The parties are normally package deal orgs and don't have as much ideological flexibility as one might imagine, and it makes sense, in a country of 300 million people, having a message that resonates is extremely difficult so any message that resonates would have to be simple and consistent so nuance cannot be tolerated - a political party with no clear platform or message will dissolve quickly - here's the catch, the leaders of the party don't really have to believe in any of its messages but must continue to utter the party's cannon in order to mobilize supportFaldoe wrote:https://www.thefire.org/yale-students-demand-resignations-from-faculty-members-over-halloween-email/
My political/social views are mostly on the left. I've realized over the years though (currently 30) that A.) the two political party dichotomy is BS and ideological traps. B.) there is plenty on the left that can and needs to be scrutinized and challenged. Even ideas or principals that are supposed to be, or claim to be, 'inclusive' or looking out for people that experience some form of oppression. It seems that what is going on in a lot of college campuses these days is that students want to be insulated from anything they disagree with and deem harmful or offensive. In the process of doing this, though, the line can be blurred as to what justifies a response and protest* and the censoring of free-speech and painting people into intellectual corners, where if they cross a certain line, they are deemed as being insensitive, offensive, not creating safe-spaces.
*One could always quibble with what and when justifies such a response, and to debate/dialogue on that is an important point.
And the university system is largely a government organization so the academic staff is probably going to be more apt to support those that butter their bread - aka, the government, therefore, teaching in academia will attract those of a mindset that will support government power; eventually, a gang emerges and that gang, working in conjunction with government, is focused on self-preservation and will want to silence those that question its (and government's) position/power; the result is an academic institution that will want to clamp down on anything that might question the power of government; the "coddled" children are just doing what they are told; they are taking orders to clamp down on free speech so the system itself can't be put under the microscope ... For example, what's one of the most important issues of the day? Money in politics. What's the major messaging platform used during the election cycle? The televised debate on one of the big networks. What questions aren't be asked during the debates? Money in politics. What's the major use of money in politics? Ads on the networks that host the debates. The networks may want to be noble, but not so noble that it starts to compromise its bottom line. So you see, there are many groups and subgroups at work looking to satisfy their own interests even if it is to the detriment of the system itself. The PC/Safe Places phenomena is just an extension of that. I believe "political correctness" was a term popularized by the Soviet Union in which the "correct" position was that of the party in power, the Communist Party. Why would the Communist Party in Russia insist on being the final source of truth? Because that was the only way they could enforce their ideas; under scrutiny and debate, their ideas fell apart. So this drive to squash speech is a drive to prevent logically bankrupt ideas from being challenged. BTW, both the right and left have their political correct/incorrect glossaries ...