Topic: Watch What You Say, The New Liberal Power Elite Won’t Tolerate Dissent (Read 2268 times)

People have done all kinds of plays on Obama, but he's just the visible part of the snake. It's like "The Wizard of Oz", you know, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." Which is why I like Bitcoin. It's a way to work around the banks and everybody else who are pulling the levers that make the head work.

That is why I don't use reddit for anything. They are welcome to their echo chamber of a website. 

The thing is this administration and the way they are using the Patriot Act could potentially make anything you say or do a threat for national security... "maybe".

A possible exception would be those who served as POTUS in WW1 and WW2, in which cases personal freedoms were constricted for reasons (quite realistic, too) of national security and survival.

Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-374873

The last president that took on the fed took a bullet in Dallas.

yeah, i blame the system and the people behind it instead of the puppets calling the shots. hate obama if you want, but the problem is not him. he's doing shit that someone else is ordering.

It is progressively getting worse, with passing time. I don't know how much power Obama has in reality. He just seems to be a puppet at the hands of the oligarchs, bankers and corporates.

Intimidation and marginalization in order to silence your opponents is pure fascism. I am so sick of these people.

The Obama administration has been, by far the worse of any presidential administration in history about targeting people who do not agree with them.

The progressive Clerisy
----------------------------

[...]
A law student and a recent graduate, spurred on by the advocacy group GetEqual, have filed freedom-of-information requests for his telephone and travel records, in what they describe as an effort at dialogue about what they consider the harmful effects of his views.

This description is implausible. If they wanted to talk to him, they could knock on his door. The effort is aimed at intimidation. They want him to shut up.

Laycock’s wrong is to have taken the position that there may be cases in which individual religious freedom should trump compliance with law — a view that, during Bill Clinton’s administration, was considered the liberal position in our politics. In particular, he has filed a brief in favor of Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., in the case challenging the federal government’s rule that employers with religious objections must nevertheless comply with the mandate to pay for birth control, and he wrote a blog post in the Washington Post defending, in part, the controversial Arizona legislation, vetoed by the governor of the state, that would have expanded somewhat the protection of the state’s religious freedom laws. (News reports insisted that the changes would have meant that a caterer, for example, could refuse to work the wedding of a same-sex couple; Laycock wrote that this wasn’t what the law said.)

Laycock’s approach to the constitutional issue may be right or wrong, but it’s well within the mainstream conversation of legal scholarship. The late Ronald Dworkin, often tagged as the greatest defender of liberal theory in the legal academy, argued last year in his final bookthat Catholic adoption agencies with religious objections to adoption by same-sex couples should have a constitutional right to disobey laws requiring them to violate their convictions.

But even when a professor holds opinions off at the far margin, to target him or her for intimidation is an affront to the freedom that makes the academy worth cherishing.

[...]
In ways not seen since at least the McCarthy era, Americans are finding themselves increasingly constrained by a rising class—what I call the progressive Clerisy—that accepts no dissent from its basic tenets. Like the First Estate in pre-revolutionary France, the Clerisy increasingly exercises its power to constrain dissenting views, whether on politics, social attitudes or science.

An alliance of upper level bureaucrats and cultural elites, the Clerisy, for for all their concerns about inequality, have thrived, unlike most Americans, in recent years. They also enjoy strong relations with the power structure in Washington, Silicon Valley, Hollywood and Wall Street. …

Today’s Clerisy attempts to distill today’s distinctly secular “truths”—on issues ranging from the nature of justice, race and gender to the environment—and decide what is acceptable and that which is not. Those who dissent from the accepted point of view can expect their work to be simply ignored, or in some cases vilified. In the Clerical bastion of San Francisco, an actress with heretical views, in this case supporting a Tea Party candidate, who was pilloried, and lost work for her offense.

The pattern of intolerance has been particularly notable in the area of climate change, where serious debate would seem prudent not only on the root causes and effects, but also what may present the best solutions. Climate scientists who diverge from the warming party line, even in a matter of degree, are routinely excoriated by the Clerisy as “deniers” of “settled” science even in the face of 15 years of relatively stable temperatures. The media also participates in this defense of orthodoxy. The Los Angeles Times as well as the website Reddit have chosen to exclude contributions from skeptics.

The stifling orthodoxy from the technocrats and media elite is benign compared to the inquisitional behavior can be seen in institutions of higher education. It is nothing short of tragic, notes civil libertarian Nat Hentoff, that a 2010 survey of 24,000 college students found that barely a third thought it “safe to hold unpopular views on campus.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/07/watch-what-you-say-the-new-liberal-power-elite-won-t-tolerate-dissent.html#