Youâre welcome, and thanks for clearing that up, but I think the piece still has everything to do with Charlottesville. If the author has changed his mind after Charlottesville, great, but just look at this passage:
And it is no accident violent protests at universities against free speech, and no-platforming against scientists and conservative speakers, have become commonplace, for the social sciences have told us we can change anything when we work together. The question remains whether by sheer willpower we can change the the realities science reveals in its methods. Although some higher education institutions are stepping up to the challenges these recent developments pose, others have capitulated. It appears even Google has deferred to the ideological order when challenged with scientific viewpoints.[4] Why? Listen to any of the multitude of protests, conducted by so called âSocial Justice Warriors,â[5] filmed and uploaded on YouTube typically by the protestors themselves.[6] Youâll find a harrowing reality, where no evidence is given for assertions, virtue-signalling is the only virtue, and logic and reason are received from opposing parties as weapons of violence. In fact, speech itself is understood as violence.[7] This is a strange new world, yet hardly brave. We should be wary of the attempts of identity politics to place our value as persons in the attainment of group traits, in the assertion that mere belonging to a group bestows epistemic or moral superiority. We should be wary, that is to say, of any wisdom we havenât earned.
This is the same kind of nonsense that leads to the âboth sides are at faultâ cowardice that excuses Nazis. The alt righters who marched through UVA screaming âJews will not replace usâ believed the same thing: that they were defending âfree speechâ (another word just as meaningless as âidentity politicsâ and âpolitical correctness.â)Â
I appreciate the civil tone of your response but that article is still smug, stupid, wrong, hypocritical, and also deeply offensive to my own religion, Buddhism, as well as to most other non-Christian religions. Every time the writer uses the word âreligionâ he should have used âmy own brand of white sorta-liberal-but-not-progressive Christianityâ because most of the ways he characterizes âreligionâ are completely false. Like thisââWhen we forget religion, will we lose our souls?ââBUDDHISM EXPLICITLY REJECTS THE CONCEPT OF A SOUL. These are gross, ignorant, manipulative generalizations and as a religious person I NEVER want the author speaking for me.
turnnoffyourmind
jbbartram-illu
baratheonpilled
theartofmadeline
origamiaround
snowghoul
kianamaiart
stormborns
dededos
