Liberalism is a mental disorder. And the lunatics are running the asylum.

>>331524
I was kind of hoping for a more conversational answer.
Why do you blame liberals? Do you not think conservatives had anything to do with it?
I'm not too well versed on the large political scale of things, which may be why I don't understand this so well, but it seems to be if we had more of both sides willing to reach bi-partisan compromises (I was taught our system encouraged compromise).
It doesn't seem that way. It really does seem like politics in the USA have moved to "Democrat, Republican, or this subgroup of the two."
No (and), just an OR.

>>331550
I'm not really giving a very academic response here.
>Why do you blame liberals? Do you not think conservatives had anything to do with it?
Modern "progressives" are the movement within liberalism that operates entirely on the "Appeal to Novelty" fallacy. They believe that new ideas (specifically, their ideas) are better than "oppressive" old ideas. They try to apply modern values to people who existed in a time when these values did not exist, because they see them as outdated and crude. They completely refuse to see the idea that the morality of their age was far more valid than their own, because the older moral systems did not have such problems as: sundered family structure, glorification of mental illness, reliance on the state for personal economic intervention, etc.

At any rate, conservative and liberal parties are (in most first world countries) both funded by the same wealth class, and their policies are always globalism, rampant immigration, carving apart the workers, destroying the middle class, etc. So literally whatever. If you're going to make my son poor, at least don't make him a tranny as well.

>>331627
P.S. And I forgot to mention, that at least conservatives traditionally value freedom of speech, while the liberals believe in propagandizing to students and children, silencing opposition and social engineering.

>>331484
>For example - The petitions to remove Woodrow Wilson from the college campus because he was a bigot.
Perfectly legitimate, guy was a KKK wizard, and his stupid little plan completely fucked up eastern europe.
>2) - The banning of the "Confederate (battle) Flag".
Completely legitimate, slavery isn't something you should venerate.
>3) - The constant argument that if you don't agree with the current president it's because he's black.
Completely stupid, but that's largely a strawman, I guess. There are many reasons for being against obama, and none of them are race-related.

>>331627
>>331647
Thanks, I understand you weren't trying for an academic answer, but /his/ is just about the only place I can go for a decent conversation on these subjects.
Atleast you didn't put an army flag into the "Racism" pot like that guy.
>>331661
Why do you associate the flag of the army of northern virginia with slavery? It seems like a strawman as you ignore the meaning of the flag and any factors leading up to the civil war but the single one that wasn't even addressed til mid-war.

>>331661
>Completely legitimate, slavery isn't something you should venerate.

>“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,”
-Abraham Lincoln

The war wasn't fought over slavery. Abe Lincoln offered the South to codify slavery in the constitution, but they refused. They rebelled because of the exact same reason why the original colonies rebelled from Britain. The south was being over-taxed and wealth redistributed to the north.

>>331700
I've never understood this string of logic either.
I feel like eventually we'll be taught we jumped into WW2 in 1939 because the USA wouldn't stand around and watch the Holocaust happen, instead of it being because the Japs dropped some bombs on us for cutting their oil off.

>>331683
>>331700
Are you faggots actually denying that the southern cause was the cause for slavery, and nothing else? I never said the north had a noble cause, but the south had a despicable one.

>>331753
Welcome to /his/ friend

>>331753
>>331765
>are you denying?
Are you reading?
>>331683
"and any factors leading up to the civil war but the single one that wasn't even addressed til mid-war."
"But" implies there were more than one.
I never said anybody had a good or bad cause, as that's an opinion that is being made with modern morals about an era where modern morals didn't exist.

I might as well be on /pol/.

>/his/ is not /pol/, and Global Rule #3 is in effect. Do not try to treat this board as /pol/ with dates
>For the purpose of determining what is history, please do not start threads about events taking place less than 25 years ago

>When do you think it started?

Long before the anti-SJW meme on 4chan began, when soccer moms and neo-conservatives like Jack Thompson and Pat Robertson were setting out to censor everything in the media they could deem "ungodly." (Which they are *still proactively doing*)

Even before that. The U.S. was never about freedom of expression or association. Interracial relationships used to be criminalized, as did homosexuality. Let's not forget the Salem witch trials.

But of course, OP will have us believe the evil SJW boogeymen are somehow inexplicably responsible for America's history of puritanical oppression.

>B-but they're the ones pushing for censorship now!

They're not the *only* ones, and they don't even consistent a sizable minority of it. Evidently you think a bunch of campus causeheads represent real world views and attitudes. Guess what? You're full of shit.

>>331484
>For example - The petitions to remove Woodrow Wilson from the college campus because he was a bigot.
They're saying he doesn't deserve the reverence of modern people if he doesn't represent modern values. This is not censorship, this is examining the past through the lens of the present.

>2) - The banning of the "Confederate (battle) Flag".
The vast majority of these bans is from government and other public institutions, and the Confederacy was inherently partisan (secession and all that) so flying a Confederate flag is often considered making a political statement, a political statement voters don't necessarily support.

Most people are not talking about Germany's ban on swastikas.

>3) - The constant argument that if you don't agree with the current president it's because he's black.
That's not an actual argument, and not that often used, because even most lefties take issue with him. It's usually thrown out when someone makes a retard tier argument like saying he's a Kenyan Muslim, and you demand to see a birth certificate.

Being dismissive, not as an argument, but just to be dismissive, it quite common (on 4chan: reddit/sjw/kek/jidf detected etc). It has nothing to do with being left, it just has to do with either paranoia or intellectual dishonesty.

>How did we reach this point?
Every conqueror in the past has destroyed the symbols of past power, and rewritten history to defame their opposition. This is not new. It's not restricted to violent war either. The major religions also did this on a mostly cultural level as well, branding pagans as witches.

>Is there a point in having a "freedom of expression" because it seems if you do so in about 20 years we'll erase you from the books because you were a bit eccentric.
Again, what you're talking about has very little to do with freedom of expression.

>Is there a way to fix it?
What is there to fix? This is the way the world has worked for millennia.

(cont.)

>When do you think it started?
Millennia ago. Probably before civilization, in early tribal society.

>Will it ever be acceptable to have an opinion that's not mainstream again?
That depends what you mean by not mainstream. By not being mainstream, that implies an inherent lack of acceptability. Even people with mainstream opinions are harassed for their opinions.

I think what you want is for people to respect a person's right to hold an (uneducated or ignorant) opinion, by not confronting them about it.

The ways to do this are ideological purges, seizure of academic institution, propaganda, and mass brainwashing, ensuring relative homogeneity of opinion.

>>331484

I feel like this is more of a /pol/ thing.

>>331791
I attempted to keep it in the historical context but everyone jumped right on the political context so I kept the conversation going.
I'm sorry.

>anti-sjw
I'm not anti-anything, I'm curious as to why "SJW's" are anti-me.
>neo-conservatives
Read >>331550
"Why do you blame liberals? Do you not think conservatives had anything to do with it?"
Does it sound like I'm "on a side" here?

>US was never about freedom of expression
How so?
>Association
never mentioned that
>OP will have us believe
and you'll have us believe I'm a neo-conservative instead of someone trying to start a conversation.
>censorship
was more of a general question, how do we fix the censorship in general? Not how do we fix the political climate that allows censorship.
There's a difference, even if the two are intertwined.

>>331821
Censorship is defined as ": a person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc."
So how is it not censorship?

2 - I won't argue this point, it's well brought out. I will mention that nothing in Germany guarantees their freedom of speech or expression in the way it is written in the USA.
I should've specified - I'm not for keeping confederate things on FEDERAL property.
I am for allowing INDIVIDUALS to proclaim their support.

3 - It was a strawman so I could add a third point in there before I moved on to my next reponse in another thread, my fault for being lazy.

>How
I enjoy how you evaded my question.

>is there a point
But how does it not? All of the things could very well be opinions.
Do opinions not deserve to be expressed, or are they not covered under "freedom of expression"?
>Fix
Evasion again.

>>331846
>unsourced evasion

>will it ever be acceptable
Well, that's pol if I've ever seen it.
Thanks for playing and evading, try to actually have a conversation next time.

>>331785
The southern slavers, who controlled the southern state governments, knew that their enterprise model could only survive if the slave sphere constantly expanded. The seccession was an agressive war of conquest that aimed to spread slavery all across the union, because otherwise the slavers had no future, slavery being unable to compete with free markets.

>>331484
>whaa I want to protect my golden little idea of the past, I don't want people to change things :(
Consider suicide

>>331647
>that at least conservatives traditionally value freedom of speech

Is this for serious? Conservatives have been known to attempt to suppress minority speech, because the best way to keep the status quo is to suppress conflicting parties with conflicting ideas. McCarthyism ushered in a period of extreme censorship against progressives. And currently, conservatives usually whine about free speech being suppressed when there is a negative reaction, despite often being reactionaries themselves.

There's no need to do the strawman of the SJW participating in illegal threats to suppress the opposition. It's only somewhat better than lynching, which was a conservative thing.

The way anti-PC people behave is revolting to the public. While anti-PC is getting bigger, it's also pushing even more people towards PC, and shrinking the middle ground.

>>331879
You seem so sure in it being a single reason that started the civil war and not the many overlapping issues that contributed to it.
Why are you so ignorant, and why do you focus on the one aspect you consider morally wrong to justify the conflict?
Why do you ignore every other factor?
>>331887
OP here, most of the younger generation which were raised in conservative families (myself) don't look far enough back to see things like that. It's often only as far as they were born with a few years before for good measure.

>>331846
>I think what you want is for people to respect a person's right to hold an (uneducated or ignorant) opinion, by not confronting them about it.

Nailed it. Op wants to be coddled, nothing more.

>>331700
It's political rhetoric from a debate as to not lose voter support. How often do politicians mean what they say? Are you taking Honest Abe at face value? It's true at least though, that the union was far more important than slavery as an issue.

>>331914
I'd argue that I'd prefer the uneducated or ignorant opinions to be tolerated if they cannot be changed.
"Coddle"? Sure, I'd love a happy-go-lucky world.
As it sits I can stand for a slightly more tolerant society that argues their points with logic as opposed to ever-changing morals.
>>331918
I think this anon understands the points I've been attempting to make.

>>331900
There clearly have been other factors that contributed to secession, but trying to give them the same importance as, well the only way the southern upper class had to survive, that would only achieve overdetermination. Which is what you desire, so you can keep your shitty flag that still has nothing positive associated with it whatsoever.

This is shit flinging that really isn't exceptional in terms of history. Even 50s america was worse in terms supression.

The golden age of non censorship may have been in between ww1 and ww2 and then it was dominated by shit tier yellow news sources so nothing came of it.

File: pakistanigirl.jpg (20 KB, 236x315) Image search: [Google]

20 KB, 236x315

>>331484
>Hey /his/, how do you feel about the current social climate in the USA?

I feel like you should read the sticky.

>For the purpose of determining what is history, please do not start threads about events taking place less than 25 years ago. Historical discussions should be focused on past events, and not their contemporary consequences. Discussion of modern politics, current events, popular culture, or other non-historical topics should be posted elsewhere.

>>331866
>Censorship is defined as ": a person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc."
So how is it not censorship?
They're not saying he should be removed from the textbooks. They're saying his name should not be in buildings, he should not have statues, and other honors that we give to those we respect. This is a misinterpretation of what it means to be "removed" from college campuses. It does not mean he would not be taught, just not held up in reverence, and on the extreme, possibly demonized.

It's not like we don't teach about Adolf on colleges because he was evil, he's just demonized. And he's really not even that demonized. He's just not held up to be glorious leader of the white race.

>I enjoy how you evaded my question.
Beta caveman kills alpha caveman in tribe. Beta caveman starts talking shit about alpha caveman, and takes his wife and his shit. As new alpha caveman, he tells later generations old alpha caveman was always shit.

>But how does it not?
Again, you seem to have misinterpreted #1, possibly be reading other people's opinions of #1.

>Evasion again.
In order for there to be a fix, there has to be an actual realizable objective. If you're going to argue evasion, you should try to flesh out the argument more.

>Well, that's pol if I've ever seen it.
>Thanks for playing and evading, try to actually have a conversation next time.
Now, that's just being dismissive, just because you switched tactics to call it pol doesn't make it not dismissive and intellectually dishonest.

>>331918
If I'm remembering this correctly that's an early quote in the Lincoln presidency, maybe even pre-war. Lincoln's original justifications for the war was to reform the Union as it was meant to be, to squash the separatists. He had a change of heart after his son died, saw the war in a wider context of not just reforming the political union but the social union of the nation, and issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

The South, however, was always motivated by slavery. Bleeding fucking Kansas, anyone? It's true the war was about state rights: the right for states to own slaves. Period.

File: mfw.jpg (69 KB, 750x946) Image search: [Google]

69 KB, 750x946

>>331929
I don't want to keep the flag, I have a Texas and a Mexican one that I prefer.

And if you're going to make that argument, why don't you get off the moral side and get on the logical side and call it "State's Rights", where-in the Southern states incorrectly believed their rights as states were being violated by an over-arching federal government?
When asked about state's rights, you bring up slavery and the attempts to contain and expand it, the attempts by state governments and the attempts by the federal government.
Slavery is an important issue, but it is not it's own issue, it is a smaller issue in a bigger jar.

The logic I'm seeing is literally taking that one piece of the problem out of the jar, putting it under a microscope and telling people you found the largest problem that contributed to the civil war.

>>331940
Thank you for contributing, seriously.
>>331955
>>331649
>>312187
>>331081

>>331971
This is the second post in which you've abused the logic meme. Please stop.

>>331968
Its from the Lincoln–Douglas debates, and debates are well known to bring up the most bullshit from any candidate's mouth. They're also extremely pressured to take a popular stance. One need only watch a modern debate to understand this.

> He had a change of heart after his son died, saw the war in a wider context of not just reforming the political union but the social union of the nation, and issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
That's also possible. We can't know his true heart.

>>331964
He's being censored from the college campus by the definition.
"and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, "
"Was Woodrow Wilson a key founder of modern liberalism, a visionary whose belief in an activist presidency laid the groundwork for the New Deal and the civil rights legislation of the 1960s?
From Our Advertisers

Or was he a virulent and unrepentant racist, a man who not only segregated the federal work force but nationalized the Southern view of politics, turning the federal government itself into an instrument of white supremacy for decades to come?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/30/arts/woodrow-wilsons-legacy-gets-complicated.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0
"The debate comes amid a flurry of continuing renaming controversies on various campuses, including Georgetown, which recently announced that it was removing from campus buildings the names of two of its former presidents who had been involved in selling slaves, and Yale, which is hotly debating whether to rename a residential college named for John C. Calhoun, one of the 19th-century’s foremost defenders of slavery."
This is a bit more than "not teaching them".

>caveman argument
I don't know how I'm not supposed to be dismissive of a people who we didn't even know could talk shit.

I'm being dismissive because you are using evasion to avoid the harder questions.

>>331928
You misunderstand. Freedom of expression is not "freedom" for everyone else to look away and not have their government represent them and their beliefs.

Let's say there's a place somewhere called Führer Adolf Hitler Town, population 100. This town was founded by Nazis. Time passed. There are still 100 residents but it turns out that 99 of of them right now consists of Jews, Roma, Gays, Blacks, Commies, and people that genuinely hate Nazis, but there's 1 guy left that is still a Nazi. Everyone else wants to change the name, because it's named after fucking Hitler and doesn't represent them, but the 1 guy says it should stay the same because that's how it always was. Apparently the thinks it's wrong to judge Hitler by modern standards because it isn't a good standard to judge by, and he cries about his glorious past being "erased" by "eccentrics". Explain why he's right and everyone else is wrong.

>>331997
>from out advertisers
What.

>and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society
Being disrespected is not the same as being removed. The disrespect he is receiving isn't even particularly fallacious or untruthful.

>Or was he a virulent and unrepentant racist, a man who not only segregated the federal work force but nationalized the Southern view of politics, turning the federal government itself into an instrument of white supremacy for decades to come?"
That's removing him from his pedestal to examine him more accurately. It's like examining Hitler for what he was, not what he was worshiped to be. This is a closer examination of truth, in fact, putting him on a pedestal is closer to censorship, since no one teaches the negative side of him, and such it was widely unknown.

>This is a bit more than "not teaching them".
This is exactly your problem. Not teaching them is censorship. That's removal of knowledge. Removing names from a building is not at all censorship in comparison. That's simply removing an honor.

>I don't know how I'm not supposed to be dismissive of a people who we didn't even know could talk shit.
Fine, replace caveman with Gilgamesh talking shit about someone.

>I'm being dismissive because you are using evasion to avoid the harder questions.
What is the answer to life, the universe and everything?
>Evasion.

No seriously, if you want real answers, actually present something. You're just fishing for opinions.

>>332020
Yeah well you explain to me how anyone is ever going to learn about Calhoun if they don't name things like him. If nothing is named after him, we'll all forget about him just like we have with Franklin Pierce

>>332040
My sarcasm-o-meter seems to be malfunctioning.

>>332020
Okay, I need more information on this town.
A) Where is it located?
What's the governing body like?
Who's the mayor?
Is there a council?
Who's on the council?
Was there a vote to change the name?
Does the town accept popular votes?
Why don't they ask the leader of the town to relocate them or change the name?
Why did they move there in the first place?
Is the single man left the only person in the world with knowledge left of Hitler?
Is Hitler's holocaust comparable to the reconstruction of the south?

There are a lot of things you left unsaid that are required for me to accurately answer this, as I have stated multiple times that I am not one for the moral argument.

>>332032
Copy pasta

2 - He is being removed however. Eventually to find out anything about Woodrow Wilson you're going to have to go out of your way to look it up instead of being taught why it was wrong.

>or was he
that's copy-pasta as well

So how can you with confidence say that they will stop with removing his honors?

>gilgamesh
Is a figure in a poem.

>the answer to all life, the universe, and everything?
Life? DNA, the Universe? Physics. Everything? Well, the Universe contains everything by definition, so Physics.

>>331997
>I don't know how I'm not supposed to be dismissive of a people who we didn't even know could talk shit.
>cavemen couldnt talk shit
Evolutionary psychology implies that human propensity towards lying and seeking approval of social peers that cavemen talking shit was quite likely.

>>332068
Muh slippery slope
Muh scientism

>>332075
>muh morals

Anonymous ## Mod 2015-11-30 20:19:45 Post No.332092
[Report]

Anonymous ## Mod 2015-11-30 20:19:45 Post No.332092 [Report]

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/57125511