Why do liberal universities honor murderers?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Some looked to more violent means to make a statement as peaceful methods didn't appear to be working. -spence

Spence, do you believe that someone who is truly anti-war would resort to violence to stop war. How does that look to those who you're trying to convince against the war.

Those in the 60's counter culture who were truly against war were the hippie types. The so-called and self-labeled flower children. They believed in "flower power" not guns and bombs. Not violence. They flashed the peace sign not fists. Their "protests" were expressed in pot, free sex, and music. The more serious formed communes or groups in which they shared their stash, their bodies, and their food (usually "natural" and home cooked). They didn't engage in political movements or agendas. Their view on violence and the war was expressed as "make love not war," or by sayings like "fighting for peace is like f--king for virginity."

The ones who resorted to violence did so for a larger purpose. They did have a political, social agenda. And yes it was a leftist-Marxist-socialist-communist agenda. Sorry, but that is the truth. Marx was on lips of all from the Black Panthers, Symbionese Liberation Army, SDS, Weatherman, Ayers, Boudin, Dohrn, etc. Marxism was a revolutionary method/philosophy they embraced, rationally or irrationally, intelligently or stupidly, to achieve racial or societal liberation from capitalist pigs, especially the white wealthy ones. And their pitiful attempts at violence were just foolish lightweight imitations of what they thought was necessary in a Marxist revolution. Their goal was not merely to end a war. It was to transform society to their liking--war or no war. And they had to convince the masses to join them. The war was actually just another grievance they could add to their lists, and one which could appeal to the greater society more than what their true agenda would. Making a big issue of the war and then tacking on, by-the-way, the inequities and injustices of capitalist, imperialist, racist America it was hoped would persuade the masses to follow their vanguard to social justice.

Though they have been "rehabilitated" from their violent ways, they also understand that the violence became counter-productive and that, now, it is not at all needed. Society has been turned. Most of the rhetorical wedge issues with which the great "middle" might sympathize have been ameliorated so it would be difficult now to persuade by radical, violent means. And it was no longer necessary. Enough of the "working class," and the unions and poor and unemployed, and the academic elites, and even of the top echelons of the political class had shifted in their direction. And the former radicals have been given the opportunity to help shape the very transformation they originally wanted--without violence. They are no longer "radicals." They are mainstream. But their philosophical, political agenda has not changed.

[scottw]

there are many more paralells than Spence is willing to acknowledge...in both cases these are young people who have embraced an ideaology that is incompatible with American culture and antithetical to the principles of it's founding.....each decided that violent means were necessary and acceptable to futher the ideaolgy that they embraced.....both were enjoying the advantages and benefits of living in a free society but decided that the oppressive, tyrannical ideaology that they happen to embrace ought be imposed on American society through violent means....both embraced and sought assistance from America's enemies and those that America is/was at war with idealogically and militarily

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Spence, do you believe that someone who is truly anti-war would resort to violence to stop war. How does that look to those who you're trying to convince against the war.

Since spence refuses to answer me, I'll just start answering other people's questions for him...

"They weren't resorting to violence to stop war. Yes, they were using explosives, damaging buildings and causing fear throughout society. However, they would *call* before hand to warn people. Also, as I recall, they mostly put the bombs loud devices of protest into heating grates. No intelligent individual could consider a terrorist organization civil-disobedient group of people that plant bombs loud devices of protest as violent since no one died. (The people who died in the armor truck robbing don't fit my argument. For the sake of my argument, we can ignore that incident.

-spence"

Sound about right?

[Nebe]

While i most usually take spence's side on things, it appears that he is unable to say that what weather underground did was wrong and that if he was doing the hiring at that college, he would not have hired that lady..

Hes either trolling you guys to make you insane or he is simply paying the devil's advocate.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

While i most usually take spence's side on things, it appears that he is unable to say that what weather underground did was wrong and that if he was doing the hiring at that college, he would not have hired that lady..

Hes either trolling you guys to make you insane or he is simply paying the devil's advocate.

"Hes either trolling you guys to make you insane or he is simply paying the devil's advocate"

The third alternative is that he genuinely believes that she is fit to mold the minds of our kids. And that's very likely, because to do othewise, he'd have to admit that liberals in academia indeed honored a mass murderer and a terrorist. And even though that's precisely what happened, he won't/can't (take your pick) concede that.

He says she is a fit teacher of kids, because she was only "implicated", or because she served her time, or because the cost of her crimes to society was below the acceptable threshold, or because the number of innocent deaths at her hands is below the acceptable maximum, or because her crimes didn't instill widespread fear in the populace, or some other such reasoning.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The third alternative is that he genuinely believes that she is fit to mold the minds of our kids. And that's very likely, because to do othewise, he'd have to admit that liberals in academia indeed honored a mass murderer and a terrorist. And even though that's precisely what happened, he won't/can't (take your pick) concede that.

The fourth alternative is that you're so biased it's physiologically impossible for you to read something and understand intent. Hence, you respond based on what you feel must be true rather than assess the information at hand.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The fourth alternative is that you're so biased it's physiologically impossible for you to read something and understand intent. Hence, you respond based on what you feel must be true rather than assess the information at hand.

-spence

ooooohh....POT vs. KETTLE

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

ooooohh....POT vs. KETTLE

God, more irony.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

While i most usually take spence's side on things, it appears that he is unable to say that what weather underground did was wrong and that if he was doing the hiring at that college, he would not have hired that lady.. Hes either trolling you guys to make you insane or he is simply paying the devil's advocate.

yeah, shouldn't you offer an option where he's being honest? otherwise he's working awfully hard to sound like an idiot

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Since spence refuses to answer me, I'll just start answering other people's questions for him...

"They weren't resorting to violence to stop war. Yes, they were using explosives, damaging buildings and causing fear throughout society. However, they would *call* before hand to warn people. Also, as I recall, they mostly put the bombs loud devices of protest into heating grates. No intelligent individual could consider a terrorist organization civil-disobedient group of people that plant bombs loud devices of protest as violent since no one died. (The people who died in the armor truck robbing don't fit my argument. For the sake of my argument, we can ignore that incident.

-spence"

Sound about right?

Hysterical.

Also, to the armored car thing...Spence would only admit that the now-distinguished Columbia professor was "implicated" in the robbery...that's exactly, and I mean exactly, what he said.

So it's not as if she was an active planner of the robbery, who was caught red-handed at the scene. Rather, she was only "implicated" when some sexist prosecutor (no doubt one of the early warriors of the conservative "war on women") fabricated evidence to connect her to that mass murder. Maybe the prosecutor was Oliver North...

So Spence didn't ignore that event due to the fact it didn't "fit his argument"...rather, he altered teh facts, and injected his own speculation, to make it fit his argument. He likes moving the goalposts around after the fact, so tp speak.

Other than that, you were spot on.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Also, to the armored car thing...Spence would only admit that the now-distinguished Columbia professor was "implicated" in the robbery...that's exactly, and I mean exactly, what he said.

So it's not as if she was an active planner of the robbery, who was caught red-handed at the scene. Rather, she was only "implicated" when some sexist prosecutor (no doubt one of the early warriors of the conservative "war on women") fabricated evidence to connect her to that mass murder. Maybe the prosecutor was Oliver North...

So Spence didn't ignore that event due to the fact it didn't "fit his argument"...rather, he altered teh facts, and injected his own speculation, to make it fit his argument. He likes moving the goalposts around after the fact, so tp speak.

Other than that, you were spot on.

I certainly said she was convicted of murder perhaps even more than once. The irony here is your accusation of "altering teh facts" only came about by taking my remarks out of thread context.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Since spence refuses to answer me, I'll just start answering other people's questions for him...

The answer to your question is there, do I have to repeat myself?

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Spence, do you believe that someone who is truly anti-war would resort to violence to stop war. How does that look to those who you're trying to convince against the war.

Would someone who was anti-abortion because it was murder kill someone to stop it? I can't believe they would either.

Those in the 60's counter culture who were truly against war were the hippie types. The so-called and self-labeled flower children. They believed in "flower power" not guns and bombs. Not violence. They flashed the peace sign not fists. Their "protests" were expressed in pot, free sex, and music. The more serious formed communes or groups in which they shared their stash, their bodies, and their food (usually "natural" and home cooked). They didn't engage in political movements or agendas. Their view on violence and the war was expressed as "make love not war," or by sayings like "fighting for peace is like f--king for virginity."

The ones who resorted to violence did so for a larger purpose. They did have a political, social agenda. And yes it was a leftist-Marxist-socialist-communist agenda. Sorry, but that is the truth. Marx was on lips of all from the Black Panthers, Symbionese Liberation Army, SDS, Weatherman, Ayers, Boudin, Dohrn, etc. Marxism was a revolutionary method/philosophy they embraced, rationally or irrationally, intelligently or stupidly, to achieve racial or societal liberation from capitalist pigs, especially the white wealthy ones. And their pitiful attempts at violence were just foolish lightweight imitations of what they thought was necessary in a Marxist revolution. Their goal was not merely to end a war. It was to transform society to their liking--war or no war. And they had to convince the masses to join them. The war was actually just another grievance they could add to their lists, and one which could appeal to the greater society more than what their true agenda would. Making a big issue of the war and then tacking on, by-the-way, the inequities and injustices of capitalist, imperialist, racist America it was hoped would persuade the masses to follow their vanguard to social justice.

I don't think I've ever said they weren't motivated by socialist philosophy. There are a lot of parallels to the Occupy movement today. Then as now there's a vein of truth to the perceived injustice...I don't think this makes them less American.

And just because hippies eschewed bombs for fornication doesn't mean that a mass of the entire generation wasn't swept up in counterculture. It's all related...

Though they have been "rehabilitated" from their violent ways, they also understand that the violence became counter-productive and that, now, it is not at all needed. Society has been turned. Most of the rhetorical wedge issues with which the great "middle" might sympathize have been ameliorated so it would be difficult now to persuade by radical, violent means. And it was no longer necessary. Enough of the "working class," and the unions and poor and unemployed, and the academic elites, and even of the top echelons of the political class had shifted in their direction. And the former radicals have been given the opportunity to help shape the very transformation they originally wanted--without violence. They are no longer "radicals." They are mainstream. But their philosophical, political agenda has not changed.

Is Ayers considered more "mainstream" because of his radical views or because of his moderated social work? I think people are judging his position based on his recent work product rather than past actions. Or are you implying that giving credibility to his educational work is a defacto endorsement of his radical past?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Would someone who was anti-abortion because it was murder kill someone to stop it? I can't believe they would either.

Just as someone who will wage war to end war is not truly anti-war, so would someone who murders to stop abortion (because it is murder) not truly be against murder. Are you "implying" that one is right because of the other? What is your point?

I don't think I've ever said they weren't motivated by socialist philosophy. There are a lot of parallels to the Occupy movement today. Then as now there's a vein of truth to the perceived injustice...I don't think this makes them less American.

Being a socialist is anti-American in the founding sense of what an American is. In the current sense, which has been constantly shifting leftward, being socialist is quite American.

And just because hippies eschewed bombs for fornication doesn't mean that a mass of the entire generation wasn't swept up in counterculture. It's all related...

The "counterculture" generation was internally "related" in tangential ways. But in the main, it was a very mixed bag. The hippies and the violent radicals had much that appeared to be in common, but in terms of violence they were eons apart. And so were they distanced from each other in the fundamental transformation of society from one of the personal pursuit of happiness to one whose happiness was granted by an all-powerful central government.

Is Ayers considered more "mainstream" because of his radical views or because of his moderated social work? I think people are judging his position based on his recent work product rather than past actions. Or are you implying that giving credibility to his educational work is a defacto endorsement of his radical past?

-spence

Different "people" are judging from different points of view. The progressive left are judging his work product as it relates to its agenda which is fundamentally similar to his expressed ideology, which has not changed much from the past.