's behavior rather then merely deciding who you want at your function and who you don't want. I certainly wouldn't say that anything the girl did deserves any kind of punishment legal or otherwise. She should be free to campaign against a product if she wants to. But she is being at least as intolerant as the Hall of Fame. I am unclear what conservative women are trying to accomplish but some of their so called myths are suspect but the one most easily disproved is the one re women and emergency rooms. The IWF states that only about 1% of women at ERs are there due to abuse. I knew that one was bogus. I'm not so sure it is. In any case the search for the facts and the truth is not well served by shutting out debate. If its false refute it don't shut it up. Clearly, Berkeley missed his informal attempt at discrimination. It looks to me like Berkeley is trying to correct this oversight. Again, its not like Robbins and Sarandon........they were formally excluded. Its worse then the case with Robbins. The Hall of Fame decided not to show Robbins' movie at an event. Perhaps not the best decision but BFD. Shingavi was imposing his political correctness on a lot more then one occation, and at a school, and a publicly funded one at that. If some groups desides it doesn't want to show a movie starring Schwarzenegger or Mel Gibson or Charleton Heston or Ronald Reagan because of the actors political views I won't exactly chear about it but its their perogative its no where near as bad as what Shingavi did. Tim