Google is rather unhelpful on that one. Perhaps you mean the Patriot Act? If so, how does that increase the likelihood of fascism, or whatever it was it was supposed to do - I'm getting kind of fried here, so you may not get an answer until tomorrow;)
While the Bush administration might not be facist, they have done a lot of things that have substantially increased the danger of facism taking hold in the United States.
Such as...?
Jesus, this is like pulling teeth tonight. Nothing personal against you, but would it kill you all to put some specifics in your bullet points?
It's not my job to prove you wrong, it's your job to show why you're right. I understand how convenient it is for you to shift the burden of proof like that, but you'll understand if I decline to play along, I'm sure.
Now that that's out of the way, let's have a look at whatever specificity you can muster.
1:Setting up a fund to blacklist professors is wrong it is mccarthy-esque.
Yawn. I dealt with this earlier. Since the state is not the one doing this, unlike actual McCarthyism, the comparison is completely worthless. The First Amendment protects you from state sanctions - for those playing at home, "UCLA alumni" are not agents of the state, generally speaking.
2: The brownshirts a pre-cursor of fascist germany, initially were privately funded. They were responsible for mccarthy-esque tactics, once they had reached a certain threshold of popularity they branched out into violent thuggery and then to fascist germany.
By that idiot logic, you should ban all criticism of anyone anywhere - who knows what sort of thuggery criticism might lead to? First it's disagreeing with someone's politics, next we're shoveling them into the ovens. I've got it - no more disagreement will be allowed!
Have you figured it out, that slippery slope arguments are just plain bullshit? If you have evidence of real thuggery, bring it forth - otherwise, it's just a stupid red herring designed to shut down debate by engaging in guilt by association.
Now, is that really what you have to offer? Is this really the best argument against all this that you can make?
Your moral relativism only serves an empty rhetorical device that does not dispute my allegation, that left unchecked appeasement of thuggish behavior results in fascism.
What would you like me to dispute? All you have is allegation - assertions of "moral relativism" and "appeasement" without anything so mundane as an argument behind them. Okay, here you go - you're wrong. A refutation just about as substantial as the argument itself.
I'm interested in your argument as to why it's not OK, anyway. The right to speak freely precludes state sanction - it doesn't protect you from the consequences of private citizens not liking what you have to say.
Once decency erodes away men of your caliber proceed to savage humanity until such time as the lot of you are murdered and throw out of power.
Phew, and here I was worried that you might get all hyperbolic.
Y'see, my friend, if there's a difference between you and me, it's that I can argue against your ideas without resorting to the simple expedient of dismissing you and everything you say as just plain evil. I don't think you're evil, just wrong. Someday, perhaps, you'll break out of this little box you've encased yourself in, and be able to recognize that nobody has a monopoly on virtue. Or maybe not - maybe you'll be too busy polishing your halo to sit down and have a real, honest chat with your neighbors.
And I also suspect that this discussion will revolve around what laws should passed to protect the poor republicans who were victims of such odious and threatening discrimination.
But you must admit, there would be a certain delicious irony in that, wouldn't there?;)
Anyway, I think we'll just have to wait and see what happens - for all I know, the only examples of what they're looking for at UCLA will turn out to be rather picayune, and these guys will do nothing more than blow their own credibility.
Not recently enough to make myself the topic of discussion;)
Anyway, if there's an argument that his group doesn't have the perfect right to do what they're doing, I'm certainly interested to hear it. Please note that this is not the same as arguing that it's simply a bad idea.
Other than the fact that it's not an arm of the state engaging in this pursuit. Oh, and nobody's being forced to testify against their own will by subpoena. Other than minor little details like that, why the situations are positively identical!
Given the fascist tendencies of the modern conservative movement this has more characteristics of the latter than the former.
Not that you're going to bother supporting that comment, obviously. Just light the fuse and pretend that's somehow insightful. Evidence, reason, logical argumentation - these are the implements of lesser men, right?
Well, yes and no. I mean, criticism shouldn't turn into full-blown harrassment, but if your employer decides that they no longer wish to associate with you, why shouldn't they be able to make that decision?
Not that it really matters in academia - given the way tenure works, actually getting full professors fired is probably exceedingly unlikely in even the most egregious cases.
...the fact remains that by the time we even heard about, there was already a fix.
By the time you and I heard about it, there was already a fix. On the other hand, if it's existed since 3.2 onward, that means this flaw has been in place since at least February, 2004. The fact that it's public now and there's a patch now doesn't mean that there wasn't some sharp-eyed and black-hearted soul who spotted this hole years ago, and has been quietly taking advantage of it ever since.
No idea what you should do, but soaking your fingers in nail polish remover (acetone) or some such is not an especially good idea - it gets absorbed through your skin and into your bloodstream, where it's awfully hard on your liver.
Slashdot Mirror
Google is rather unhelpful on that one. Perhaps you mean the Patriot Act? If so, how does that increase the likelihood of fascism, or whatever it was it was supposed to do - I'm getting kind of fried here, so you may not get an answer until tomorrow ;)
Those UCLA alums are busy guys, apparently.
Well, maybe, but I don't think that's much of an argument for terminating the criticism, the fact that some third party may behave badly.
Such as...?
Jesus, this is like pulling teeth tonight. Nothing personal against you, but would it kill you all to put some specifics in your bullet points?
It's not my job to prove you wrong, it's your job to show why you're right. I understand how convenient it is for you to shift the burden of proof like that, but you'll understand if I decline to play along, I'm sure.
Now that that's out of the way, let's have a look at whatever specificity you can muster.
1:Setting up a fund to blacklist professors is wrong it is mccarthy-esque.
Yawn. I dealt with this earlier. Since the state is not the one doing this, unlike actual McCarthyism, the comparison is completely worthless. The First Amendment protects you from state sanctions - for those playing at home, "UCLA alumni" are not agents of the state, generally speaking.
2: The brownshirts a pre-cursor of fascist germany, initially were privately funded. They were responsible for mccarthy-esque tactics, once they had reached a certain threshold of popularity they branched out into violent thuggery and then to fascist germany.
By that idiot logic, you should ban all criticism of anyone anywhere - who knows what sort of thuggery criticism might lead to? First it's disagreeing with someone's politics, next we're shoveling them into the ovens. I've got it - no more disagreement will be allowed!
Have you figured it out, that slippery slope arguments are just plain bullshit? If you have evidence of real thuggery, bring it forth - otherwise, it's just a stupid red herring designed to shut down debate by engaging in guilt by association.
Now, is that really what you have to offer? Is this really the best argument against all this that you can make?
You can cite the legal definition of harassment, and explain how your hypothetical fits within it, right?
And BTW, UCLA is a state school. State as in the state.
But it's not UCLA doing this, so that's completely irrelevant.
What would you like me to dispute? All you have is allegation - assertions of "moral relativism" and "appeasement" without anything so mundane as an argument behind them. Okay, here you go - you're wrong. A refutation just about as substantial as the argument itself.
I think you have the wrong guys.
I'm interested in your argument as to why it's not OK, anyway. The right to speak freely precludes state sanction - it doesn't protect you from the consequences of private citizens not liking what you have to say.
Phew, and here I was worried that you might get all hyperbolic.
Y'see, my friend, if there's a difference between you and me, it's that I can argue against your ideas without resorting to the simple expedient of dismissing you and everything you say as just plain evil. I don't think you're evil, just wrong. Someday, perhaps, you'll break out of this little box you've encased yourself in, and be able to recognize that nobody has a monopoly on virtue. Or maybe not - maybe you'll be too busy polishing your halo to sit down and have a real, honest chat with your neighbors.
But you must admit, there would be a certain delicious irony in that, wouldn't there? ;)
Anyway, I think we'll just have to wait and see what happens - for all I know, the only examples of what they're looking for at UCLA will turn out to be rather picayune, and these guys will do nothing more than blow their own credibility.
When these guys get violent, the comparison will be a bit more apt, I think.
Not recently enough to make myself the topic of discussion ;)
Anyway, if there's an argument that his group doesn't have the perfect right to do what they're doing, I'm certainly interested to hear it. Please note that this is not the same as arguing that it's simply a bad idea.
Yeah, but all they can really do is criticize from the sidelines - it's up to the school itself to decide whether or not to pull the trigger.
The criticism comes after that, I should think.
How clever. People who agree with you are "open minded and informed". So therefore, people who disagree with you are...?
Does this actually work for you, as a matter of rhetoric?
Other than the fact that it's not an arm of the state engaging in this pursuit. Oh, and nobody's being forced to testify against their own will by subpoena. Other than minor little details like that, why the situations are positively identical!
LOL.
Yes, if some sort of self-evident revelation is your standard for evidence and persuasion, you are likely to find me unyielding. Sorry.
Not that you're going to bother supporting that comment, obviously. Just light the fuse and pretend that's somehow insightful. Evidence, reason, logical argumentation - these are the implements of lesser men, right?
Not that it really matters in academia - given the way tenure works, actually getting full professors fired is probably exceedingly unlikely in even the most egregious cases.
Who wants to set the over/under for the number of comments posted? ;)
Just don't express your disagreement, is that it?
...does not include the right to speak without criticism.
By the time you and I heard about it, there was already a fix. On the other hand, if it's existed since 3.2 onward, that means this flaw has been in place since at least February, 2004. The fact that it's public now and there's a patch now doesn't mean that there wasn't some sharp-eyed and black-hearted soul who spotted this hole years ago, and has been quietly taking advantage of it ever since.
No idea what you should do, but soaking your fingers in nail polish remover (acetone) or some such is not an especially good idea - it gets absorbed through your skin and into your bloodstream, where it's awfully hard on your liver.