[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So, Spence, if I am egregiously annoyed by your constant rationalizing, would it be alright with you if I placed a small bomb in your bathroom vent to dramatically state my displeasure? Is that how we resolve differences? It seems to me that those who use violence as a method of discussion are not so much interested in coming to a mutual agreement, but rather want to force you through fear and intimidation to their way. And, yes, it is naïve to think that someone would not eventually be hurt or killed by the innocent blasting of bombs.

I think that has to be evaluated in the context of the tension during the Vietnam era where frustrations over inaction or complicity with many issues (like the War and racial inequality) reached a boiling point. Some looked to more violent means to make a statement as peaceful methods didn't appear to be working. That's not to say it was right, but to ignore the societal climate these events were surrounded by would be irresponsible.

It was a lot more than a handful. It was more than a single organization. It was more than a single new idea. It was a gradual coalescence of various socialist ideologies which desired to speed up the transformation of American culture and governance which was already underway. The progressive movement was already long into the transformation. The various Marxist and socialist groups had already infiltrated segments of society and all together were influencing the radicalization of idealistic youths. And that has not stopped. The progressive transformation has so nearly changed the mores and system of governance that it can provide the umbrella for most leftist ideologies without the need for further physical violence. And it has been gradual enough over a "handful" of generations that it is becoming the "new norm."

Well, it seems like the need for physical violence has trended down in direct relation to the end of the Vietnam war and the generational shift that immediately followed.

I do see more social progressive influence today (also generational shifts) but in other areas the dynamics appear to be more influenced by day to day politics than macro trends.

All subjects can be taught from a point of view, whether blatant or subtle. And can be interwoven with various comments along the pedagogic way that trend the learning toward that point of view. Almost subliminal at times, in your face at others. But always with intention. An intention that is informed nearly unconsciously and effortlessly by years of thought and experience. You can be in the presence of two different people, one from the "right" and one from the "left," both discussing the same subject in an effort to be objective and strictly subject oriented, but given enough time, you will be able to see a difference in what is "taught" by their discussions.

So have you've assessed her work or are you just making assumptions? This goes back to the initial thread, was Columbia "honoring" her violent past or recognizing the contribution she could make to the faculty? I'd note that she also got her education degree there...

It is no longer necessary to have "sleeper cells." Especially in large, progressive, urban areas. Progressive politics dominate them. Progressivism is the home of various "leftist" movements here, and the progress is ongoing. There is no longer the urgency for instant reform. They know it will take time and patience and continuous effort. They will, eventually totally transform this society, and eventually, they hope, the world. They are persistent and finding power in unity under the umbrella of progressivism.

If that was true I'd think the progressive movement would have a stronger identity. In fact I don't think the Left has a strong identity at all...There are few in this country that will even self describe themselves as "liberals."

It is not as impressive when they are welcomed back into a world they helped to change. They have shed violence because it is no longer needed. Being productive is easier for them now since they have been given the levers of persuasion. They can "produce" their world view peacefully. That is their place.

That's a stretch. I'd say that most radical groups shed violence because they could no longer get away with it.

The "center" right has shifted dramatically over time, toward the progressive and progressive "right."

Measured against what? Some abstract concept or a real baseline?

Just making an observation based on the limited and well-couched views you post. Is it any more stereotyping than how you accused Jim in CT of being "played."

My accusation of Jim being played had nothing to do with ideas, it was about his inference lacking in facts.

How has something that has been changed been conserved. How is a fabric that is constantly changing conserved rather than being replaced.

Conservatism would be illogical if it didn't accommodate for change. The nuance is in the rate of change.

Yes, I realize that your reference frame is relative. That you observe from a constantly shifting frame of reference. You have several times stated contradictions to previous views. If called on it, you justify it by saying its a matter of context. It does move the conversation on without having to explain.

"Constantly shifting" is code. It implies a lack of foundation...that I try and understand context and see things as they really are doesn't mean there's nothing solid underneath. As well, a perceived contradiction may simply be the fault of insufficient supporting detail, or perhaps a conclusion based on bias.

-spence