tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post6123986513882799103..comments2024-02-27T16:59:54.089-05:00Comments on (The New) Theatre Ideas: Poor Player on Intolerant LiberalismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-7652484559930952812008-11-12T13:22:00.000-05:002008-11-12T13:22:00.000-05:00I have never bought the argument that it is OK for...I have never bought the argument that it is OK for us to do something that is wrong because they do it too or do it more. Your argument about the issue of poverty being drowned out would be strengthened if you would condemn the drowning out of someone you disagree with. I don't condone the lack of time poverty was discussed in the election. Now, will you do the same in this instance?Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-85743923080288083312008-11-12T13:12:00.000-05:002008-11-12T13:12:00.000-05:00Rejection of dialog? Shouting? If i've misrepresen...Rejection of dialog? Shouting? If i've misrepresented you or your position in anyway that even comes close to the association you made between me and lenin and stalin. I appologize. <BR/><BR/>All i'm trying to say is that in america today many many voices are drowned out by crowds, to focus criticism on overzealous leftists when there are entire networks of media machines designed for drowning out the voices of the left is either hopelessly naive, or it's participating in the silencing of the left.Ben Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04838599516482103220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-72454927862526412012008-11-11T15:50:00.000-05:002008-11-11T15:50:00.000-05:00No, the dismissal of all other voices except those...No, the dismissal of all other voices except those of "leftists" leads me to draw a parallel. I agree that the focus on the middle class in the election has totally ignored those who are poor. But I don't see how one thing sanctions the anti-democratic silencing of a citizen. Jim Wallis, who heads Sojourners, a prominent Christian organization that is focused very strongly on the issues of poverty, continues to inject that topic into the conversation. But it is (or should be) a conversation, not a shouting match, and your rejection of dialog doesn't resonate with me.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-28927939842714948372008-11-11T15:40:00.000-05:002008-11-11T15:40:00.000-05:00You've got to be fucking kidding me. Mentioning th...You've got to be fucking kidding me. Mentioning the existance of poverty in america leads to being branded a leninist or stalinist? That's what passes for "open discourse" these days?Ben Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04838599516482103220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-26176249958184325802008-11-11T13:09:00.000-05:002008-11-11T13:09:00.000-05:00Well, Rex, you and I disagree on this. I don't hap...Well, Rex, you and I disagree on this. I don't happen to think that the original ideas are obsolete, nor do I think a Leninist uprising is a worthwhile goal. As we saw with Stalinism, the tyranny of the left can be as brutally totalitarian as that of the right, and anything that is built on shouting more loudly than others is a step toward totalitarianism.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-64260549432397181292008-11-11T12:52:00.000-05:002008-11-11T12:52:00.000-05:00Scott- i fear that a return to our underlying prin...Scott- i fear that a return to our underlying principles is a lost cause. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, those principles are pretty obsolete. At anyrate, the fact of the matter is there is nothing like an open exchange of ideas in america today, and there won't be one until leftists start shouting loud enough to be heard over all the democrats, republicans and television stations combined. <BR/><BR/>If these kids drowned out one religious nutjob, it might be a fly buzzing in the face of democracy. Meanwhile the force with which any mention of "poverty" was drowned out by all parties during the election is a sledgehammer in the face of democracy. Taking these kids to task while celebrating the people who weild that sledgehammer is pretty silly.Ben Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04838599516482103220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-27359911607013380442008-11-10T18:57:00.000-05:002008-11-10T18:57:00.000-05:00Well, your self-righteous cocksuredness is exactly...Well, your self-righteous cocksuredness is exactly what Tom and I are warning against. If you agree with something, you let it get away with violations of actual democratic principles; if you don't agree with it, it is proto-fascism. The only way we can get our country back is to commit anew and with fervor to the underlying principles that make it work. An open exchange of ideas is bedrock.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-5747138172776425452008-11-10T17:26:00.000-05:002008-11-10T17:26:00.000-05:00"We've survived Bush's near-fascist abuse of power..."We've survived Bush's near-fascist abuse of power as well, but that don't make it something to apsire to."<BR/><BR/>Equating the abuses of the Bush administration and student on campus peaceful protest is quite the hyperbole.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the real warning issued should be that liberals must understand and educate themselves because an Obama presidency does not negate the necessity for diligence in the face of theocratic bigotry, ignorance, and backmindedness. In fact it will actually highen the need. <BR/><BR/>Again I applaud these students. Not becuase they impinge on the democractic right of an individual (which I do not agree they did), but rather they exercised their rights and leveraged that right as a (gulp)community.<BR/><BR/>-dvAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-50920010725165381912008-11-10T17:05:00.000-05:002008-11-10T17:05:00.000-05:00Of course, it ain't about Jim, it is about our soc...Of course, it ain't about Jim, it is about our society. Which will live, yes -- is that the bar? We've survived Bush's near-fascist abuse of power as well, but that don't make it something to apsire to.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-34524968404349712752008-11-10T16:27:00.000-05:002008-11-10T16:27:00.000-05:00Well, I am sure Jim will live to hate another day ...Well, I am sure Jim will live to hate another day despite the sound of drums.<BR/><BR/>I'll conclude in a most civic tone, that I disagree with you and move on to bug another blogger. <BR/><BR/>BTW, glad you're posting again even though I don't always agree. <BR/><BR/>I promise never to drum when you blog (hmmm... change never to rarely)<BR/><BR/>;)<BR/><BR/>dvAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-84779795106777799702008-11-10T16:15:00.000-05:002008-11-10T16:15:00.000-05:00dv -- Apparently, you have a loser idea of democra...dv -- Apparently, you have a loser idea of democracy than I do. For me, it is more than voting -- it is a process that requires the civil exchange of ideas. The space that the preacher was in was one designated for public speakers, and he had gone through the channels to be allowed to use that space. As such, it is no longer a "public space," but rather a space designated for public discourse. To my knowledge, those who drummed over the preacher did not receive permission to do so. Second, you are assuming that the group of drummers reflected the will of everyone -- that there was nobody who wanted to listen to the preacher, or engage him in dialogue. My experience is that this is rarely the case -- that there are always some people who enjoy hearing ideas, even those they disagree with. These are the truly tolerant. Democracy -- REAL democracy depends on civility and a willingness to allow opposing views to not only be heard, but considered. Not much to consider in this case: the preacher is wrong. But he deserves to be allowed to be wrong as part of the great conversation.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-16576930651390885722008-11-10T15:52:00.000-05:002008-11-10T15:52:00.000-05:00Scott, I think that last sentence is a poor poor a...Scott, <BR/><BR/>I think that last sentence is a poor poor analogy. This isnt a matter of someone spilling water on Mike Daisey's art at a peformance where audience has paid money. <BR/><BR/>Jim has no grounds here. I would have no objective ground to protest the drums either (whether it be speech that is religious intolerance or a dada poetry slam). Not if the performance was in a public space. Then I would have to tolerate the response of those folks. This didn't happen on the steps of a church, or inside or even at a speaking engagement on religion and homosexuality. This was a man on a self appointed soap box speaking in a public space where the majority of the community around him did not want to hear what he said. He has a right to speak there. He does not have a right to the silence of those in the space, or a right to expect their acquiescence. The students acted within their right to assemble in the space and to respond. <BR/><BR/>If the students did the same thing at Jim's home or church, only then would they have acted inappropriately. <BR/><BR/>Jim is no martyr. Neither is democracy in this matter. <BR/><BR/>The expression of religious intolerance is protected in this country. Everyone has a right to speak their mind in public spaces... but that does not imply that they have a right to be heard.<BR/><BR/>Here's an idea, what if the students had all showed up, but rather than drums the all had turned their ipods to full and refused to take their earphones out? Would that have been a blow to democracy. <BR/><BR/>It is perfectly fine to find this collegiate display distasteful to your sensibility, but what I witness here is actual communal democracy in the face of a signular theocratic vision.<BR/><BR/>-dvAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-25981671359736875712008-11-10T15:20:00.000-05:002008-11-10T15:20:00.000-05:00dv -- Taking an action that silences the words of ...dv -- Taking an action that silences the words of another person is not a responsible engagement. It is bullying, no matter where it comes from. It was wrong in the 1960s when campus radicals shouted down speakers who held differing opinions, and it is wrong now. Democracy relies on the open exchange of ideas, and that requires civility. You would be less sanguine if a group of religious zealots shouted through one of your performances.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-71084839710649560792008-11-10T15:14:00.000-05:002008-11-10T15:14:00.000-05:00Whereas I am a proponent of free speech, and can a...Whereas I am a proponent of free speech, and can agree with the principles of civil discourse, I find his example of the anti-gay preacher to be alarmingly off the mark. It seems to me that in this instance, 1 man exercised his right to speak his mind, and the community responsed in a non-violent manner. I fail to find the defeat in this.<BR/><BR/>I also wonder about Tom's definition of hate speech. At what point does sermonizing about "sin" cross the line into hate speech? Does the message matter contextually, or is any message worthy of being met with open ear so long as it is delivered "with love" (cough...cough...choking sound...cough)<BR/><BR/>Moderation in all things...to my mind includes a moderation of tolerance. <BR/><BR/>I am not going to pretend that liberals are "better" or "more tolerant"<BR/><BR/>The faculty dialogue on the matter turning ugly? Well that seems to me unfortunate incident... the point when I can back Tom's message here. And if there were reprecussions to expressing the opinion that freedom of speech was in question? Well I can see the catch 22 in that illustration.<BR/><BR/>But the preacher is less a victim, and more a failure. He wanted to effect his community. He did. He just failed to elict the response he wanted. <BR/><BR/>-dvAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com