Saturday, November 25, 2006

Not Tolerating Mike Adams' Intolerance at UMass

I always find it interesting when protesters claim, while protesting someone's (usually a conservative's) appearance, that they're very tolerant people--but they can't tolerate this person's intolerance!

In other words, they're as hypocritical as one can get.

Sure, I support their right to protest. I support their right to disagree. But allow me to be blunt--when you disrupt events, when you shout down speakers with whom you disagree, when you act like a mob, you're going far beyond reasonable and reasoned action; rather, you're trying to prohibit someone else's free speech. You're hiding behind the very First Amendment you claim to support.

I'd say you're not acting like adults when you do that, but regrettably entirely too many adults do act that way today. Instead, I have to say you're not acting like reasonable, reasoned, polite Americans.

In fact, you're acting like the very fascists that you are.


Anonymous said...

You mean like U-Bots?

allen said...

Darren, the mistake you're making is in assuming that the whole "all men are created equal" idea can't but apply too, well, all. Not everyone who's worthwhile or noble or says the right things but everyone.

That's not the starting assumption of the folks in Mike Adams' column. It's implicit in their tactics that all men are not created equal, that some are created more equal then others and those more equal people have a responsibility and a right to suppress the views of their inferiors.

That's why the charge of hypocrisy fails. The only way the folks in Mike Adam's column could be hypocrits is if they were Mike Adams' moral equals and not his moral superiors. That inequality is a given and to admit the hypocrisy would be to admit inferiority, i.e. they aren't as good as they've decided they are and Mike Adams' equal. That's a pretty tough nut to swallow, more then, on the evidence, most people are capable of.

Fortunately, time wounds all heels and if these folks can be prevented from establishing a worker's paradise for a couple of years they'll go from participation to observation. Observers don't plant bombs and they're, however uncomfortably, part of the system. Once they're part of the system we've got 'em.

Darren said...

Some u-bots act like fascists, yes.

John S. said...

A lot of passion and anger here. I agree we should put the civil back in Thoreau's civil disobedience. A liberal is no more a commie than a conservative is a fascist. Both, however, are Americans. I have said it before; liberals are the worse at proclaiming tolerance and not practicing it. I still side with them though in proclaiming the virtue of tolerance.

rightwingprof said...

"A liberal is no more a commie than a conservative is a fascist."

It depends. A great many liberals apologized for Stalin, even insisted that he did not murder millions (Walter Duranty comes to mind). The "peace" movement during Vietnam had nothing to do with peace, and had everything to do with supporting the North Vietnamese Communist state (and please, no revisionist nonsense; I lived through the era). And certainly liberals who support socialist programs are commies -- if they weren't commies, they wouldn't support commie programs, like single-payer healthcare, expanded entitlement programs, stealing more money from the successful in the name of "paying their fair share," that sort of thing. All socialist, all commies. These days, more liberals are commies than not.

A spade is a spade, even if you call it a pointed shovel.