Tag: debate

The Left Has Abandoned Rational Debate And Embraced Political Violence

ith each passing day it becomes more obvious that the left has become incapable of rational debate or political compromise, and must now embrace the only tools available to it: intimidation, coercion, and political violence. Whatever liberals might believe about their progressive politics, today their program is based not on persuasion or representation, still less on open-minded rational inquiry or practical solutions to problems. It’s based on force.

The assassination of Charlie Kirk last month is of course emblematic of what the left has become. Kirk was murdered for speaking out against transgenderism. Dissenting from that ideology in particular is intolerable for the left because it encapsulates an ideal of total liberation — even from nature itself. But there are plenty of examples just from the past week of the left resorting to violence, or threats of violence, to advance their cause.

Call it the assassin’s or rioter’s veto — the last tactic of a liberal project that has reached an intellectual and political dead-end in the aftermath of Kirk’s assassination.

Consider the cancellation of a Federalist Society event scheduled for Oct. 7 at New York University Law School, which cited “security reasons” and fears that anti-Israel protesters would disrupt it. The event was to feature conservative legal scholar Ilya Shapiro discussing his new book, Lawless: The Miseducation of American Elites.

Shapiro is Jewish, and has been critical of campus anti-Israel protests in the past — the same sort of protests NYU officials anticipate on Oct. 7, and which, according to reporting from The Washington Free Beacon, the school is apparently unable to control. And yet, as the Beacon further reported, the law school “is slated to host a seven-hour symposium on ‘social entrepreneurship, impact investing, and sustainable development’ that same day.” They don’t fear riots over that event, but cannot (or will not) guarantee the safety of Shapiro’s event.

What’s more, for weeks now law school officials have been changing their justification for why they canceled the event, alternatively citing the threat of protests, a conflicting “private event,” the inability to host outside speakers the week of Oct. 7, and lack of space.

But we all know the real reason law school officials canceled the Federalist Society event: Shapiro is Jewish and conservative, they fear antisemitic rioters will attack the event and possibly Shapiro himself, and they are unwilling to do what’s necessary to protect him.

That’s how the rioter’s veto works, and it’s become commonplace on the left for the simple reason that the left refuses to engage in debate about these things. They’ve reached the end of rational inquiry and civil dialogue, and are increasingly resorting to force.

Or consider what’s unfolded this week in Portland, where Antifa rioters have besieged an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility and recently began attacking members of the press who dare to report on what’s happening there.

Katie Daviscourt, a reporter for The Post Millennial, was attacked by an Antifa rioter who hit her in the face with a wooden flagpole, “swinging it like a baseball bat,” in Daviscourt’s words. Portland Police were on the scene, but allowed the masked assailant to escape despite Daviscourt identifying her attacker to an officer on the scene. The next day, she appeared on Fox News and on Jack Posobiec’s show with a black eye.

Keep reading

Conservative Pro-Debate Group Kicked Off Campus At Tennessee State University

A pro Debate conservative group known as “Fearless Debates” was kicked off campus at Tennessee State University as reported by Campus Reform.

In a widely viewed video on social media a man wearing a MAGA hat is seen being yelled at by students.

Later on an angry riot broke out with people throwing things at debaters Cam Higby and David Khait’s vehicle.

The students rioting also shouted Black power at the Cam and David.

The “Fearless Debates” posted on Instagram that the group was tabling at Tennessee State University was the first historically Black University they were visiting on this tour named Fearless Tour.

These debaters just wished to have a respectful exchange of ideas but sadly on many liberal campuses this is no longer accepted.

The signs they used to promote discussion stated “DEI should be illegal” as well as “Deport all illegals now! Lets talk!”.

According to News Channel 5 “Fearless Debates” said “they had come to create conversation and discourse.” They were eventually kicked off campus.

The university stated “The safety and well-being of our students, faculty and staff remain our highest priority. TSU will continue to uphold university policies and ensure that campus remains a safe, welcoming and orderly environment for all members of our community.”

The NAACP claimed this free speech group had sought to “antagonize, disrupt, and instill fear in a space created to be safe, affirming, and supportive of Black students.”

College was originally meant to be a place of different ideas and debates but apparently The NAACP doesn’t  agree with exposing students to different ideas.

Keep reading

Governments are NOT the “One Source of Truth” – Public Debates challenging Policies and Narratives are essential

The New York Times is a respected broadsheet newspaper. It maintains a staunchly pro-vaccine stance. On Nov 26 2022 it published a catch-up article ‘Happy Birthday, Omicron’ (since the variant is now one year old). The article is written by their well-known science correspondent Carl Zimmer, author of 14 books.

Zimmer interviews numerous researchers working in the field who point out that there has been an evolutionary explosion of Omicron variants. Hundreds are now circulating which according to virologist Dr. Jesse Bloom “is making it more challenging for scientists to plan new vaccines and treatments.”

This was not unexpected. Even before the pandemic it was well known that vaccines which fail to prevent transmission drive variant mutation towards the development of strains resistant to vaccines. See this 2015 paper in Plos Biology for example: ‘Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens’.

The NYT article reports: “In February, Theodora Hatziioannou, a virologist at Rockefeller University in New York, and her colleagues ran an experiment that suggested Omicron was primed for an evolutionary explosion. Dr. Hatziioannou’s team tested Omicron against 40 different antibodies that could still block the variant. They discovered that it was remarkably easy for a few extra mutations to make it resistant to almost all of those antibodies.”

The net result is that even the latest versions of Covid vaccines and treatments are easily evaded by a growing number of variants: “The new mutations are building up quickly, most likely because they are providing the viruses with a big evolutionary edge” the NYT article reported. “The [viral] evolution that’s happening is the fastest rate it has been up to this point,” Sergei Pond, a virologist at Temple University in Philadelphia, said.

The outcome is something you are probably already aware of through personal experience or through that of your friends. Covid vaccines are not working. Researchers are trying to develop new approaches, but I think you can see that the rate of mutation and adaptation of the Covid-19 virus is likely to outstrip these efforts, as is the case for example with other coronaviruses such as the common cold and the flu. Fortunately, Omicron variants are at this stage still relatively mild, but their future trajectory remains uncertain which is concerning.

Keep reading

When Democrats Keep Choosing Name-Calling Over Debate, Violence Becomes Inevitable

If the recent assassination attempt targeting Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh weren’t sufficient proof that a divided America is tiptoeing toward violent conflict, a research firm released a “disturbing poll” showing that nearly half of male Democrats under the age of 50 believe it acceptable to assassinate a politician “who is harming the country or our democracy.” Given that James Hodgkinson nearly succeeded in assassinating an entire baseball field of Republican members of Congress just a few years ago, the appetite for continued political violence shows no sign of abating. 

Sen. Rand Paul, who has suffered two violent, politically motivated attacks in recent years, called out the White House and congressional Democrats for “ginning up and encouraging” violence. However, in a country that increasingly eschews rational debate and embraces the vituperative soundbites of reality TV, it can be no surprise that the political stakes in America are tending toward bloodshed.

It was once widely understood in the United States that vociferous debate and vigorous policy disagreement were features of a healthy American society. Hashing out arguments over contested issues in the public square had two immediate salubrious effects: it allowed the average American to appreciate the “pros” and “cons” of consequential policy decisions, and it provided those whose viewpoints did not win the day to nonetheless speak their minds.

As a testament to how vital debate and disagreement are to the process of creating good public policy, it has often been the case throughout American history that the well-articulated arguments of the “losing side” eventually rise to guide future generations. 

Keep reading