Hits close to home....does it?

 

All what you said there is common sense, i wouldn't think you had to argue about it after.
I'm all supporting you!

 

Thanks. You'll find that common sense is in short supply around here.

 

Aw.

 

The freedom that is most important to me is intellectual freedom. I want to be able to investigate different points of view, make up my own mind, and express my opinions without fear of legal, economic, or social sanctions. I have enjoyed political arguments ever since I was a child. Back then I was just as woke as could be. I argued in favor of the integration of my segregated elementary school.

As an adult I have taken a seminar sponsored by the American Communist Party on Das Kapital. I have also read Mein Kampf. Needless to say, I have read a lot of other political stuff too.

From the beginning of the Cold War to 1968 it was the right that offended against intellectual freedom with witch hunts, black lists, and loyalty oaths. In 1968 the Tet Offensive made the War in Vietnam sufficiently unpopular to make possible a candid investigation and discussion of the beliefs that got us into that tragically futile war.

In September 1971 Atlantic magazine printed an article by Richard Herrnstein entitled "IQ." (And yes, I have read that.) In this article he introduced arguments he was later to combine with Charles Murray in The Bell Curve. When I read the article as an undergraduate I found it depressing, disturbing, but also convincing.

During the spring of 1972 the new left organization Students for a Democratic Society had a convention at Harvard with the expressed intention of getting Harvard Professor Richard Herrnstein, and those who agreed with him, fired. Fortunately, SDS failed, and soon ceased to exist. Unfortunately, a precedent had been established by leftists to censor facts and ideas they considered to be harmful to the leftist agenda.

In his essay "The Inequality Taboo" (which I have read several times) Charles Murray wrote something I certainly agree with, "specific policies based on premises that conflict with scientific truths about human beings tend not to work. Often they do harm."

*not_secure_link*www.iapsych.com/wj3ewok/LinkedDocuments/Murray2005.pdf

 

None

 

I am sure you think Charles Murray, and Philippe Rushton are racists. When have they aimed "at suppressing the free speech of minorities?"

 

Who gave you the right to decide to ban people simply for stating opinions you dislike? Also, where is stumbler on this? In the past he has expressed his support for free speech.

 

Can I "silence" public school educated wankers, replete with their inherited wealth, telling me I need to buckle
down & accept harsh, ie: austere, economics for my own good when said policies will in no way detract from their lifestyles
Yes - Osborne & Cameron et al - I mean you.
Oh - Piers Morgan & Jeremy/Sarah Vine/Kyle should all be put out of our misery for the sake of society
Oh - & Man U fans endlessly banging on about being the greatest football side in history
Oh - & the tax avoiding billionaire press barons who've do so much to shape & poison UK public discourse but connive their way out of said tax.
cirdellin - for being an unbelievably smug, self-congratulatory, manipulating cunt
DL - for bringing shame after shame on the canine world.
Viktor Orban and all who sail with him

Of course, I don't really want to ban any of the above from free speech, I just generally wish them ill ..
aces, shooters, funtime fuckwit, cowfreak, latecomer, bits&bobs etc - I cherish your bullshit & would fight for your right to spout it
until the day I die.
No.
More than that, I'd provide you all with a room, some military grade meth, cirdellin & DL dressed as go go girls
& leave y'all there to talk to your heart's content ... forever

 

The fact that Professors Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein, Philippe Rushton, and Charles Murray have faced efforts to silence them as much as anything else persuades me that what they say is true. If what they say is not true, this would be reasonably easy to demonstrate that factually, rationally, and calmly. Additionally, I am persuaded that those who try to silence them privately agree with them, but they fear the political consequences of their opinions.

This reminds me of a proper Victorian lady I read about who, when told of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution said, "Oh dear. What a perfectly dreadful theory. I do hope it is not true, but if it is, I hope it will not become widely known."

Efforts were made to silence Darwin. The writings of Jensen, Herrnstein, Rushton, and Murray are thoroughly Darwinian. I am confident Charles Darwin would agree with them.

 

I don't think so.

 

"Fire, Fire"

 

Anything that cums out of trump's mouth

 

Apparently, the phrase, "All lives matter" is offensive and you stand a chance of being fired if you say this publicly.

 

Nobody. Which is why he's still here.

 

Awhile ago I read about someone in England who was arrested and put in jail for publicly reading a criticism of Islamic society by Winston Churchill!

 

Fortunately. I like cirdellin a lot.

I do not want to ban you, by the way,

even though I suspect you want to ban me.