April 30, 2009

As yet another example of demonizing the speech of your opponent as "dangerous" ...

There's a new conservative college group on various campuses across the country. The Youth for Western Civilization "hopes to inspire Western youth on the 'basis of pride in their American and Western heritage,' counter and ultimately defeat 'leftism on campus' and create a social movement in which a right-wing subculture is an alternative to what it calls a 'poisonous and bigoted' campus climate" according to its website.

This hasn't been well-received, needless to say:

"'Western' is a veiled term that means 'white,'" University of North Carolina graduate student Tyler Oakley wrote in an e-mail to FOXNews.com. "I believe that our democracy is strong enough to allow extreme forms of speech, but YWC's message is essentially a negative one, an assault on not being white or non-Western, and is therefore hateful, if not blatant hate speech."

There it is -- the inevitable "but." As in "I'm all for free speech and all, BUT ..."

Look, I don't know if the YWC is actually a "veiled" white supremacist group or not. What I do know is that, based on the article, there is nothing "hateful" about believing that Western civilization or culture is superior to others. It's a laugh that "Western" means "white;" indeed, the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear the term "Western" is the political and legal system which the West helped found and codify. One certainly doesn't have to be white to enjoy the benefits of such a system, nor is it "racist" or any other "-ist" to believe that Western political and legal systems are superior to others in the world.

But if you wish to quell this quite logical and rational belief, just do what Mr. Oakley did -- label it as "racist" and "hate speech." What better way to stop the debate before it even begins? This has been a fairly hot topic around the local blogosphere lately (see here, for example, at CoR), and Oakley's view fits that of our local gaggle of moonbat bloggers perfectly. One of them maintains that groups like YWC ought to monitored, while DE Libertarian's Steve Newton [attempts] to set him straight. (I say "attempts" not in any way to disparage Steve, but to convey the notion that it indeed may be an exercise in futility.)

I wonder: If rightist groups should be monitored by the government for harboring the views they do, should a left-winger who wrote that "all Republicans should be rounded up and shot, seriously" be monitored similarly?

Posted by Hube at April 30, 2009 05:42 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Actually, the hateful speech is coming from the moonbat who seems to think that there is something wrong with being white and that there is something inherrantly evil about the cultural contributions of the various white peoples of the world.

I mean, it utterly reeks of intolerance -- and if Tyler Oakley is white, it is obvious that he is a self-hating white "man" -- the white equivalent of an "Uncle Tom" -- who is willing to deny who he is in order to conform to the dominant PC liberal culture in which he is immersed. He is merely a token white face being put forth by the forces of gynarchal dark-skinned supremacy.

And to anyone who disagrees -- how is my statement any different than that put forth by the forces of moonbatism over at Delaware Liberal or Kos?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at April 30, 2009 09:55 PM