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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (133551)	8/21/2005 1:05:25 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 793759

Dear Michael, having read years of your posts and years of Pipes and now John reasoning on this thread. I have put myself in a John frame of mind and perspective. From that John frame of mind and perspective, there is only one set questions. Why are you trying to suppress the free speech rights of John??? Why are you trying to recruit other posters here to suppress the free speech rights of John??? Sorry, I don't know how to stretch reality to get treason in some how.

To: greenspirit who wrote (133551)	8/21/2005 8:45:05 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 793759

John, at the risk of piling on in regard to the Pipes discussion, I would just like to say it appears you're basic criticism of Pipes is he tends to create the environment around which freedom of expression in the classroom is squashed. No, Michael, that's not exactly my position. Mine is twofold. Rather than engage the folk he disagrees with in straightforward debate, he labels their views as unpatriotic. And does so, to repeat myself, in the name of a crabbed chauvinistic concept of patriotism. And, second, he both publishes their names on the internet and encouraged others to do so as well. And did all that in a much more inflammatory environment, 2002. The only reason he could have done that was to do, as you so aptly put it, make them accountable for what they did. In short to turn the crazies loose on them. In, to repeat myself, an inflamed environment. To remind you of something else a great many of us recall, some members of the anti-choice movement did the same, and doctors were shot. Assassinated. That thought would put fear in the hearts of faculty members and their families. There are more than enough crazies out there to do that sort of thing. And goaded on by cries of unpatriotic behavior. As for your discussion of student freedoms, they simply don't resemble college campuses. If students find they don't wish to take a course with a particular faculty member, they are free to stay away. If the course is a required one, for some reason, they can certainly talk to the Dean about that. But in my experience, students aren't the maleable frightened souls your post presents them as. They are lively and engaged. And quite capable of making up their own minds, arguing with faculty, whatever. The most interesting students, in fact, were/are the students of both right and left who care enough about politics to argue those positions in classes in which it is appropriate. I would like you to consider how rare and difficult it is to have a discussion/dialogue similar to what you've just experienced on this thread in a college classroom. Here, we have talented, mature and intelligent people comfortable with their achievements in life, who are willing to say what they think, and argue their point of view. You and I don't see the same thread if you think that's what happens here. The ratio of thoughtful posts to nonsense is well below 1 in 10. And that's not counting the stuff in private e-mails. Students in college classrooms with views similar to the bulk of those on this thread were much more thoughtful, much more civil. Try sitting in the shoes of a conservative sometime, pretend you've just turned in a paper critical of Hillary's "It takes a village" book. What do you think the likelihood of the paper getting a fair shake is compared to one criticizing a book by Newt Gingrich? Not a problem at all. I'm sorry if your college experiences were not that good. But the very best essays were of the sort you talk about. If they had done as the 9 in 10 do here, they would receive a bad grade, whether they wrote in favor of or opposition to either Clinton or Gingrich. It's a very well established rule for grading that it's the quality of the argument, the quality of the writing, and the quality of the reading that determines the grade. Certainly, not the point of view. As for that last paragraph, it's completely wrong about what goes on in the bulk of higher education. You've simply read too much inflammatory stuff that doesn't bother to actually know what it's about. Michael, you and I have established before that we don't live in the same world. The ease with which you write these statements, just underlines that even more.