Is this the end of civil discourse?
It’s “a dark day for free speech in America,” tweeted Ann Coulter this week after her talk was canceled at the University of California, Berkeley, following threats of violent protests.
Indeed, when it comes to the survival of civil dialogue, ominous signs are on the horizon.
Our social media feeds are full of disturbing videos of young campus protesters screaming, breaking glass, starting fires and even engaging in physical attacks—all in the name of tolerance and fighting bigotry.
It’s enough to make the hearts of even the most valiant free-speech advocates sink with dismay.
Strangely though, as a former journalism student, it wasn’t those inflammatory images that most saddened me. It was a more subtle one— the indifferent, blank-faced stares of student protesters who responded with stony silence when a fellow student reporter asked them to explain their perspective.
There was no passion for sharing their story, no academic thirst for debate, no intellectual curiosity to hear another viewpoint.
That’s because their goal wasn’t to start a conversation—it was to “shut it down,” to put in their own shouted words.
And that group-enforced silence (which is not an isolated incident) disturbed me more than any issue at stake in the actual protest. It feels like we’re watching the “closing of the American mind” in real time.
Ironically, liberal campuses once celebrated for birthing the free-speech movement are now birthing a new generation of youth who take pride in efforts to squelch unwelcome viewpoints—at almost any cost.
Today, those with a socially conservative or faith-based perspective are the ones most passionately calling for a free exchange of ideas—while many traditionally liberal advocates, with a reputation for being open-minded, are promoting censorship.
But we can’t blame that on the students— they are simply mirroring the actions they see modeled by adults.
Case in point: Friday, Focus on the Family’s president, Jim Daly, is speaking on building bridges and unity at the Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast in Fort Lauderdale. The theme of the event is “Together.” But apparently some sexual advocacy “tolerance” groups would rather keep people apart—they are asking organizers to disinvite Daly and for others to boycott the event because of Focus’ biblical based stance on marriage and sexuality.
So now a Christian who holds to traditional, biblical beliefs is disqualified from a prayer breakfast?
Good grief.
But not all is dismal on the free-speech front:
Even as campus efforts to silence unpopular ideas reach their boiling point, there is another student movement happening that gives reason for hope: On Friday, April 28, more than 45,000 teens and college students are expected to participate in Day of Dialogue.
Annually sponsored by Focus on the Family, the student-led event enables participants to engage in a free exchange of ideas on some of the most sensitive, hot-button cultural issues of our day—including sexuality and marriage.
Yes, it’s true, these Christian students often see their viewpoints silenced, or even openly ridiculed. (That’s no surprise when you consider the studies that reveal the preponderance of left-leaning faculty members and professors on college campuses.)
But for them, resorting to inflammatory, insulting language to fight censorship is not a viable option. As people of faith, they have a different perspective:
They follow the model provided by Jesus in the Bible: He didn’t back away from speaking truth, but neither did he hold back from pouring out compassionate love on hurting and vulnerable people.
It’s that unique perspective that inspired Alicia, a recent Day of Dialogue participant, to respond with courageous grace when high school peers mocked her event with a “Satan’s Not Dead” sign. Rather than hysterically demanding that adults censor the offending messages, she responded winsomely, using as it a conversation starter. She explained to the local newspaper that it’s “true, Satan isn’t dead, just like God’s not dead, so you have to touch on that too.” Undeterred, she hosted four Day of Dialogue discussions during free periods.
And she is just one of 45,000.
So while I agree it is a dark day for free-speech, I also see signs up of hope in the faces of students like these—who still have faith in the power of truth to compete in the marketplace of ideas, and most importantly, have the courage to call for more dialogue, not less. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/04/28/berkeley-effect-is-this-end-civil-discourse.html
Indeed, when it comes to the survival of civil dialogue, ominous signs are on the horizon.
Our social media feeds are full of disturbing videos of young campus protesters screaming, breaking glass, starting fires and even engaging in physical attacks—all in the name of tolerance and fighting bigotry.
It’s enough to make the hearts of even the most valiant free-speech advocates sink with dismay.
Strangely though, as a former journalism student, it wasn’t those inflammatory images that most saddened me. It was a more subtle one— the indifferent, blank-faced stares of student protesters who responded with stony silence when a fellow student reporter asked them to explain their perspective.
There was no passion for sharing their story, no academic thirst for debate, no intellectual curiosity to hear another viewpoint.
That’s because their goal wasn’t to start a conversation—it was to “shut it down,” to put in their own shouted words.
And that group-enforced silence (which is not an isolated incident) disturbed me more than any issue at stake in the actual protest. It feels like we’re watching the “closing of the American mind” in real time.
Ironically, liberal campuses once celebrated for birthing the free-speech movement are now birthing a new generation of youth who take pride in efforts to squelch unwelcome viewpoints—at almost any cost.
Today, those with a socially conservative or faith-based perspective are the ones most passionately calling for a free exchange of ideas—while many traditionally liberal advocates, with a reputation for being open-minded, are promoting censorship.
But we can’t blame that on the students— they are simply mirroring the actions they see modeled by adults.
Case in point: Friday, Focus on the Family’s president, Jim Daly, is speaking on building bridges and unity at the Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast in Fort Lauderdale. The theme of the event is “Together.” But apparently some sexual advocacy “tolerance” groups would rather keep people apart—they are asking organizers to disinvite Daly and for others to boycott the event because of Focus’ biblical based stance on marriage and sexuality.
So now a Christian who holds to traditional, biblical beliefs is disqualified from a prayer breakfast?
Good grief.
But not all is dismal on the free-speech front:
Even as campus efforts to silence unpopular ideas reach their boiling point, there is another student movement happening that gives reason for hope: On Friday, April 28, more than 45,000 teens and college students are expected to participate in Day of Dialogue.
Annually sponsored by Focus on the Family, the student-led event enables participants to engage in a free exchange of ideas on some of the most sensitive, hot-button cultural issues of our day—including sexuality and marriage.
Yes, it’s true, these Christian students often see their viewpoints silenced, or even openly ridiculed. (That’s no surprise when you consider the studies that reveal the preponderance of left-leaning faculty members and professors on college campuses.)
But for them, resorting to inflammatory, insulting language to fight censorship is not a viable option. As people of faith, they have a different perspective:
They follow the model provided by Jesus in the Bible: He didn’t back away from speaking truth, but neither did he hold back from pouring out compassionate love on hurting and vulnerable people.
It’s that unique perspective that inspired Alicia, a recent Day of Dialogue participant, to respond with courageous grace when high school peers mocked her event with a “Satan’s Not Dead” sign. Rather than hysterically demanding that adults censor the offending messages, she responded winsomely, using as it a conversation starter. She explained to the local newspaper that it’s “true, Satan isn’t dead, just like God’s not dead, so you have to touch on that too.” Undeterred, she hosted four Day of Dialogue discussions during free periods.
And she is just one of 45,000.
So while I agree it is a dark day for free-speech, I also see signs up of hope in the faces of students like these—who still have faith in the power of truth to compete in the marketplace of ideas, and most importantly, have the courage to call for more dialogue, not less. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/04/28/berkeley-effect-is-this-end-civil-discourse.html
Tags
Who is online
100 visitors
So, when are we going to return to a degree of comity and having civility in conversation and activities? We are always going to have disagreements over what is the best course of action for our great and exceptional nation we live in, so we might as well accept that the opposing view is legitimate and honestly held.
More phoney baloney bs.
The right can't spend their time defending their worthless president , so they spend it ginning up overblown stories about how their freedom of speech is being decimated by leftists.
What a pile of shit.
Is this what NT will come down to? Daily word turds about 'freedom of speech'?
There is virtually no one in this country that does not have freedom of speech, and a lot of it.
God, spare all this play handwringing.
You need to pull your head out of the sand John. Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
This is the new America. Get used to it. The right has pushed the left to the point where civility cannot be offered otherwise they are considered weak. Now the left have been forced to adopt right wing tactics of intolerance else they be destroyed.
Making America great. What a load of shit handed out by the utterly stupid who blindly follow the biggest scumbag lying piece of shit serial sexual assailant racist bigot pig, president trump.
who blindly follow the biggest scumbag lying piece of shit serial sexual assailant
You really need to let go of Bill Clinton's past behavior . Its been YEARS !
You really need to let go of Bill Clinton's past behavior . Its been YEARS !
hehehehehehehe
You're a bad boy Petey but......I like it!
This from one who is like Trump in that they are more moderate overall than most.
Let the intolerance and hate flow forth pj. Do you feel better after that
rant?
Let the intolerance and hate flow forth pj. Do you feel better after that
rant?
Big sigh ......yeah, I kinda do feel better. Thanks for asking X. Although I don't think I look like a little green dude throwing up. I think I'm more along the lines of a little red devil. hehehehehe
I'd like to thank all our progressive friends for proving the point of the seed. They can not accept comity and civil dialogue with those whom they disagree with. This seed isn't about free speech as some of my seeds have been but about the tone and quality of that speech.
X - I will NEVER allow you and anyone else make Donald Trump's behavior normal or acceptable. He has catapulted our society into a cesspool of hate and intolerance. This country will never be the same. I only wish those of you who claim your are Christians would actually do the Christian thing and speak out against him.
On a personal note: I'm here in Seattle!!! My favoritist West Coast City of all times. I think I may just have to move here when I retire. Sadly that isn't any time soon. :0(
I think I may just have to move here when I retire.
I thought you were retired. LOL I think it would fit you well though. Maybe you could put a photo on the NT of you kneeling at the feet of Lenin.
Where ever she is on Monday she and her other moderate friends can celebrate one of their favorite holidays, May Day. And it comes so soon after their other favorite, April 15.
X- I'm right here and can see your post.....smh. Are you mad at me because I'm demanding that you act like the Christian you claim to be? I recall a time when you thought trump's actions were just as vile but now you've taken on a completely different tune. You may not like how I feel but at least I have stuck to my morals. You sir, are a sell out.
I didn't vote for him because I wanted a real conservative. Right now he's working on the two issues I most strongly advocate for, restoration of our national defense and cutting taxes. The Supreme Court was nice too. I'm sure he will do and say things I disagree with but he was a much better alternative to than Hillary. That he's rolling back obamas phone and pen actions is nice too.
That he's rolling back obamas phone and pen actions is nice too.
Can you clarify this, pleaae?
Obama governed by pen and by phone after he lost the senate. Trump is overturning those executive orders so efficiently that it will be as if obamas final two years never existed.
Obama governed by pen and by phone after he lost the senate. Trump is overturning those executive orders so efficiently that it will be as if obamas final two years never existed.
A broad generalization and inaccurate on its face; Obama faced a record number of filibusters from a Republican Congress …
Aside from which, no POTUS ever signed as many executive orders in the first 100 days of office as has Trump!
And what has he overturned?
Here's an updated overview of each of Trump's orders:
"Executive Order Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"
Signed: Jan. 20, 2017
FAILURE!
"Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals for High-Priority Infrastructure Projects"
Signed: Jan. 24, 2017
The order directs the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), within 30 days of a request, to determine a project's environmental impact and decide whether it is "high priority." Project review deadlines are to be put in place by the CEQ's chairman.
The order is widely believed to have been issued in response to the protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.
"Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States"
Signed: Jan. 25, 2017
The order outlines changes to a few immigration policies, but most notably it strips federal grant money to so-called sanctuary cities.
FAILURE!
"Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements"
Signed: Jan. 25, 2017
The order is aimed at fulfilling one of Trump's key campaign promises — enhancing border security — by directing federal funding to construction of a wall along the Mexico-U.S. border.
MEXICO AIN'T PAYIN' FOR SHIT!
"Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States"
Signed: Jan. 27, 2017
FAILURE!
"Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees"
Signed: Jan. 28, 2017
This order stops all executive branch officials from lobbying for five years after they leave office and places a lifetime ban on lobbying a foreign government.
The order enacts a number of other lobbying restrictions, including banning appointees from accepting gifts from registered lobbyists and banning appointees who were lobbyists from participating in any issues they petitioned for within the last two years.
Some raised concerns over how Trump will fill the jobs in his administration under the new rules.
You can read the rest yourself and decide if, other than an effort to negate Obama's legacy, if there's anything among these executive orders that might adversely affect your life, or, God forbid, the lives of others.
_____________________________________________
“To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”
― Mark Twain
What is your comment supposed to mean Six?
The curtailing of free speech, in particular on campuses (campi? Can any ancient language scholars help me with that?) has been for a long time a particular concern of mine. Not only have I been seeing it at Universities in "First Amendment free speech America", but in Europe, and sadly even in Toronto at Ryerson and York Universities. I have noted that when pro-Israel speakers had been booked to speak at a campus, it they are not cancelled by the universities themselves, or decline to speak because of the expected massive violence of the opposition, they require police protection and even then if they DO try to speak are shouted down by protesters. In Europe persons who have the nerve to be critical of a certain religion and its practices are arrested, but it's okay to criticize OTHER religions. In order to not be hypocritical, although Linda Sarsour, the rabid anti-Semitic Israel hater who tweets that she would tear Anan Hirsi Ali's vagina from her body, I cannot complain about her speaking at a university in New York. I am sure, though, that there will be lots of protesters there to call her on her despicable hatred.
I am sure, though, that there will be lots of protesters there to call her on her despicable hatred.
I wouldn't count on it.
For the same reason that, as a moderator, I almost never delete a comment on NT … no matter how stupid, ugly, or, hateful, I completely disagree with protesting anyone's right to speak. But possibly not for the reason anyone might believe.
When haters like Ann Coulter are allowed to openly express themselves, they allow us to know exactly who they are!
Even the serial, compulsive, psychopathic liar, when allowed to speak openly, when subsequently caught in his lie(s), we again, know who they are.
But worse than the Ann Coulters, are those who not only want to hear the lies, but subsequently perpetuate those lies to satisfy insidious agendas.
Among other common lies, we have the silent lie - the deception which one conveys by simply keeping still and concealing the truth. Many obstinate truth-mongers indulge in this dissipation, imagining that if they speak no lie, they lie not at all.
I don't necessarily agree with what Ann Coulter says, but she has the right to speak and be
heard without Violence. Others like members of the KKK and American Communist Party has the same rights.
This sums up the dominate progressive viewpoint towards speech:
"They are supplanting language, philosophy, and reason with pure emotion. They are destroying the common means of communicating and understanding human rights and replacing it with a “coexist” bumper sticker. The kicker is that they’re setting themselves up as the arbiters of who is worthy of coexisting with them. Those who don’t make the cut simply get labeled as purveyors of “hate speech” who have no right to be hateful. The left likes to claim that they value human rights, but it’s only because they also think they are the ones who get to decide who is actually human.
After thirty years of being told that we only have 10 years to save the planet, they have still somehow managed to convince a lot of people that questioning their accuracy is equivalent not only to shouting “fire” in a crowded theater but to actually setting fire to a crowded theater. There are those who literally believe words are a form of violence."
This sums up the dominate progressive viewpoint towards speech:
"They are supplanting language, philosophy, and reason with pure emotion. They are destroying the common means of communicating and understanding human rights and replacing it with a “coexist” bumper sticker. The kicker is that they’re setting themselves up as the arbiters of who is worthy of coexisting with them. Those who don’t make the cut simply get labeled as purveyors of “hate speech” who have no right to be hateful.
Right … (wing)
The reaction to Trump’s victory by the radical right was ecstatic. “Our Glorious Leader has ascended to God Emperor,” wrote Andrew Anglin , who runs the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer website. “Make no mistake about it: we did this. If it were not for us, it wouldn’t have been possible.” Jared Taylor , a white nationalist who edits a racist journal, said that “overwhelmingly white Americans” had shown they were not “obedient zombies” by choosing to vote “for America as a distinct nation with a distinct people who deserve a government devoted to that people.”
Richard Spencer , who leads a racist “think tank” called the National Policy Institute, exulted that “Trump’s victory was, at its root, a victory of identity politics.”
Trump’s election, as startling to extremists as it was to the political establishment, was followed by his selection of appointees with anti-Muslim, anti-LGBT and white nationalist sympathies. To lead his domestic transition team, he chose Kenneth Blackwell, an official of the virulently anti-LGBT Family Research Council . As national security adviser, he selected retired Gen. Mike Flynn, who has described Islam as a “malignant cancer” and tweeted that “[f]ear of Muslims is RATIONAL.” His designated CIA director was U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), who is close to some of the country’s most rabid anti-Muslim extremists.
TIP OF THE F'N ICEBERG, SEAN.
Keep posting these pronouncements and I'll post the realities en masse!
That really has zero to do with the point being made.
Zero to deniers.
Keep up the broad brush pronouncements and I'll keep the "zeroes" coming until I bury the bullshit in factual realities regarding who are the haters.
What you posted simply validates what he posted.
"The kicker is that they’re setting themselves up as the arbiters of who is worthy of coexisting with them. Those who don’t make the cut simply get labeled as purveyors of “hate speech” who have no right to be hateful."
The so-called "kicker" is merely identifying who the actual haters are which logically validates that they are the opposition to the very idea of coexistence!
The inconvenient truth is not that liberals are exclusionary, rather, that they call out those who, by excluding themselves, reject coexistence.
Keep twisting the realities and I'll show you the haters by way of specifics.
Twisting facts is what YOU do best ...
And failing to post facts is what you do best.
We all have our long suits.
What exactly is civil discourse? By definition it would be courteous and polite discussion.
Wouldn't that be nice?
Like the coach helping his players learn to shoot foul shots, Davis gives helpful pointers about the midcourse correction we need as a nation. Davis defines civility as “the exercise of patience, integrity, humility and mutual respect in civil conversation, even [or especially] with those with whom we disagree.”
Then, like a good coach, he spells out how we might move from the current flagellation that passes for so much public conversation toward mature debate. Here are his marks of civil discourse that has to begin with each of us: We must learn patience and “hear our neighbor’s position in his or her own terms.” In short, we have to listen to those who disagree with us.
This means fact-checking our own assertions as well as those of our opponents. Humility requires that “we enter every public conversation open to the possibility that we could change our minds.”
Mutual respect means “honoring each other’s right to represent moral worldviews in public and avoiding demonizing one another. It requires that, even if I think you are tragically mistaken, I honor your right to participate in the American enterprise of public moral conversation.”
Over the years, I heard people saying that mine or someone else's statement just wasn't logical. I wondered about that, and I came to the conclusion that what they really meant was not that the statement wasn't logical, because often they were, they were arguing that the premise, that the meta-ethic or meta-physic from which the statement flowed wasn't correct.
I have yet to see on this sight, or any other, a discussion concerning the basic beliefs of what is right and wrong, of what is just and unjust, of what a nation (if there should even be nations) should be.
You post an article concerning civil discourse at the same time posting articles stating that leftists are irrational and they should just leave the country. You post articles that dismiss out of hand any argument from someone who would argue otherwise. You want civil discourse on articles that are in and of themselves inflammatory and will bear no dissension? As I told Cerenkov on another one of your articles, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
So far, you and I have gotten along fairly well, when you have decided to reply to one of my statements.
Note what the preacher said above, This means fact-checking our own assertions as well as those of our opponents. Humility requires that “we enter every public conversation open to the possibility that we could change our minds.”
99% of my comments are my attempt to get someone to stand their ground with facts and logic. Some few challenge my comments and I for one am glad for that. It makes me think. Something I find very little of here, from either side.
I'm going to keep trying though, because I haven't really found any place better, and I have found a whole lot that are worse.
Civil discourse comes with the implied (forgive me Kant) imperative of willingness to think through an issue, and if need be, change my initial beliefs. In my life I have gone from being a hard ass right, god fearing, republican to being a min-state libertarian.
I'm not afraid of change, but the right and the left, since at least the 60's, have been. As long as we keep putting people into little boxes and saying you are this because someone else did or said this, there will be no civil discourse. Civil discourse begins at the level of the individual, but this world is becoming more and more concerned with the big boxes and the oligarchs who would rule from within those boxes. They are teaching people that the only way to live is inside the big box, and as long as your desire is to be in that big box, you will have no civil discourse.
In the end, the big boxes are only going to bring civil war.
So there is my rant. For good or ill, it is mine.
Are you willing to change your mind?
It is not uncommon for perpetrators of hatred to play the victims.
Insult to injury.