Continued Hypocrisy By Those Claiming to Embrace Diversity (1 Viewer)

[Steve R.]

ACLU staffer fumes at university for accepting Nick Sandmann, calls it a 'stain' on the school: report

A very troubling headline on a variety of levels. But first the gratuitous acknowledgement, that a "staffer" (Samuel Crankshaw) does not necessarily represent or speak on behalf of an organization as that person may simply be expressing personal thoughts. Nevertheless, an organization such as the ACLU is supposedly in business to protect the civil liberties of of people. Consequently, one could assume that the "staffer", as an employee of that organization, would recognize Sandmann's acceptance into Transylvania University does not raise a civil liberties issue that he or the ACLU should even be involved in. But, the mere fact that the "staffer" did, further demonstrates that the ACLU really is no longer about protecting everyone civil liberties. The ACLU is now a blatently partisan organization attacking those it subjectively and arbitrarily characterizes as "conservatives". Crankshaw by complaining about Sandmann is putting a "stain" on the ACLU.

Then there are the remarks by Avery Tompkins, an assistant professor and diversity scholar at Transylvania University. According to the article: "Avery Tompkins, shared a comment on the post before it was taken down, calling Sandmann's “public behavior and rhetoric atrocious and uninformed," adding that the young student must accept his class as gospel, The National Review reported. “We can’t not admit academically qualified students due to their political and personal views," he said. "If he ends up in my Intro class, fine. He might learn something that is actually based on research and evidence."" So here we have a person who is an official of the school working to promote diversity, actually virulently denouncing a person for holding what he asserts to be "anti-intellectualist views”. Extremely judgmentally arrogant of Tompkins.

The final kicker, the school instead of summarily dismissing the assertions of Crankshaw and Tompkins made the typical innocuous cowardly statement that "it would be reviewing the situation" with the virtue signalling final conclusionary comment: “Transylvania, like nearly every campus, is composed of those holding the full range of viewpoints.” If that is true, let Sandmann participate at the school without issue, but those words are empty Orwellian Newspeak of politically correct rhetoric to "hide" the fact that conservatism is under attack by those who (falsely) claim to embellish diversity.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I do notice the "media" keeps sniping at this young man. He does have legal representation and the means to go after them should they not stop harassing him.

 

[Isaac]

I reviewed the ACLU's 2020 court battles listing. Recurring themes were: Trump, Transgender, and Abortion rights. Throw in a handful of immigrant rights and voting issues and that mostly sums it up.

But, I did find one that I was glad for:

• https://www.aclu.org/cases/alasaad-v-wolf-challenge-warrantless-phone-and-laptop-searches-us-border

Then, I went directly to their "Religious Liberty" section. I actually thought I would most likely see cases that had to do with defending religious liberty, although I knew they probably wouldn't be defending Christians.

What did I find under RELIGIOUS LIBERTY?

• Little Sisters of the Poor (ACLU argued against religious liberty)
• Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (ACLU argued against religious liberty)

Boy, was I a sucker there!

 

[Steve R.]

@Isaac: Thanks for doing that additional research. Unfortunate, that the ACLU only supports "civil liberties" for those on the political "left". In a quickie, somewhat random internet search, I ran across this troubling blog post by By David Cole on the ACLU website: Why We Must Defend Free Speech. In short, the post concludes that right wing speech constitutes hate speech and should not be protected; despite the title of the post affirming freedom of expression.

And still others argue that while it might have made sense to tolerate Nazis marching in Skokie in 1978, now, when white supremacists have a friend in the president himself, the power and influence they wield justify a different approach.

Yet the violance we are seeing is coming from the "left", not so the called "white supremacists". Aren't the members of the public entitled to conduct their personal and business activities without having their civil liberties violated by ANTIFA, Black Lives Matter, Maxine Waters, or other radical left wing groups promoting violence against them?
The ACLU is now accusable of moral relativism. The ACLU now only protects the "rights" of those denying civil liberties to the general public.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Do either of you know about Dr Jordan Peterson?

 

[Steve R.]

Do either of you know about Dr Jordan Peterson?

Speaking for myself, yes. I have noticed that you have posted many of his You-Tube videos. Keep posting. He has a lot very hard truths to say that people do not seem to want to acknowledge.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Are people like David Cole really as stupid as they sound? Or is he just brainwashed? How could millions of people been brainwashed while the rest of us didn't notice? So many people I speak with say the same thing and when I ask them what about Trump's policies do they not like, they cannot come up with anything. This is simply personal and they are stupid enough or hateful enough to allow the country to fall into Socialism out of spite.

 

[Isaac]

@Isaac: Thanks for doing that additional research. Unfortunate, that the ACLU only supports "civil liberties" for those on the political "left". In a quickie, somewhat random internet search, I ran across this troubling blog post by By David Cole on the ACLU website: Why We Must Defend Free Speech. In short, the post concludes that right wing speech constitutes hate speech and should not be protected; despite the title of the post affirming freedom of expression.
Aren't the members of the public entitled to conduct their personal and business activities without having their civil liberties violated by ANTIFA, Black Lives Matter, Maxine Waters, or other radical left wing groups promoting violence against them?
The ACLU is now excusable of moral relativism. The ACLU now protects the "rights" of those denying civil liberties to the general public.

Yep -
And that presents a more nuanced set of issues, I think. For example, most people would agree I think that we do want to prevent Nazis from marching in the streets again - if it were really THAT. The problem comes in, as you implied, when anyone who doesn't agree that America is systemically oppressing blacks and that that is the primary reason for any differences in achievements..........Anyone who believes that is now considered a "white supremacist". The problem comes in, of course, with the term white supremacist. If I actually came across a group who believed in white supremacy as a hard fast black-and-white ideology, I'd be against them, too.

But nowadays that term, as oh-so-many others, have been drastically EXPANDED to mean a huge cluster of other things that it didn't originally mean, and oughtn't mean. Or at least, liberals are trying to expand the term as such. Since (as Trump has also demonstrated), silly nicknames can help drive a movement.

 

[Isaac]

Do either of you know about Dr Jordan Peterson?

I've only heard of him from your posts - Will have to have a listen some time! I tend not to view videos on my laptop very often, just in a quiet environment. Maybe tonight I'll re-read some of your recommendations and have a go.

 

[Steve R.]

Are people like David Cole really as stupid as they sound? Or is he just brainwashed? How could millions of people been brainwashed while the rest of us didn't notice? So many people I speak with say the same thing and when I ask them what about Trump's policies do they not like, they cannot come up with anything. This is simply personal and they are stupid enough or hateful enough to allow the country to fall into Socialism out of spite.

A question that I have long pondered. For too long there was a dim awareness of this, but it was mostly suppressed since it was ethereally "academic". Now it is in-your-face. Communities are being devastated, and people's careers and business are being destroyed through this "intifada". It is very real and concrete now.

There were some early movie precursors to the is evolution showing that some were becoming aware of this evolution by incorporating it into media: Demolition Man (1993) and The Incredibles (2004). Today, what has "exploded" this issue into a hysterical tirade have been the Democrats falsely slandering the Republican as "racist", when it has been the Democrats fanning the flames of hatred and racism. As with the "French Revolution", will this foaming-at-the-mouth diatribe of insanity eventually burn itself-out?

 

[Steve R.]

In reading comments on this story, I ran across this one, below, which I liked. After all, if there have been any work place accusations of racism, misogyny, and/or hostile work environment; then every member of the workforce would have been required to attend "sensitivity training". Seems that Transylvania University should put on such a course so the likes of Tompkins could become "sensitive" to the feelings of Sandmann.

The university should conduct sensitivity intervention sessions for all faculty and staff to cover its @$$.

 

[Isaac]

And now for some more positive news.

This happened:

Delaware women accused of stealing MAGA hat indicted on robbery, hate crime charges

Two Delaware women accused of stealing a MAGA hat outside the Democratic National Convention were indicted Tuesday on charges including second-degree robbery and felony hate crimes.

www.foxnews.com

Despite this:

Vote Smart | Facts For All

Vote Smart provides free, unbiased, in-depth information about current officials, candidates, issues, legislation, and voting. Non-partisan and nonprofit since 1988.

justfacts.votesmart.org

While I personally do not like the advent of "hate crime" designations...(I think a crime should just be a crime, and victims of crimes who suffered identical injuries ought to have identical justice)...Yet, if we are going to have them, it's good to see them applied in any direction, rather than benefiting just one group, as they usually are.

If I am right that this AG supported the charges, then I applaud her and give her props for it, despite her fairly liberal leaning profile (from what I can tell).
This is all just from quick reviews on my part, I haven't deep dived into the situation nor her typical approaches in other cases.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

While I personally do not like the advent of "hate crime" designations..

The problem is, who decides it's a hate crime?

 

[Isaac]

The problem is, who decides it's a hate crime?

Agreed 100%.
In criminal law, proving a defendant's mental state is enough of a critical and not-always-easy thing. With hate crimes, their entire reasoning and viewpoints have to be delved into..it's ridiculous. And of course, it's usually used only in favor of certain groups of people - so they are privileged in that regard.

My line of thinking on hate crimes doesn't even need to address all of this, because for me, the whole thing stops at it being patently unfair.
We have a long line of tradition of crime & punishment that punishes you based on what you did ...Not what you were thinking. At least it certainly should be that way.

2 different people punch 2 other different people in the face.
The first defendant did it because he thought the victim was ugly. The second defendant did it because he didn't like the victim's race.
Enter hate crimes; you now have two victims who suffered exactly identical harm. One gets the privilege of "double justice" (or whatever you might want to call it). The other, equally hurt & harmed, doesn't. (And I haven't even mentioned yet whether it's fair to the defendants).

Totally unjust to pretty much everyone involved. Except the DA's and legislature who passed it...They get exactly what they calculated: More minority votes. : )

If there actually is any legitimate reason why some people wanted to invent the concept of a "hate crime", I know what it really is...because the law just wasn't being enforced properly in some cases where violence was propogated on victims because of their race. Ok fine ... So you already have a crime of assault or battery, and you have a problem where the enforcement is unreliable or selective. Then the proper course of action is to SOLVE that problem, by enforcing the already existing law, or finding ways to hold people who aren't enforcing it accountable. Instead they invented new charges in response to the exact same actions, hoping that the cumulative effect would be more justice, somehow. And guess what - Now the solution becomes the problem. Because the choice to include 'hate' charges is a serious one, and--just like the original enforcement problem--it can (and is) also selectively applied. Ironically, the thing that was supposed to solve failure to give certain victims justice, has just become another thing that can be weaponized as any DA chooses.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Then the proper course of action is to SOLVE that problem, by enforcing the already existing law,

Wiser words were never said. We keep adding new laws on top of old laws that no one wanted to enforce when we should actually be removing old laws that we have no intention of enforcing. Immigration would have been resolved decades ago if we would only just enforce the laws on the books or convince Congress to rescind them.

ONLY a banana republic selectively enforces their laws and that is what we have become.

 

[Isaac]

Wiser words were never said. We keep adding new laws on top of old laws that no one wanted to enforce when we should actually be removing old laws that we have no intention of enforcing. Immigration would have been resolved decades ago if we would only just enforce the laws on the books or convince Congress to rescind them.

ONLY a banana republic selectively enforces their laws and that is what we have become.

Careful now, the words "banana" and "laws" are triggers to many.

 

[Steve R.]

Wiser words were never said. We keep adding new laws on top of old laws that no one wanted to enforce when we should actually be removing old laws that we have no intention of enforcing.

We keep adding useless new laws, because our Congress people want to show their constituents that they are doing something. Unfortunately, this detracts from the fact that Congress, especially the Senate, should be looking at the "big picture" instead of wasting time and effort manipulating the legislative process to pass vanity laws.

Immigration would have been resolved decades ago if we would only just enforce the laws on the books or convince Congress to rescind them.

It was "solved" under the Reagan administration. Besides the Reagan administration; the immigration issue may have been, once again (but I can't remember), solved under another administration. In any event, another example of Congress passing a law and then tossing it into the garbage. A few boaring years go by. All of sudden, immigration once again becomes a major crisis. The Congress people then proceede to blame each other and start making demands to fix the "broken immigration system". In fact, the immigration system was never really broken because it was never truly implemented.[/QUOTE]