Stop the Illiberal Left

ban

It’s really funny to listen to a lot of people on the left who pretend to be for freedom and individuality and free speech, yet in practice, they’re anything but.  Lots of people are coming to that conclusion, even people on the left who realize that so many people on the liberal fringe are not in favor of any of those things, in fact, they hate freedom and responsibility and the ability to speak your mind.  They are, what columnist Kirsten Powers calls, “the illiberal left“.

Now I’m not the biggest fan of reading liberal books and Powers does consider herself a lifelong liberal even though she works for FOX, but even she realizes that fundamental liberal values are being attacked by people that she thought were on her side.  These extremists cannot handle free speech that goes against their narrow views.  They want journalists who defy their wishes fired from their jobs and black listed from the industry.  Dissent cannot be allowed and we’ve seen this time and time again in recent years.  Either you drink their Kool Aid or you shut your mouth and they have no problem attacking you, harassing you or trying their level best to harm you, emotionally, financially and maybe even physically, because you refuse to toe their line.

It’s because of this that I find the idea that liberals are for freedom and anti-authoritarianism to be laughably absurd.  It’s clearly not the case anymore.  They want everyone to think like they think, act like they act and if you don’t, they have no problem trying to bring the full force of the law against you.  It’s why schools, once the bastion of free speech and expression, now have speech codes, “free speech areas” and are requiring people to attend sensitivity training because they haven’t had this ultra-liberal indoctrination shoved deep enough into their skulls.

I really recommend that anyone interested in this subject read Powers’ book, it really is a disturbing look at how the political and social left in America has gone batshit insane.  It’s also funny to read the far-left response to the book, where they try to defend their actions by saying that they don’t really have the political power to forcefully take away anyone’s right to free speech, that it happens as a consequence of their actions is beside the point.  It’s a coincidence.  Liberals can’t actually do these things, never mind that they really, really want to, they just lack the power.  Sorry, the desire to forcibly stop someone from speaking their mind is antithetical to the American political system, whether you hold a gun to their head, pass a law, or simply ruin their lives.  Anyone who engages in these behaviors needs a good swift kick in the teeth, it is reprehensible and it’s standard operating procedure for the new illiberal left.  We’ve all seen it.  We all continue to see it.  It’s disgusting.

 

21 thoughts on “Stop the Illiberal Left

  1. Rather odd that a person who is so critical of religion and believers would link to a Christian site as the source for the basis of this commentary.

  2. "It’s because of this that I find the idea that liberals are for freedom and anti-authoritarianism to be laughably absurd."

    There you go again, painting all liberals with the same brush. Liberalism is not, like conservatism, a monolithic political culture. What is laughably absurd is this obviously flawed generalization.

      1. Bullshit. Read your own freaking words. You clearly are speaking of all liberals. You use no qualifying words. You use no phrasing to indicate you are speaking of some liberals, most liberals, or a few liberals.

        The idiocy on display here is at your end of the conversation, not to mention your inability to use English well enough to express yourself. If indeed you don't mean all liberals when you make such comments then use phrasing that conveys this.

        It is of no concern to me whether anyone talks to me here, or even why or why not. That should be clear to you given that I continue to post comments here even though I very seldom get any responses to my comments. Perhaps if you think real hard about it you'll figure out why I keep posting comments. But I'm not going to wager on you succeeding.

        1. You do realize people use exaggerated language on a day to day basis. Case in point when people say 'totally' or 'literally' multiple times in a sentence and don't actually mean what they say. Unless you are incredibly naive and live in some ivory tower away from average people you will recognize this reality.

          So let's jot down a few points of reference for you stranger to help you understand the situation:

          1. Kristen Powers is a Liberal

          2. Cephus stated that Kristen Powers has stated that the left can have ill-liberal mannerisms

          3. Cephus agreed liberals have ill-liberal (aka authoritarian tendencies) despite the exaggerated generalizations (refer to first paragraph).

          4. Kristen Powers- does not support silencing her ideological critics.

          5. Cephus agrees with Kristen Powers- therefore Cephus based upon this agreement does not believe ALL liberals are in favor of silencing critics despite some exaggerated use of language or are all the same in every way (refer to previous points above).

          So perhaps my dear stranger you can stop taking everything anyone says or writes as absolutely true of what they mean all the time. Unless you’re autistic or suffering from some similar mental disorder which makes you incapable of comprehending social situations and the way people speak, then you have my sympathies. If not- just try to lighten up and not take everything so personally- okay buddy?

          1. How many times do we just describe it as the use of exaggerated language before it becomes time to acknowledge that the person is not using exaggerated language. Go back through a year or more and examine his postings in which he criticizes this or that about liberals and note how many times he refers to liberals rather than to some liberals, all liberals, most liberals, illilberal liberals, etc. It is clear to me from his habit of always referring simply to liberals that he thinks that liberals are all pretty much of the same mindset, beliefs, and behaviors, and he pretty much thinks them all worthless. He has certainly made it clear in his postings that he thinks all liberals to be incapable of rational thought and are nothing more than emotional windbags, devoid of any intellectual substance.

            And stop the silly use of the "don't take it so personal" distraction. I don't write these comments because I feel personally offended. I write them in an attempt, though it may well be a futile one, to correct his misrepresentation and misunderstanding of liberals and liberalism.

  3. "…if you don’t, they have no problem trying to bring the full force of the law against you. It’s why schools, once the bastion of free speech and expression, now have speech codes, “free speech areas” and are requiring people to attend sensitivity training because they haven’t had this ultra-liberal indoctrination shoved deep enough into their skulls."

    You accuse these liberals of "trying to bring the full force of the law against" those whom they disagree with, yet the examples you provided concerning University policies are not the result of any laws. No municipal, state or federal laws have been enacted requiring any of the policies you mentioned.

    1. It depends, some media sources are still on the crazy train. The most recent one I've seen, they're screaming that the patriarchy is responsible for women being cold in offices with the A/C up too high. Oh yes, those wonderful first-world problems and the crazy feminists who are convinced everyone is out to get them.

          1. Sexist may be too strong a label for this issue, but what the two women were talking about in the report to which you linked is based on actual research published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change. If you had paid closer attention to the YouTube video you would have noticed a tag line at the bottom that read "Researchers claim standard office temperature of 22 C is too low for most women.” I googled “office temperature and women” and found articles in The Seattle Times, the New York Times, BBC, Washington Post and and many other sources about this research. The New York Times article <a href="http://(http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/science/chilly-at-work-a-decades-old-formula-may-be-to-blame.html)” target=”_blank”>(http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/science/chilly-at-work-a-decades-old-formula-may-be-to-blame.html) contained a link to the research article published online at Nature Climate Change <a href="http://(http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2741.html)” target=”_blank”>(http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2741.html). Here is the abstract portion of the article titled Energy Consumption in Buildings and Female Thermal Demand:

            “Energy consumption of residential buildings and offices adds up to about 30% of total carbon dioxide emissions; and occupant behaviour contributes to 80% of the variation in energy consumption1. Indoor climate regulations are based on an empirical thermal comfort model that was developed in the 1960s (ref. 2). Standard values for one of its primary variables—metabolic rate—are based on an average male, and may overestimate female metabolic rate by up to 35% (ref. 3). This may cause buildings to be intrinsically non-energy-efficient in providing comfort to females. Therefore, we make a case to use actual metabolic rates. Moreover, with a biophysical analysis we illustrate the effect of miscalculating metabolic rate on female thermal demand. The approach is fundamentally different from current empirical thermal comfort models and builds up predictions from the physical and physiological constraints, rather than statistical association to thermal comfort. It provides a substantiation of the thermal comfort standard on the population level and adds flexibility to predict thermal demand of subpopulations and individuals. Ultimately, an accurate representation of thermal demand of all occupants leads to actual energy consumption predictions and real energy savings of buildings that are designed and operated by the buildings services community.

            It is obvious from this that the original method devised for determining “indoor climate regulations” was based on metabolic rates for men and those of women were not considered. Now this may not be an overt or egregious example of sexism, but it certainly qualifies as sexist to consider only male metabolic rates in determining the standard for indoor thermal regulation.

            Hell, even Fortune magazine ran a piece about this research and characterized this standard as sexist:

            “The problem is that one variable in that formula is inherently sexist.” <a href="http://(http://fortune.com/2015/08/03/women-office-freezing-cold/)” target=”_blank”>(http://fortune.com/2015/08/03/women-office-freezing-cold/)

            You can download the Nature article and read it for yourself.

            Here are links to a number of sites that published articles about the research. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33760845 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/times-changedhttp://money.cnn.com/2015/08/03/news/offices-too-http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-healthhttp://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/is-your-th

            So perhaps you should do a little research before you go around labeling this as an example of media sources "screaming that the patriarchy is responsible for women being cold in offices with the A/C up to high." First, no one reporting on this used the term patrriarchy, so you have falsely mischaracterized the reporting on this topic. Secondly, the reporting of this is based ona a piece of scientific research published in one of the most prestigious of all the peer-reviewed scientific journals.

          2. We probably need to consider instituting an American version of "Cool Japan". This would allow men to dress less formally while at work, so they don't require the thermostat to be set so low during the Summer. Some companies have done such, but far too few. We need to encourage all levels of employees at many companies, from the CEO all the way down to the interns, to adopt this approach. This would work on several levels: less energy use, women not as chilled while working, and men not as overheated by wearing full business suits or similar during the really hot months. Win-win-win!

          3. The issue, and the reason that these women are calling it sexist, is because male core body temperature is supposedly about 2-3 degrees higher than female core body temperature, thus men, regardless of their dress, want the A/C higher than women do. Therefore, biology is sexist, I guess. I'm fine with people wearing whatever makes the situation easier for everyone, what I'm not fine with is radical feminists pretending that human biology is a patriarchal conspiracy.

          4. "I'm not fine with is radical feminists pretending that human biology is a patriarchal conspiracy."

            This is not what any feminists, radical or otherwise, are claiming. The conversation between the two women upon which your original piece is based certainly were not making any such claim. And what is your basis for describing either of these women as radical feminists? Is it based solely on this one conversation or are you familiar enough with a large enough body of their other writings to draw such a conclusion?

            And you really should read the original research article that was the basis for the conversation those two women were having. It was clearly pointed out in the article that the problem was that the metabolic rate of women was never factored into the development of the formula for determing the standard used to determine and set indoor climate regulations. It is not that the biology is sexist. It was that the method used to determine the regulation was based on, for lack of a better way to say it, a sexist-based calculation.

          5. They are not saying that human biology is a patriarchal conspiracy, they are saying it is sexist for businesses to only consider male biology for setting room temperature. Common Cephus, you are too smart to be making dense comments like this.

          6. But they're not. It isn't every woman who works there that is complaining, it is a couple, at least from what I could tell, and those people, instead of thinking that their particular body temperature and temperature preferences runs outside of the norm, they assume sexist intentions. So far as I can tell, not being there, there is no basis for that claim. That is really the problem with the illiberal left, a term that is becoming more and more common. Instead of looking for the most logical explanation, they always leap to the conclusion that it must be sexism or racism or some other blanket explanation for the cause of things they don't like.

  4. I got the audio version of Kirsten Powers' book. Thank you for telling me about that. I'm grateful she identified herself early on as having converted to Christianity. However, she does seem to beat up on the Left over and over again, while giving the Right the equivalent of a hand-slap for doing pretty much the same thing (different tactics, though). Personally, I think extreme Left and Right people are both messing things up for everybody else. They are minorities, but they have the loudest voices and are the most committed to acting on their beliefs, no matter who gets hurt, because it's for the Greater Good…

  5. The terminology is still being worked out as far as how to describe the people you are talking about. Some prefer "illiberal left" while others prefer "regressive left." Personally, I think "authoritarian left" may be the best term to describe the people you are talking about. They appear to oppose the Enlightenment values and classical liberalism that many of us on the left still hold dear. They are not just willing but eager to impose their will on others. I do think it is a mistake to characterize the entire left as being like this though.

    My recent post An Evangelical Christian Struggles With the Lunatic Fringe

    1. But what is "left" or "right"? Because you have people who have pretty much nothing in common using the same terminology to refer to themselves, do these terms really have any objective meaning or is it all just something that people stick to their foreheads and never bother to think about it?

      1. I would broadly that being on the left means one thinks hierarchy is bad, and egalitarianism is good, while the underlying philosophy on the right is the hierarchy can be good because things work best when people have different roles. Both sides can be authoritarian,libertarian, or somewhere in the middle.

Leave a Reply to Rick K. Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)