Posted on 08/05/2018 5:45:37 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot
It’s only when progressives lose control of an issue that they agree to even have it discussed. This is then called a conversation
The president of Wilfrid Laurier University recently published a statement on free speech at Laurier and in the academy generally. It was a sad effort.
She built a Giza-sized pyramid of clichés and virtue-speak about something she was pleased to call “better speech” — as opposed to that decayed old concept, hustled by the likes of John Stuart Mill, Voltaire, and the framers of the American Constitution, known as “free speech.”
Amid the vast waste of anodynes, platitudes and non-sequiturs, it was difficult to pick out a winner — the most tired, numb and vacant verbalism. But I struggled and chose, from her opening sentence, her claim that Laurier “has been at the centre of the campus free-speech conversation during the past year.”
(snip)
You hear it when any real designated-as-politically-correct issue has escaped from the closed-thought cloisters of university safe-spaces and univocal “studies” programs. Having escaped from these sealed chambers of prescribed thinking and speech, and entered into open debate, into actual discussion and contest, a defensive reaction sets in. Ideas that were before off-limits, ruled beyond debate, declared the only right way to speak and think — once under challenge, very often even ridiculed and mocked, are suddenly reframed by their former jailers as candidates for a “conversation.” It’s only when progressives lose control of an issue that they agree to even have it discussed. This is then called a conversation.
“We need to have a conversation” is the white flag of the politically correct brigade.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalpost.com ...
More and more Leftists now regret their 60's and 70's "FREE SPEECH" 'movement'. Now that the 'right' learned and started to use their tactics for long overdue payback.
This is the system progressives used to get acceptance for gay marriage, abortion, political violence etc.
They start a 'discussion' and the act of 'debating an issue' makes people feel there are two equal sides worthy of debate.
It's a psy-ops move and it works.
btt
While still in a small minority Muslims act the same way; but, there is at this time a corrupted lexicon of terms, which the likesof the OIC has put the world on notice that these are defined according to Sharia rather than their colloquial use.
That means, for instance, when any Muslim says that they condemn terrorism you do not know if they are doing so with the colloquial sense of the word or with the Sharia compliant sense of the word (which makes terrorism mainly out to be any violence or harm done to Muslims without right ... which excludes all jihad against non-Muslims as terrorism).
Not knowing which is being used means Muslims are open to suspicion of non-agreement agreeing on many things. Do they openly repudiate the OIC which, since it represents all Muslim countries at the head of state level, claims to speak for the whole Ummah ... including Muslims in non-Muslim lands?
But so very many simply do not know about the double-speak, or accept the fact of the double-speak if they do. The lie that Islam is a religion of peace was one that the OIC and Muslim Brotherhood (and all it’s little piggie offshoot organizations like CAIR) was striving to impose long before W parroted it.
(part 1 of a long but worthwhile lecture covering many aspects of the Muslim duplicity: https://youtube.com/watch?v=nhZe7eZK4dw )
The Muslim friendlies were already well established in many Western governments by the time Stephen Coughlin was harried away after starting to give his briefings on Islam and Sharia for not being politically correct. In fact, I recall from back in the day even British comedy (in the form of Yes, Minister / Yes, Prime Minister) using the pro-Muslim attitudes of some orientalist as fodder for comedy.
“Newspeak”
Not to mention "racism." Where a religion becomes a race, and racism against the white race can't exist.
I read “better speech” as government approved or politically correct speech. Either way: No
I know a great number of Christian Lebanese people who fled the PLO incited Lebanese civil war to settle in Canada. Great business people and friendly neighbours. To the extent that a separate “race” exists in the Middle East, they are indistinguishable with Muslims from the same area. My aversion to Muslims has nothing to do with their race. I oppose muslim immigration whether it is from the Middle East, Southeast Asia, South Asia, Africa, the former Soviet Union, the Balkans, or white converts to islam from Europe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.