A Forum for Vigorous Debate, Cornerstone of Democracy

***********************************************************************************************************************************
A FORUM FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND VIGOROUS DEBATE, CORNERSTONES OF DEMOCRACY
[For the journal--guidelines, focus, etc.--go to www.theamericandissident.org. If you have questions, please contact me at todslone@hotmail.com. Comments are NOT moderated (i.e., CENSORED)!]
Encouraged censorship and self-censorship seem to have become popular in America today. Those who censor others, not just self, tend to favor the term "moderate," as opposed to "censor" and "moderation" to "censorship." But that doesn't change what they do. They still act as Little Caesars or Big Brother protectors of the thin-skinned. Democracy, however, demands a tough populace, not so easily offended. On this blog, and to buck the trend of censorship, banning, and ostracizing, comments are NEVER "moderated." Rarely (almost NEVER) do the targets of these blog entries respond in an effort to defend themselves with cogent counter-argumentation. This blog is testimony to how little academics, poets, critics, newspaper editors, cartoonists, political hacks, cultural council apparatchiks, librarians et al appreciate VIGOROUS DEBATE, cornerstone of democracy. Clearly, far too many of them could likely prosper just fine in places like communist China and Cuba or Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Russia, not to mention Sweden, England, and Austria.
ISSUE #47 PUBLISHED MAY 2024. NOW SEEKING SUBMISSIONS FOR ISSUE #48.

More P. Maudit cartoons (and essays) at Global Free Press: http://www.globalfreepress.org

Friday, January 24, 2020

Greta Anderson

A Brief Critique of an Inside Higher Ed 
Announcement Hit-Piece

The problem with “Charles Murray to Return to Middlebury College” is clearly the bias of the writer, Greta Anderson.  "Controversial" writer, as she labels—essentially disses—Charles Murray is clearly a subjective term.  Shouldn’t an announcement be objective, as opposed to pushing the left-wing narrative?  Clearly, Murray is NOT "controversial" to the group inviting him.  How does Anderson write "widely condemned by social scientists" wi/o presenting an iota of proof to back that negative criticism?  Moreover, might the bulk of those scientists be “left-wing globalists,” a denigrating term that might be used by right-wingers?  How can Anderson evoke the Southern Poverty Law Center w/o mention of the group’s extreme left-wing bias, as well as its other recent problems?  Moreover, the SPLC’s "white nationalist" kill-the-messenger slur has become so overused today by “left-wing Stalinists” and “black nationalists” that it has become essentially meaningless, just like the term "nazi."  Indeed, dismiss me as a "white nationalist" because I criticized Anderson's "controversial, Stasi-like" write-up.  BTW, I am a Middlebury alumnus.  Think!  Get out of the groupthink box!  
G. Tod Slone, Ed.

The American Dissident

No comments: