> "Instead of trying to propagandize children to hug trees and recycle garbage, our schools would be put to better use teaching them how to analyze and test what is said by people who advocate tree-hugging, recycling, and innumerable other causes across the political spectrum."
Advocating for critical thinking is not bad. You shouldn't tell children what to believe. You should give them the tools to determine their own beliefs.
> "What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice."
Are criticisms of social welfare limited to talk radio hosts?
> How is he nonconformist as far his views go?
He's nonconformist for the class he occupies. I.e. the "intellectual elite" (or however you want to refer to them).
Strawmanning the education systems by ranting about tree-hugging hippies who indoctrinate the children and calling taxation theft isn't critical thinking, it's living in the bizarro world that is modern American conservatism.
His views also aren't non-conformist at all, they have a deep history in US politics. Friedman, Hayek, and so on for a large time during Sowells career practically dominated public discourse. Friedman alone probably is the single most influential economist of the last few decades as far as public discourse is concerned.
And that is squarely where Sowell is situated given that he hasn't ever actually worked as an economist, but basically as a pundit. Within American conservative punditry his views are as standard as it gets.
Maybe he is. If that's the case, let's "steelman" his position and do better. Do you feel that Thomas Sowell would read your response and feel you grasped the argument he was making to the fullest extent? Do you feel you've honestly and accurately portrayed his position after understanding it fully?
In my opinion, you haven't. I think you're upset and its preventing you from understanding the argument being made.
Sowell has published over thirty books, but I can find virtually no actual academic research. One of the last papers dates to the 60s, where he debates Marxism, but I think this is actually just a sort of philosophical treatise.
He's repeatedly rejected modelling, mathematics and virtually every other econonmic tool, so to call him an economist is kind of a misnomer.
And actually I do think I've portrayed his position fairly accurately. When you read his stuff it's often hard to tell if you're reading Sowell or Ann Coulter.
Btw I'm not opposed to conservative intellectual work in general. Chesterton is great, Carl Schmitt is probably one of the most intelligent writers of the last century. But Sowell isn't, and American Conservatism is in an intellectual crisis to put it mildly.
I'm not a neo-nazi, I'm personally not even conservative. But Schmitt is probably one of the most influential conservatives of the 20th century. He's not only influenced conservative thought but people ranging from Arendt, to Habermas, Strauss even Derrida among others. His writing on the state of exception or the friend-foe distinction had wide reach from theory to policy-making.
Meanwhile in US Conservatism you have people ranting about taxation being theft, I mean if that's the intellectual elite I don't know what's going on exactly.
> To say things that white conservatives believe but suffer ridicule for saying.
This is so ridiculously racist and uninformed I don't know where to begin.
First, it assumes Sowell hasn't made any unique contributions to economics or politics. This is completely false but you presume it because... he's black? If he were white would you take him more seriously?
Second, you presume the only reason he is allowed to speak is to justify the racism of others. Which reduces Sowell to a useful idiot or a token. It completely strips him of his accomplishments. Imagine saying that a former member of government, a PhD, award winning economist, author of more than a dozen best selling books, and fellow at more than a dozen prestigious institutions is only listened to because he's black.
Do you REALLY find it that hard to figure out? I can't tell if you're being sincere, or just being a troll who is trying to shrug and say nihilistic-sounding things to advance the alt-right agenda, which is to "flood the channels with shit" as Bannon said.
If some right-wing rando at a protest start burning a bible, and then two large established groups of protestors try to stop him because it is not what they are protesting and is sending a misleading optics, it really isn't that hard to see what is going on.
Like the white supremacist biker that was recently arrested for smashing windows during a BLM protest in an attempt to create deceptive optics for the right wing media machine.
The book being burned doesn't look like a bible to me - the breitbart article tries to spin that one book being burned into a NSDAP-like mass book burning event, with bibles being burned - we don't know which faction burned that single book, but breitbart wants the reader very hard to believe that it was BLM people/leftwing people.
Is this true? When I was a kid my daycare was like 30 kids per teacher. It was called "Mother's Day Out". I can't remember the cost but judging by the amount of time I spent there it was basically free.
> Would you feel comfortable that you still have your job and your reputation after going in front of the nation and saying "I think interracial marriages should be illegal"?
Don't you think that's a bit disingenuous? People aren't being canceled for having overt racist beliefs. They're being canceled for having polite (but political) disagreements.
The issue at play here is large-scale mob action. In the online space, it takes the form of bullying and cancel culture.
Terry Crews, for example, is in trouble for using the word "coon". But Terry Crews didn't call anyone a coon. He was called coon and made up an acronym that he felt could empower himself and others. Whether Terry's career is destroyed or not, the attempt to bully him out of the public eye is there and it sends a message.
> "Take what we give you."
> "You won't be given a charitable reading of anything you say."
> "Your beliefs will be stretched and twisted to the extreme."
> "And if they can't be then we'll attack you for what you didn't say."
> Don't you think that's a bit disingenuous? People aren't being canceled for having overt racist beliefs. They're being canceled for having polite (but political) disagreements.
I picked a controversial opinion. Your beef seems to be that mundane political opinions shouldn't be controversial. I agree with you, but that's not really relevant to the point I'm trying to make.
The point im trying to make is that some people treated Facebook or Twitter like a group of friends, when any digital post or recording can instantly become more like a nationally televised segment.
I understand your point but Terry Crew's probably understands his tweets reach millions of people. He uses it to advertise his TV shows.
And I have to have some sympathy for people who live their entire internet lives is absolute obscurity only to have their worst moment (or maybe just their most misunderstood) be promoted to a "nationally televised" level post-hoc.
> And I have to have some sympathy for people who live their entire internet lives is absolute obscurity only to have their worst moment (or maybe just their most misunderstood) be promoted to a "nationally televised" level post-hoc.
I do too. It should be known that the internet is not an obscure place. It is equivalent to a broadcast on national television. If nobody read your posts online it's because you were lucky, that's all.
Personally I took effort to go back and delete posts that I made in my youth. I hope others do the same.
In private conversation, you have a chance to clarify what you mean and some knowledge of your audience to anticipate how they will understand what you say. Online, your brief statement will be taken in isolation and interpreted by potentially thousands of different people with different perspectives. Have you noticed how there are no polite but political disagreements on national television? Talking heads either say things so uncontroversial that no one could complain, or they get into a fight with another talking head. This is not a coincidence. You might think your view is polite and reasonable, but there are plenty of people out there who would consider it overtly racist or otherwise bigoted.
You phrase this as if there was some secretive cabal actively trying to destroy Terry Crews when really there's just a small number of random people pissed off about a racial slur.
Which has been a staple of the news for many decades now, and will be for decades to come. Finding those niche views most people disapprove of and getting everyone's emotions up keeps them engaged.
if i hosted a forum i would very likely ban people who posted extreme messages.
but, of course, im small. the relative harm to the extremist is small. they can find another place to spread their awful message. but what if i'm bigger? what if i have monopolized a large portion of political speech within a country? what if my platform is the primary communication channel for the president of the united states? do i then have an obligation to provide a platform to that speech?
what if myself and a few friends own such a significant share of the internet that we can effectively remove extremists from all online participation. they cant host a server. they cant register a ___domain. they cant use private messenger apps. they cant send or receive money.
to what degree can a person be ostracized from society for having an unpopular opinion.
i certainly don't agree with the views of the taliban. i certainly wouldn't want to be complicit in the hosting of those views. but i have to wonder, if "illegitimate" speech can be removed by a small minority of corporate leaders how long is it before "legitimate" speech is removed?
can a democratic society really exist where all opinions are filtered through a corporate elite? can "problematic" speech be allowed to exist so long as it doesn't call for violence? are calls to violence always evil?
the BLM protests have certainly made calls to violence. should the cause for racial equality be stopped because it offends or threatens a minority (or even a majority) of people? couldnt' the BLM protest be construed as "problematic" or "illegitimate" and removed from the civil discourse overnight?
im asking because i don't know what to do. there doesn't seem to be a clear path forward. there is no "public square" on the internet. its all private. but there's no one left in the "real" public square. the one in meat space. the "public square" has moved onto private property and there's no way to get it back.
Advocating for critical thinking is not bad. You shouldn't tell children what to believe. You should give them the tools to determine their own beliefs.
> "What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice."
Are criticisms of social welfare limited to talk radio hosts?
> How is he nonconformist as far his views go?
He's nonconformist for the class he occupies. I.e. the "intellectual elite" (or however you want to refer to them).