Conservatism on Campus?

I think this can all be cleared up by one simple statement.

We do not have the right to never be offended.

If somebody calls me a cracker, and I get upset, whose fault is that? Mine for getting mad, or his for saying it? sure, it may have been wrong--well, not against a white male, but anything against a female or a black or hispanic or Asian would have been wrong, but what are we going to do about it? Are we going to sue everybody who says something we don't like because, oh, God forbid, somebody might could be offended by it? Learn to deal with it, we're all going to have to put up with people we don't like, and with people who don't like us. Shut up, do your job, and get on with your life. Whining about this--this and any other seeminly offensive remarks--will only add fuel to these people's fires. While what he said was correct, he worded it very badly. Don't like it? Don't sit next to him at the lunch table.

EDIT (ADD) : Trace Native American heritage back far enough, and even they immigrated from the Bering Straight. Face it, we're all descendents of immigrants, and I'm as much of a native American as anybody else. I was born here, I'm native.

well, there is a difference between free speech and disturbing the peace. I don't know if he disturbed the peace with his flyers, but he might have.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasquatch
EDIT (ADD) : Trace Native American heritage back far enough, and even they immigrated from the Bering Straight. Face it, we're all descendents of immigrants, and I'm as much of a native American as anybody else. I was born here, I'm native.

---

My point stands all the stronger, then.

Also, i'd like to point out that this idea that people responded badly because it merely "offended" them misses the entire point of the negative response. Left-wing philosophies are often assaulted for being "whiny" or "easily offended." And i can understand this, because at its furthest extreme liberal philosophy can get so hung up about such minor things as to be not even worth the time, and political movements have always been unfortunately identified with their most outspoken and extreme sects. But the response to Bueller is not about 'getting upset that he said mean things.' Though this kid presents his views within the boundaries of our acceptable political spectrum, his ideals are destructive. "Offend" is hardly the word, because his brand of intolerance is the sort that damages community, supporting narrow-mindedness and a factioned, isolationist society. People live on the individual and communal level, and need both. Without individual thought, we get 1984. Without society, we get anarchy. Humans are social beings; for him to be so viciously assaulting community isn't "hurtful," because that completely misses the point: it's truly damaging.

I think he's doing this souly for attention. We had a flaming libertarian at SEMO trying to stir up trouble. We had a prankster who pulled the fire alarm every night. He got mad and started on about big brother when *a student* merely suggested that a camera by the smoke alarms would catch the guy. The girl sitting next to me told him to stop having sex in the louge and he;d have nothing to worry about.

:eek:

Anyway I think it's just sorta like a game to see who can piss off the teachers. He want to be big man. If the college was conservative he'd be a communist talking about how the corprate loving teachers have gotten out of line.

It's people like this that make foster my distaste for our political system. We are so partisan we are often blinded to things that really matter. It's always Democrat this, Republican that, Liberal this, Conservative that. I'd like to see a country that cares more about upholding the constitution and enacting laws that are both sensible and fair. Both parties and both ends of the spectrum are guilty of going against both those things.

I think part of the problem is that we're essentially a two party system. It wakes it far too easy to make the other side the enemy. It's checkers. One side up and the other down. I'm liberal on some things like gay marriage and healthcare and conservative on others, but because of the way the system is set up I would be labelled as "the other side" by both parties depending on the issue. So then these wingers say : "he disagrees so he's wrong" and like most young kids are kinda vocal about it, so he gets in trouble with the faculty who see him as a dangerous right wing guy.

We need a parlimentry system like England.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DocFrance
Who says this guy is Aryan? He could be Jewish

---

Because you know how Ayran people are automatically not Jewish, right? Because, someone's race determines their religion, right?

You know how extreme conservatives often refer to liberals as traitors? Well, did you know that the penalty in the U.S. for treason is death? So these people are saying that half of the U.S. population should be killed. Wow. Who are the real traitors now?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Moose Knight
Because you know how Ayran people are automatically not Jewish, right? Because, someone's race determines their religion, right?

---

I didn't say that at all. I was saying that he might not be Aryan. Besides, "Jewish" is a race as well as a faith. But let's not argue semantics here.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Moose Knight
You know how extreme conservatives often refer to liberals as traitors? Well, did you know that the penalty in the U.S. for treason is death? So these people are saying that half of the U.S. population should be killed. Wow. Who are the real traitors now?

---

That's a pretty broad statement, isn't it? Do you know many extreme conservatives do you know that say that, or are you just saying that to try to make a point? I don't think liberals - though whiney and idealistic - are traitors. Of course, I'm not an extremist, either.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DocFrance
Of course, I'm not an extremist, either.

---

If you say so...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DocFrance
I don't think liberals - though whiney and idealistic - are traitors.

---

...wait a minute...:erm: sounds like an extermist thing to say :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by edczxcvbnm
...wait a minute...:erm: sounds like an extermist thing to say :D

---

How dare you, you traitor! Oh... wait... hmm... Freudian slip?

All conservatives should be taken behind the sauna. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nait
All conservatives should be taken behind the sauna. :D

---

What's that supposed to mean?

It's a finnish idiom, losely translated as:

"All conservatives should be taken behind the sauna and given a warm cup o' joe with a sweet bun."


:D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DocFrance
I didn't say that at all. I was saying that he might not be Aryan. Besides, "Jewish" is a race as well as a faith. But let's not argue semantics here.

---

"A race as well as a faith?" Could you please explain. Nazis also thought that Jews were a race as well as a faith. They, and the Jesuits who organized the Spanish Inquisition, believed that a Christian who had a Jewish parent anywhere in his family tree was still Jewish, just for the same reason that you said - that "Jewish" is a race. They're saying that a Christian would be Jewish. Common sense can easily tell you otherwise.

"Jewish" is not a race. If "Jewish" was a race, then an asain person could not become Jewish. This is easily the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life.

This whole idealology is the exact same excuse for a large portion of my family being hideously put to death by the nazis during World War II.

If I might ask then how do you define being jewish? I was under the impresssion that they all claimed decesnt from Abraham and Jacob. I would think that would make you at least sort of like a clan at least. Forgive my ignorance.:foot: