The Secular Left/Right Ideologue's and Religious Right, are Destructive to Humanity. They believe they are some sort of Master Race/People. Who must control the Inferior People, with Their Truth [sic].

Off topic, but I find it curious why you use [sic] in your own statements. [sic] is used specifically when people, typically journalists, are providing a direct quote and the structure of the sentence (if verbal) or spelling (if quoting text) are incorrect and should not be corrected by an editor.

Back on topic, as someone who values free speech as one of our most prized rights, and as someone who believes that the best answer to bad speech is more speech to combat ideas that should die in the free marketplace of ideas, I believe that all speech should be open to criticism to combat potentially bad ideas, and people who buy into an ideology should have to provide persuasive arguments as to why their ideas shouldn't die. (Incidentally, this is why I respect bobby so much, because he uses rational logic backed by direct observational evidence to support his positions.)

All that being said, I do not think young, impressionable minds should have to figure out what is good speech and bad speech in an educational setting. There is a time and place for everything, and I do not think any educational facility should be teaching, for example, the pros of Nazism from an incredibly biased view or some nutjob that buys into the ideology and wants to spread it to the youth.

Does that mean I believe the youth are inferior, as you suggest? Maybe according to you, but you couldn't be more wrong. Just as you seem to take a very black and white approach to giving warnings to victims of child abuse (as per our last discussion), I think you're taking far too black and white approach to this issue. And I note that for someone who claims to be completely centrist and fights off ideologies from both the left and the right, most of your positions, such as this one, typically toe the line of right-leaning political ideologies, and any attempt to have a discussion, and perhaps offer persuasive arguments in an attempt to change your mind, always seem to be met with you re-affirming and/or re-stating your position and rejecting any attempt at persuasive discussion. Why is that?

Ozz you bring up some interesting points, but I have another different line of questions.

If I'm reading his statement correctly he ascribes a belief "The Secular Left/Right Ideologue's and Religious Right are some sort of Master Race/People." * Allowing that each of the mentioned groups may have their own separate belief on who is a member of the "Master Race/People" and he did not intend on a singular shared belief.

In my experience I don't find that to be true. I do find that the Religious, of strong monotheistic faith, of any political persuasion, believe they are somehow better than those who do not share their belief. My experience however does not find that the secular of any political persuasion have a belief that they are somehow a "Master Race." I find them to think all humans are generally the same. Secular extremists are a hard group to locate, although they may exist.

That does not say that some feel their conclusions are correct and that other conclusions are incorrect, however that is a long leap from claiming they are a "Master Race." Generally they would allow that life experience and teaching cause individuals to arrive at different conclusions for a given set of facts.

A more casual reading of his statement seems to imply that all persons believe themselves to be a "Master Race/People." That seems to be an absolutist position or an attempt at disclaiming his own opinion.

As to "Destructive to Humanity" that statement can only be made by one who himself believes themself to be superior. Superior enough to believe in censoring an idea. As "Destructive to Humanity" would rise to the "Clear and present danger" test for censorship in the USA.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/341/494/case.html wrote:

We pointed out in Douds, supra, that the basis of the First Amendment is the hypothesis that speech can rebut speech, propaganda will answer propaganda, free debate of ideas will result in the wisest governmental policies.

Pointing out how wrong an idea is is not censorship, no matter how oppressed a speaker may feel from another speaking after them. It is the very basis of society.


OB: If he would read the letter https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3110924-Hesse-Letter-Regarding-ES198-Fall-2016.html from the Dean who canceled and then re-instated the class he might get a better perspective on what happened. Why is of course outside agitation.

Note: The letter is written in first person.

---