Western culture worth the fight

Is this grandiose, reactionary, pompous piece of expository writing (not journalism) meant as a joke? I sure hope so. By the way, from what sources did you determine, “Multiculturalism is the belief that there is no American culture, instead, America is nothing more than a place on a map that is comprised of a populace that belong to different cultures.” The rest of your argument is rather speculative and superficial (cultural heresies). Besides being unoriginal (see Bill O’Reilly’s Culture Warrior) it’s been said many times over. I believe when Catholic Irish came to America, the same religious arguments were put forth by the Protestant majority (Seward arguably lost his presidential bid because he supported Catholics). The same language rhetoric was used when the Germans and Italians immigrated in masse – in Milwaukee signs were in both English and German. Despite this influx of new cultures and religion, did American society collapse? No. You should also withhold judgment concerning the possibility of assimilation by Mexican immigrants. Historically, first generation Americans do not assimilate. Rather, it’s the second or third – please see Alberto Gonzales. I suspect if you lived in 19th century America, you’d be supporting shopkeepers that posted signs reading “Irish need not apply.” Then again, maybe your family wasn’t here at that time.

Great Job Nate.
SLWS!

Shnar is an idiot if he thinks that revolting against King George was a liberal move. The American colonists revolted against totalitarianism, something the left is quite fond of.

Great article Nate! Keep fightin’

SLWS

Nate,
If the Left is irritated by your articles, then you are assuredly writing well! Don’t give in to these baby-killing, family-hating leftist freaks!

SLWS

Great article Nate. Just ignore those ignorant leftists. Their hatred of America can only be defeated by your love of America.

SLWS!

Martin, I must applaud you for raising the level of discourse in the comments section. Please read over all the comments and see if you notice a trend (hint: it has nothing to do with loving or hating America).

Oh, and in case anyone’s curious, SLWS means “Smash Left Wing Scum”

Yeah it’s great having a YAF member write for the State News. Let’s hear it for hate and intolerance!

It’s not liberalism that is going to destroy America. It’s people like Mr. Sherman and others that continue to see America as two nations, “Red” and “Blue”, or in their minds “Right” and “Wrong.”

Great column. Good work Nate.

SLWS

Hey Nate,

I double dare you to stop American culture from vanishing.
P.S. Get a reality check asap!

Something else has been bothering me. Since when do Kyle Bristow’s lackeys speak? Ever?

My guess is that the State News rejected numerous badgering opinion letters from Kyle, so he submitted one under Nate’s name. Furthermore, I bet all the “SLWS” comments are Kyle’s, as well. Kyle, I don’t know how you have so much free time running your sordid little empire over in la-la-land (Case Hall).

To think, you could actually do some good with such absolute mind control over your cronies. Think of how efficiently your group could build houses for the poor, work soup kitchens, or clean up woodland trails with only one coherent mind to share between you! Alas, all that potential is wasted in favor of becoming the black sheep (or white whale) of this university. Sad.

Attacking one’s physical appearance? You sure do a great “right-wing bigot” impression.

Wow! Whatever you believe politically or culturally, Nate has certainly struck at one of the core tenants on which this country was founded – the freedom of speech, thought, religion and expression. In many parts of the world Nate would not be able to express his opinion and we would not be able to make our comments. Be thankful for that.

After almost half a century on this planet I have come to understand several things. We live in a country and a world that is diverse and we must celebrate that diversity. We are a nation of immigrants founded on revolution. Always remember – the winner writes the history. I also agree with Nate – the first time I saw a sign in both english and spanish in my local market I cringed. I also agree that corporate greed and power tend to lead our society (read a book called ‘The WalMart Effect’). Democrate or Republican – the two parties exist only to maintain their own power – they have lost site of truly serving the people they represent (because we are a nation of non-voters and they know it).

I’m not sure anyone will care a century from now that someone pissed on a cross and called it art. Whether or not I consider that art is irrelevant. But I will continue to support their right and yours to express.

Fear both the extreme left and the extreme right. These are people following beliefs as opposed to ‘knowing’. These are the people who nail people to crosses, blindly follow leaders who believe genocide is OK and fly planes into buildings. Think for yourself.

I’m with you Mo. The bell curve of human intellect shows clearly that the rational concept of libertarianism will never be politically viable for the office of the President.

This corporation bashing is inane. I challenge any of you to construct your own televisions, install fiber optic cables, launch satellites, or mass produce your own automobiles making them affordable for the middle class.

Nate Sherman, I think it is great that your word vomit, replete with misplaced analogies and odd gesturing about “The American way” made it to the State News opinion page, but let’s be real: your dream of cultural isolation and the end of social change won’t come true any time soon. As facebook.com tells me, you are a student of political science. Apparently you don’t study much. If you know anything about the history of our country, you know that the founding fathers were radicals themselves, hellbent on religious and personal freedom. While they may have mentioned Christianity in several historical documents, and we have no indication any of them were “sexual deviants”, they did build protections in to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to ensure that those who wish to practice other faiths or happen to be attracted to members of the same sex would not be persecuted by the likes of other citizens for being different. If you don’t agree with me, check a database of Supreme Court decisions that have upheld the notions of religious and personal freedoms.

You may be passionate, but your grip on reality is loose, at best. Once again, brushing up on political history would help you understand that cultural isolation has never worked. People, by nature, are curious. There is much we have to learn from those who are unlike ourselves. Each “cultural heresy” that you mention (radical feminism, sexual deviancy, multilingualism, and atheism) are sprung from those with an ability to think and act for themselves. I would call this ingenuity.

Overall, your column screams fear of the unknown. Like many other ultra-conservatives, you appear to be content to hide from what you don’t understand, or as bold as to legislate against it. Open your eyes, Nate. We live in a big, beautiful world that has more than a few problems. Cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world won’t solve any of them. I know you probably won’t take advice from a radical feminist, atheist, vegetarian cooper, but the least you can do is brush up on those studies!

There was not one mention of John Wayne. I thought this column was about westerns. What gives?

Thank you for educating me, I didnt think laughing and vomiting at the same time was possible… until now.

Oh and nothing is more “american” then insulting Hellen Keller, way to represent all that is right in America.

OK, so I’m new to this place. What does SLWS mean? And who are the Young Americans for Freedom? This editorial doesn’t exactly swing for the fences in terms of intellectual depth or rhetorical flourish, but the writer has had the courage to put his ideas out there, so I’m willing to consider them. Before I do that, though, I want to know: Does Nate (and his followers) represent a group that wants to promote their ideas through sustained intellectual engagement with the rest of the university community? Or are they just a group of angry white kids who feel ostracized from the rest of the campus and want to make some noise about it? I just want to know which one we’re dealing with here: If they’re the former, they deserve to be heard and responded to; if they’re the latter, they just need to be tolerantly ignored.

Sounds like someone needs to get laid.

In all seriousness, it’s quite disconcerting that there are people in college who are this far to the right. I’m certainly not advocating Communism or any other terrible idea, but, dude, when was America ever sunshine and kitties? I mean, people act like the ’50s was this time period in which nothing bad happened, there were always rainbows and our culture was pure happiness. Pretty sure women got beat for not seasoning their husbands’ steaks conservatively enough, Black people had to drink from separate water fountains and, guess what, people had drunken, unprotected sex with people they just met. Ah, the golden days.

It’s just really weird people are conservative in college. Doesn’t make any sense. I mean, I’m far from being a birkenstock-wearing hippie, but I just can’t believe there are young people who have such scary ideas. I can only imagine how they’re gonna be when they’re older.

Scary.

“OK, so I’m new to this place. What does SLWS mean? And who are the Young Americans for Freedom?”

Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) is a national activist group for conservative students. They’ve been around since the 60’s, and were instrumental in opposing Students for a Democratic Society – one of the more radical (read “psychotic”) Leftist student organizations – amongst others. Since then, they’ve come in and out of vogue, but have been enjoying a boom since Bill Clinton’s presidency, and especially since the ’94 Republican Revolution.

When I was going to school at Ohio University, back in the early 90’s, we had a cell of YAF on my campus, and they were some sad, sorry folks. They formed because the College Republicans weren’t hard right enough, and weren’t doing enough to oppose the lefty sweep of Student Council. OU YAF engaged in sneaky and slanderous underhanded tactics to try and make the lefties look bad, but didn’t really do more than embarass themselves and make OU’s campus conservatives look stupid by association. So the fact that they got chapter of the year one time in there is a sad comment on YAF as a whole!

Anyway, their time in the sun was limited. A right-moderate coalition swept the lefties out of student government, OU YAF collapsed and within a few years most of the principal players had either been expelled or gotten into legal trouble. Ooops.

As for the YAF here… well, if you type Young Americans for Freedom into the search bar, you’ll find out all about how the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled our very own chapter a hate group, followed by their president’s wacky antics as regards his group and the media.

And SLWS means Smash Left Wing Scum, which is pretty much their mentality, if you haven’t guessed ; )

Mo- You got it wrong! Do you know what a Libertarian is??? You speak of teh liberals, haters, conservatives, etc. But a libertarian is an advocate of free will, a person who supports individual liberties especially in thoughts and actions. It seems to me that if you were a libertarian you would support all of these people who are expressing their free will and individual liberties. Hmm . . .guess we all sometimes become followers of some belief without really knowing what we are following. Lemmings?

As for the most imortant issue being economics, are not social issues and economics tied pretty strongly together (socio-economics)? A person living at a certain level economically experiences different social advantages or disadvantages (education, health care, housing, nutrition).

As for Opine – too many opinions in America? Wow, do the math, if as you say you counter those with other opinions to combate them then you have DOUBLE teh opinions!! And you want to get to having only one opinion. Get a ticket and a time machine, perhaps you would be happier living with Mao in China, Stalin in Russia or maybe Hitler in Germany. Yea, I can’t wait until we all have one opinion, one set of thoughts, one set of values, and most importantly a supreme leader we can all just follow without question.

Maybe you would like to apply?

“Even a person as blind and deaf as Helen Keller could tell you that Jackson has it in for our culture” that is a horrible offensive statement. If you’re going to be political at least be politically correct Nate.

I think we would be justified in obtaining the IP address of the obvious assault entailed by the phrase “smash left wing scum.” I take this as a death threat. If it can be demonstrated unequivocally that SLWS means “smash left wing scum” we could probably bring who is obviously Kyle Bristow up on charges.

Did someone from the Michigan Militia write this? A very confusing article – it seems more of an unfocused rant than a coherent appeal: Both the left and the right are allegedly “destroying America,” whatever that means (an arbitrary set of conditions, it appears, that bothers the author, and that he alone protests, reminiscent of the lone voice in the wilderness). Is American nationalism under siege, or “Western Civiliaztion”? Are these the same thing? This author seems to think so, which itself sems telling of his provincialism. So vigorous and aimless is his flailing around for someone to despise/blame for a host of unrelated “evils” that one gets the impression that he and he alone knows what’s best — and that would be an America in which he and he alone would be happy. Very “high school,” I’m afraid. At best, this piece would get a “C.” This is the kind of article that one comes away from knowing less than when one set out to read it.

It seems that ANYONE is allowed to write ANYTHING in this rag.

Thanks Patience. To set the record straight, as I often repeat, I’m libertarian. I have no patience ;) for economic absurdity like income redistribution, but I’m equally fed up with religion permeating public policy. If it were up to me, I’d have our own King George reading Adam Smith, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Milton Friedman, Thomas Jefferson, Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, and Machiavelli at night rather than passages from the Bible he’s definitely seen a hundred times over.

As far as journalism goes, I’d prefer not giving YAFies and other non-objective nut jobs a clear avenue to harming or otherwise slandering my person.

Wasn’t MSU YAF classified as a hate-group last year? Just checking.

I had a whole big response written once again. But then, wanting to be fair and informed, I checked out the YAF/MSU site. How frightening. I am thinking that most of the people whose profiles I read (I think board member), have probably not read the Sharon document which speaks to liberty, free will (God given),etc. And yet your site is so off base and historicaly incorrect in so many ways. I have a problem that, if you purport to believe in the Sharon document then you are not living it. Plus it was written in 1960- it is now 2007. If you understand that document you would not be riduculing the ‘anti war, left commies, etc, you would be helping to support their right to express their views. While, of course, expressing yours.

One of the biographies speaks to getting involved because of witnessing ‘western civilization being destroyed before my eyes’. What world are you living in? You are 19 – ask a WWII vet or a survivor of Nazi death camps and then tell me what you are witnessing.

And why does this group need to ask each of person about their guns. One even puts Jefferson Davis on his top five list along with Ronald Reagan which I will never understand – RR stood for the constitution and freedom, Davis wanted to tear it up and keep his happy little slaves. Please tell me how you rationalize that one.

Well, YAF, hoist your confederate flags, enslave everyone who is not white, (a reference to one member who made a statement about the “mexicans” and the Davis/Robert E Lee supporters on your board – by the way I see you have an Black American on your board, how do you rationalize that, has he read your bios?), clean your guns, pull on your white sheets, and rent a Ryder like your buddy Timothy M. in OKC.

You guys scare me, and I’m fearless.

Oh, I forgot, many of the YAF bios list Jesus Christ as well. Which Jesus are you talking about? The one who accepted ALL people (lepers, prostitutes, theives)or the one you have created in your mind to justify your ends. Well, your Jesus is not mine, He loved, He accepted you seem to hate and divide. Go read your founding document (Sharon) and the Bible (even if youdo not believe in teh book as God – given, even the historical Jesus will do).

Yes Nate, the founding fathers would be all for regulating music lyrics and clothing in music videos to comply with what you and your YAF friends find to be morally acceptable. You ridicule multi-culturalism but attend a school with one of the largest study abroad programs in the country. Is it good to know about those cultures, but just want them to stay where they are? The value of study abroad, diversity and multi-culturalism is readily recognized by universities and businesses. Yet you, in your apparent boundless knowledge, see it as a threat to western civilization (whatever that means). Do us all a favor next time and send your thoughts to Bill O’Reilly instead of the State News. I’m sure he would appreciate the fan mail.

As for national unity…I hear going around poking the other side with sticks is a good idea, as is stirring up the mindless retards that reply with “SLWS”.

If you don’t like atheists pissing on your statues (or idols, you might want to check the bible about how God feels about those), then how about stop pissing on science?

I will agree, however, that repetition impresses the subconscious. Just look what going to church every Sunday will do to you.

Shnar, Juan, Ian Light, skepticguy,
The impression you guys give with your foaming-at-the-mouth rabid vitriol doesn’t do much for your position. Does it occur to you that how you conduct yourselves in these forums sheds light on the types of people you are? I’m c’mon, Shnar, your disgusting innuendos are totally out of line.
Granted, Nate’s writing is pretty poor and his rhetorical skills are lacking, I’ll definitely concede that.
But your emotionally charged language doesn’t help make your points, rather it detracts from your credibility.
I can tell you guys are intelligent individuals, but intelligence and honor are two different things. Showing both in discussion is important.

The moderator has kindly removed several post(s).

Skepticguy, sorry for including you in the generalization, wear it only if the shoe fits.

My comments are not for the author of this unjustifiable, unjournalistic, radical, simple-minded and most of all, unsympathetic piece. My comments are directed towards the State News editorial board, which saw fit to publish what amounts to the exposition of a splinter-group of xenophobic pseudo-Christian fascists. The newspaper Op-Ed page is a place for multiple points of view from many points of the political realm to be seen; to promote honest, intellectual discourse. Whether it be liberal, conservative, libertarian, Marxist or otherwise, all views should be voiced…as long as they are interested in honest discourse in an effort to uncover truth. I take issue with the printing of this piece because the author, as stated unapologetically in his piece, has no interest in the marketplace of ideas that embody the very essence of what is valued in multiculturalism: The idea that different people can come together and trade thoughts so that we might learn about ourselves and push humanity intellectually forward for the benefit of all. Sherman’s position is vehemently against this, favoring one-and-only Christian (whatever that means to him) domination over a land that was created to escape religious persecution. Shame on the State News editorial board for lending space to a closed-minded rant with no interest in furthering truth; just one extremist’s unenlightening drivel on how he wants this country to be ruled, with no space for outside opinion or intelligent debate.

You know… maybe I haven’t been to church in a long time, but I swore that Jesus taught us to, oh, I don’t know, love and tolerate each other, and reach out giving and generous helping hands to our fellow man.

I don’t particularly remember the part of the bible where he said “bomb non-christians to dust.”

Face it, there are several interpretations of the bible for all the different sects of Christianity. Which one is right? Christian isn’t a blanket term here people, there are differences. If you can’t decide and want to say “Lets stick with the bible as written” then I would A, love to buy your daughter as a slave, B, would like to know if you wear polyester because, you know you get sent to hell like that, and C, exercise my right to beat retards with a stick.

And what if someone doesn’t want to accept Jesus as their savior? The bible teaches us to teach people and open up their eyes. Nowhere does it say FORCE your beliefs on them! Let’s say for a minute that the bible is 100% UNDEBATABLE fact! If someone was legally insane and STILL wished to burn in hell, thats their right! The bible DOSEN’T say to create a tyrannical city state in which people all need to think the same way, and THAT my friend is what you are proposing.

Western civilization shouldn’t be abolished but it shouldn’t be reconciled as some sort of hard in stone creed. You know who also tried to enforce a culture standard? Nazis. Nazis saw the Jewish faith as an affront to their whole culture. So… they killed them? Is that the way to go? If not what else are you gonna do? Deport people?

We are the UNITED states of America. We are supposed to stress unification. You however are stressing segregation from Christian Idealists, and everyone else. Granted I’m actually not that keen on language catering as it is skewed toward hispanic nations, and honestly, it should be all or nothing. If I can’t see my street sign in Japanese, klingon, and elvish, I don’t really wanna see it in anything else but English because it complicates things. But HELL, if you could make it so that there WERE all languages everywhere, wouldn’t that just be a cooler world?

In conclusion I already have to drive 20 minutes to get my Red Bean Icecream Mochi, I can’t find a store that sells curry paste within 50 miles, dried chillies are damn hard to come by, and I can barely find the enzyme I need to make my own cheese. I’m a fat kid who likes all types of food. Regardless of all the political, and religious, and philosophical, logical, and moral qualms I have with this article, the world you stress is a world were we, figuratively speaking, eat nothing but hamburgers… no wait… hamburg germany… ok pizza… no wait thats italy… french fries… no… france… wait… uhmmm… fried chicken? There we go! The world you want is a world where we eat nothing but fried chicken, and the fatness in me won’t allow that.

Thank you Dave Robert Winter, that was an intelligent and cogent response; something this comment board has not seen since Jeff posted on 9/12 at 11:18. Regardless of politics, when you leave a comment, please try to raise the level of discourse, not simply muddy it.

I realize full well what my “image” contorts into based upon how profane I choose my language to be. That’s your problem, not mine. I really don’t give a shit what your neurological action potentials tell you to think or do throughout your daily life (which is all your existence is when you get down to it).

“But your emotionally charged language doesn’t help make your points, rather it detracts from your credibility. I can tell you guys are intelligent individuals, but intelligence and honor are two different things. Showing both in discussion is important.”

Obviously it doesn’t detract from my credibility because you’ve already easily deduced that I’m quite an intelligent person. The test of reality is if it works on the individual, not what your suppositions tell you others might think. Valedictorian of my high school class. Yep. Devourer of abstract mathematics like it’s candy. Yep. Reads theoretical physics for shits and giggles. Yep.

I prefer demonstration over idle discussion. Take a course in quantum mechanics with me Josh, I’ll be conceited, you’d be ground to a pulp by the likes of people like me.

There’s not much to say about this article except that I’m embarassed that it came from MSU, and I’m even more embarassed that anyone agrees with the author. Almost any of the comments in support of the article would get a person in a Fortune 500 job terminated. Hate speech doesn’t work in the real world!

As a recent MSU grad, I am very distraught to see the usually excellent State News publishing hate speach (see ‘Sexual Deviancy’)and facist editorials. Nate Sherman seems to be the bastard child of John Matthew Knoles, except even more hateful and less well spoken (if that was even possible). I know the Young Americans For Fascism do not represent the views of the mainstream Republican Party, but this type of close minded thinking reiterates how much conservatives are out of touch with contemporary america. Nate’s idea of a nation that disavows cultural diversity in favor of a central dogma sounds surprisingly national socialism (see Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party). Moderate democrats like myself have lost our voice screaming “Patriotism is not Nationalism”, but thick headed neo-nazis like Nate can’t seem to fathom this most basic american ideal.
Conservatives and republicans the nation over must acknowledge the fact that our nation has prospered to its current extent by integrating the best of each cultural gourp residing here. Only then will both of our political parties be able to work together for the greater good of america. Shame on the State News for publising this mindless garbage, and shame on Nate’s parents for raising such a hateful human being.

There’s not one hate speech sentence in his column.

Every ethnic group that has come here in history has adapted to the American culture—speaking English!!!

He would not get fired at any Fortune 500 job or any big-time company.

In fact, didn’t Michael Vick get suspended from his job just recently for dogfighting which is part of the hip-hop culture? Can any liberal explain why he lost his job? Didn’t Nike and other top companies pull his endorsements…they fired him for doing the things Nate said is happening in our culture. Thus, Nate is on target with the Fortune 500 companies who will not tolerate this bad culture.

The problem with many of you is you live in a fantasy liberal word. Decent Americans still run the country. Reminds me of a liberal who was stunned last fall when 58 percent of Michigan voted for Proposal 2 to end discrimination in the public workplace. They live in a liberal vaccum.

You really want dual language, English and Spanish? Want MSU to start delivering lectures in both languages eliminating 50 percent of the course content?

The American people clearly want this country English-only. Anyone who doesn’t want to adapt, need not come.

What do you think would happen if an employee at a Fortune 500 company would come into work dressed like Brittany Spears the other evening? They’d get fired. Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton or rap artist’s bad behavior? They’d get fired. I’d say Nate is right on target with the Fortune 500 firms unless you’re working at MTV or some rap music company. Nate is simply stating the truth and his first amendment rights—-freedom of speech.

Jeff, MTV said dogfighting and Vick were hurting hip-hop. Type MTV, dogfighting into Yahoo or Google and the August article should pop up.

I’m just quoting a liberal, hip-hop organization like MTV that has zero morals.

Me, a Liberal? Are you kidding? I’m Limbaugh Republican.

Can’t wait for Nate’s next column. Good to see the State News finally become a diverse paper, including the viewpoints of about half to 60 percent of the Michigan population.

Ow, all this crap has brained my damage. Right then, back to work programming a computer virus that targets neo-con computers.

Rightysparty, I’m troubled by the serious limitations of your logical capacity, which prevent you from churning out anything for than this sorry syllogism:

“Zero morals” MTV said dogfighting and Vick were hurting hip hop.
Therefore, dogfighting is part of the “hip-hop culture.”

Did Queen Elizabeth listen to Kanye West? Did the 14th-century Japanese listen to 50 Cent? These are the questions that must be answered in the affirmative for your claim to hold true. For dogfighting has existed for about as long as there has been domestication of dogs, which, I hope you can understand, occurred long before Grandmaster Flash started creating his art.

If Nate wants to be MSU’s version of Bill O’Reilly, who does he plan to sexually harass with falafel references, as the good ol’ Culture Warrior did? And does being a “Limbaugh Republican” entail being addicted to “hillbilly heroin” and illegally purchasing prescription drugs, as Rush did? You are, after all, a “dittohead,” a self-applied pejorative term for people like you that could not be more accurate.

Those who proclaim to be the defenders of Jesus’ message also say “Smash Left Wing Scum.” You can cut the hypocrisy with a knife.

On second thought, you can’t. It’s too thick here.

This idea of “hate speech” is an interesting one and seems to me to be a legitimate offshoot of Nate’s column. What’s the going definition of hate speech?
I think its important to note that many people confuse the point of saying “X is morally wrong” and “hating X”. They are not the same. There is a big difference between moral censure and hate speech. Granted, people on both sides of issues blur the lines in the way they act and talk, but that does not negate the appropriate distinction.
In fact it is self-refuting to equate the two. Because accusing someone of hate-speech is effectively saying “hate speech is wrong”, well, if simply saying someone is wrong equates to hate speech then teh accusation itself is self-refuting.
Therefore we must becareful how we throw around this term in relationship to principled people affirming moral positions vs. religious zealots inciting violence and physical harm. The one is justified the other is not.

Bravo Kirk,
I disagree with your position/sentiments, but your analysis was clear, well though out and not laced with conspicuous vitriol. A worthwile (although long) read.
The topic of proper approach to “multiculturalism” is a big question/problem. How do we as americans value individual national/ethnic differences and identities while still fostering unity and organization in language, law and culture?
America’s foundations upon Judeo-Christian ideals is undeniable. It is also arguable that the success of america is closely related to those ideals of freedom of religion/speech/conscience and unalienable human rights (endowed to us by some vague notion of a “creator”, weird). Is “national success” (tricky to define, but the US is surely a good example, if not the best example) correlated with a specific ideology? I think so.

Josh,

Thank you for your fair praise of some of my article despite your disagreement with some of my positions! Reading through your previous comments, I can tell you take a similarly mature stance on political and social discussion. I would be happy to have a dialogue with you concerning your difference in position from those I presented! To be clear about some of my own religious, political, and social stances; religiously I’m a Discordian, politically I’m a Pirate, and socially I’m a Millian Libertarian. I believe religiously offensive artwork should be censored if it is unremarkable for any other reason, as endorsement of this manner of artwork is intellectually stagnating to the artistic world. Hence censorship by having greater standards of art. I also genuinely apologize for being verbose.

In regard to your questions concerning what makes the US something of a “national success,” I believe it is because of the competitive and paranoid (for lack of a better term) social aspects democracy embraces. America’s competitiveness is responsible for much of our wealth, and our checks and balances are largely responsible for keeping some degree of peace. As Warren Ellis writes in his recent book, the prevalence of CCTV, camera-phones, and instant citizen journalism if creating a more and more just nation. This is not in any way to disclaim the “religion/speech/conscience and unalienable human rights” you presented, without these things the traits and phenomenon I described would mean little.

“I think its important to note that many people confuse the point of saying “X is morally wrong” and “hating X”. They are not the same.”

This is true, but if you read YAF’s commentary, you’ll find they cross that line time and again. Nate doesn’t cross it here, but that may be because the State news would not let him.

I am disappointed that the only person the State News could find to articulate these radical positions is Nate Sherman. Honestly I have no problem hearing your opinion or having the State News publish it, but your writing sucks. Good Christ you make jokes about Helen Keller and expect me to take you seriously??? I thought that there were editors to help columnists write something more persuasive and less vitriolic. This column could have been written by a pissed off 13 year-old—I can’t believe that a college junior penned this garbage.

For the sake of good debate I hope the State News hires a new ‘conservative’ columnist because your poor writing does your movement a disservice. Aside from the two dozen YAFers—who were already with you—you have convinced no one of the truth of your claims or the logic of your argument.

Please complete WRA 101 before you publish again.

Idiots, bastards, communists, sellouts and then theres Nate Sherman posting on here! SLWS!!

Damn, I ran out of lighter fluid…

Internet anonymity is such a fascinating thing. It all washes away with the simple construct of society and multiple pairs of eyes staring down on you. Smashing Left Wing Scum will not avail you when you’re taking your organic chemistry exams. I’m not going to tell the hopping mad conservative power base to do anything, I’m only going to patiently tell you: you have continued to ignore objective knowledge for easier flights of religious passion. It is fun to get into a tizzy, but it doesn’t avail you. I know who you need to carry out your daily lives. You need the objective women and men. You need these individuals, not the supposition of our overlord or creator.

Your automobiles carry you from church to home because of Rudolph Diesel, Benz, the corporate learnings of Standard Oil and John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, etc. Individuals. Nothing more. The farmer with streaming beads of sweat on his forehead feed your faces, not your concepts and opinions. The mathematical obsession of James Clerk Maxwell and Oliver Heaviside’s subsequent simplifications made the construction of your televisions and computers possible. These specific examples of flesh and bone made it possible, not your suppositions. Gutenberg made the printing and mass distribution of Scripture a thriving enterprise. That individual. No one else, for all practical purposes.

I know you’re jealous of individuals, because you’ll never be extraordinary world players who actualize free will. Your will is consigned to your suppositions and fantastic desires. Our own King George admires Winston Churchill, the individual, not his ideas mind you. Why? Because he hasn’t a chance of ever being remembered as a remarkable individual. It’s been easier to lump oneself into an organization and stymie the creation of self.

I’ll list one more individual. William Shakespeare. He’s achieved an immortality not even Christ can match with his story. Why? Because he stepped up to the plate and realized himself. The man produced, and it was nontrivial and available for all the world to see in all its beauty. The man was an atheist.

Since I’m a bit bored now, I think I’ll take apart some of the other strange statements Nate is putting forth here.

Here is an account of ad hominem attacks and general unprofessionalism:
In paragraphs two and three, Jesse Jackson is evoked with no consideration of context, and it an inflammatory manner. The extent of his quotation is two common phrases and a silly chant. The purpose of the chant is blatantly to give the impression of a motivated “leftist” population. This is a standard propaganda technique.

Nate’s invocation Helen Keller’s tragic condition in paragraph three is used for a similar emotional effect as the above example, but also as something of an expletive. Pinker’s current book contains a discussion of expletives, and describes how they are used as an emotional device to distract from rational arguments. Even outside of these motivations, Nate’s casual metaphor seems contradictory to the compassion he desperately expressed in his last article about abortion. It is odd that the same Nate who is so very concerned with the rights of children is so willing to disgrace Helen Keller by using her for a cheap shot.

Analysis of the first sentence of paragraph four:
Here Nate writes: “Leftists have tried fervently since the 1960s to subvert American culture by promoting cultural heresies, which really only amount to a form of subversion.” I cannot understand this statement, I am going to try and figure out what he could possibly mean. The words heresy and subversion can’t retain their normal meanings, that wouldn’t make sense in the context of the sentence. If normal heresy is the dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice(Merriam-Webster) then perhaps “cultural heresy” is the rejection of dominant cultural theory.

But there was a good reason to reject dominant cultural theory in the 1960s. Women and minorities where genuinely being treated as second class citizens. The Vietnam War was going on, and many drafted young men were being killed for reasons they did not endorse. As a young man who feared being drafted himself, I know firsthand how this manner of a social event can give one reason to reject dominant cultural theory.

So these “cultural heresies.. only amount to a form of subversion” in Nate’s statement. I’ll go with the experts at Merriam-Webster again for the standard definition of subversion; systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working secretly from within. Surely Nate doesn’t mean the government in his context, he must mean cultural subversion. Nate must think that the anti-dominant thought of the 1960s were the attempt of “leftists” to overthrow the current cultural norms.

But weren’t many of the cultural struggles of the 1960s struggles to create equality among races and sexes? Certainly very few of the blacks and women who marched for their rights had some sinister goal in mind, such as dwarfing the white males of the nation. I believe Nate’s next two sentences might illuminate our confusion.

“These cultural heresies include, but are not limited to: Radical feminism, sexual deviancy, multilingualism and atheism. Anything that divides America, splits up the family or is an affront to Christian morality is promoted by the left.”

Radical feminism can undermine reasonable feminism. Many radical feminists use inflammatory remarks that damage the credibility of women who just want to be treated fairly. However, they are a small minority, and few people take them seriously.

Sexual deviancy, on the other hand, is an odd thing to say is damaging our culture. Our forefathers such as Jefferson have been known slave rapists. Marital infidelity has long been considered a granted in for many men in tradition positions of power. Whorehouses have been a staple of all civilizations, and whoring is long associated with the fine men of the military who have no time for relationships. I should say sexual deviancy has been with America since the beginning, and conforms to cultural normalcies.

I have addressed multilingualism in my rebuttal above, it is not necessary to do so again. Atheism doesn’t seem to have any bearing on American culture. The number of atheists never fluctuates too greatly, and a loss of faith in a normally charitable man usually results in him being charitable in non-faith related ways.

Nate’s last sentence in the paragraph is “Anything that divides America, splits up the family or is an affront to Christian morality is promoted by the left.” This is a highly emotionally charged blanket statement whose purpose is somewhat blatant propaganda. I will offer a few absurd things that do indeed divide America, split up the family, or are an affront to Christian morality that are not promoted by the left.

Things that divide America that the left doesn’t promote:
Interest in regional music, such as country or rap.
Inequality between races.
Unwillingness or inability to stay up to code on coal power plants.
The chance to swim in the ocean regularly.

Things that split up the family that the left doesn’t promote:
Financial and social inequality within the household.
The birth of more children than a family can afford.

Things that are an affront to Christian morality that the left doesn’t promote:
Harming thy neighbor, in instances such as large wars with high death tolls.
Having children that will be malnourished from poor food supplies or harmed by unfit or regretful parents.
Filling orphanages while couples pay tens of thousands of dollars for artificial insemination.

This list is by no means meant to be exhaustive. I apologize for any inflammatory language used, the list consisted of stances too complex to summarize accurately. I do feel they are common positions held by the right that promote the division of America, the family, and anti-Christian values.

On nihilism and the “New Right”:
In paragraph five, Nate states: “the “New Right” is subverting American culture by replacing it with a nihilistic, corporatist culture.” Nate continuously makes me wonder if I do not understand what words mean. Lucky for me, Merriam-Webster.com is right on hand. For “Nihilist” they have “1: a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless 2: a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility”

So Nate’s vision of the nihilistic corporatist culture means the neo-right is either A: So disillusioned with existence as to not be motivated, or B: Devoted to self destruction.

Is nihilist really the right word here Nate? Merriam-Webster.com is free and has a very good thesaurus function. Perhaps you should double-check all these big words.

Before I bid you good night, sweet audience, I would like to talk about one last quip of Nate’s. In his second to last paragraph he writes: “Sexual deviancy is no longer taboo; it is taboo to criticize it.”

I will have to evoke Warren Ellis’s argument in Crooked Little Vein for this one. When something is on the web and visible for free, it is no longer arcane. The web is a society changing tool. If you so felt like it and you are a competent computer user, it is entirely plausible for you to watch a clip from a porno with men injecting saline into their genitals. Furries have a huge network, and are often very open about discussing their desires in a mature fashion. Young republicans know where to go to find S&M play, they make up the majority of the younger communities. Alt.com has been a huge name in the fetish world for over ten years now. If you want to learn about sexual deviance, people will welcome you in mature and safe settings. This is mainstream, and this is America.

You know, I have seen both remarks from both sides that were inflammatory, however. there are many more intelligent and coherent “left” rebuttals than there are “right” counter arguments. I really would like to see someone on Nate’s side construct a counter argument to say perhaps Kirk’s well put together post, or even Skip’s evidence that Christianity evolved from multiculturalism, in a calm, intelligent, and rational way much in the vein of the post they are responding to. Thusfar the only thing I have seen (other than a few well put posts by Josh Caleb, kudos to you sir) were repeated iterations of “Smash Left Wing Scum” and “WE SUPPORT YOU NATE” with absolutely no defense for Nate presented, which is essentially the same as saying “We don’t care about logic, we will continue to believe in something, even if it is proved wrong, and will make no attempt to prove it right.” It is really sad, and I say this not in an inflammatory way. It is said that one should defend one’s ideals with more vigor and passion than one defends his country or family.

To draw a military analogy, Nate has attacked many aspects of our current American culture. He came over here with a pistol, and some grenades, and got to the wartime goodness. Upon seeing him, it appears that troops on the other side had also mobilized to defend against him, however, Kirk and Skip seem to have taken a tank and stealth bomber respectively to the fight. So instead of aiding Nate with your own stealth bombers, tanks, and heck (if its a really well put together argument and rebuttal of the left wing responses) maybe an occasional nuke, you instead hand him rocks to throw, and cheer him from a safe distance on the sidelines. Doesn’t really fit the support our troops motif.

I’m being serious though. I really want to see a well constructed right wing counter argument to any of the intelligent non-inflammatory left wing rebuttals. It’s about the only way I can believe Nate’s argument holds any water.

Yes DJ I am aware that is your opinion of what Kirk and Skip sound like. However, to get me to agree with you, I would like to see evidence as to where Kirk and Skip are wrong.

Please Note: Evidence that does not contradict Kirk and Skip, but rather further expounds Nate’s position, is not a disproof of Kirk and Skip’s arguments. Instead, it is more “Debate Cheerleading” as I will call it. They took several points in Nate’s argument, showed them to be false, and postulated that as a reason that Nate’s entire line of reasoning is false. As such, I would like to see you, or anyone else for that matter (and I am serious, this isn’t a taunt, I really want to see it) do the same, i.e. taking apart their arguments bit by bit, showing evidence as to why they are false, and postulating that into a concrete stance against their counter argument.

Saying “Kirk sounds like an amateur intellectual, and Skip´s argument seems like he skimmed the Bible and took random bits out (called the Bice Method) to spice up his shallow mantra.” is not in fact evidence, it is an opinion, and with the words amateur and shallow mantra used, I submit to you that your post too, is inflammatory.

DJ, although the Bible is certainly not my focus I have done some coursework in Biblical studies as well as Jewish and Christian history while on my way to becoming the PhD student in religion that I am now. I have studied the entire New Testament as well as the majority of the Hebrew Bible. And although not a Christian per se, I am a man of deep faith who sincerely respects the fundamental wisdom of all religions. It is indeed difficult to juggle the demands of faith and reason, but they are far from antithetical to one another. My experience has been that I have grown both intellectually and spiritually, and I don’t see what is so bad about that.

And I’m not even a left-winger!

Nate, I would like to say that I for one agree with you. However, I think you are mistaken on one simple premise. America does not have to revert to Christian ideals. Nay America, and very much the entire world needs to embrace the original ideals of Pastafarianism. As such, we must embrace the culture of those who were originally touched by our creator’s great noodley appendage, the pirates. Doing so would not only cement America’s power as cultural mecca of the world, but would also vastly improve the status of our deteriorating ozone layer, and the rising greenhouse effect.

Returning to our original Pastafarian ways would accomplish a number of things.

1. All Pirates are of one race, the pirate race. Most are white-ish, with long hair and the possibility of mustaches and beards. There lesser pirates which thin the genepool and may end up darker skinned but trust me, they are all a member of the true master race.

2. All Pirates have the same culture. Their views handed down from the Flying Spaghetti Monster himself are cemented in the eight “I would rather you didn’ts”. This would diminish the threat of multiculturalism in our country.

3. All pirates are of course manly men, and thus were all straight. However, women were considered bad luck on pirate ships, and since pirates spend nearly their whole lives at sea, it would greatly cut down on the sexual deviancy in our country.

4. Feminism will be completely abolished, as I am sure you realize Pirate women are mostly all serving wenches who rightly know their place in the natural order, happy to serve and uphold the values of the pirate family.

5. Multilingualism too will be abolished. As we all know, the original pirates spoke in subdued English accents with copious amounts of YARRR-ing. Aside from the YARRR-ing which would bring our language closer to the original universal language of pirate, all pirates speak English, thus eliminating the need for any other language to be taught. In fact I would go as far as to say it should be required that Pirate be taught in our schools, as a mandatory subject to ALL students of all nationalities.

6. Atheism also will be abolished. As well you know, all pirates, rather, all of existence came into being via the noodley touch of the giant flying spaghetti monster in the sky, who is of course as you know both invisible and undetectable yet constantly altering reality around us. By embracing Pirate ideals, we will all come to learn the glory of his ways, and will realize the greatness of this universe he has designed for us. We will all come to realize that everything from mountains to trees to midgits are only possible through his divine noodleyness. Truly a deity with profound teachings for all.

Upon coming to the realization of the ideals of Pastafarianism, I am sure America will come to be a better place. In fact, if it weren’t for Leftist Ninja’s and shoving their lessons of the teachings of their Invisible Pink Unicorn deity down our throats, we might still be living in the original paradise of creation, only hundreds of years ago. Truly, the Ninjas exist solely to undermine our American values and civilization, and preach the codes of false deities to us, as we all know there is only one true creator, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

More power too you Nate, and I hope you too one day come to realize the one true religion, Pastafarianism, to be joined with the rest of us devout Pirates in his loving noodley embrace.

RAmen

and SNS “Smash Ninja Scum”

(For more information about the First Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, full copies of the scriptures, gospel, and instructions on how to join please visit this website http://www.venganza.org/)

Skip: Excellent detail of early Christian Influence! You are surely my superior on the specifics of the issue, the only ones I have much knowledge of are the Norse influences and the occasional Roman one. Good show, sir!

DJ: I’m actually a professional intellectual. I develop exhibits at a children’s science museum, specializing in utilization of social technology for educational purposes. It caters mostly to inner-city children who are in need of new ways to grasp the basic sciences. It pays less than working for a for-profit, but I feel like I’m helping in my little way. What credentials do you have, sir, that make you feel like you are superior enough to me that insulting me without addressing my arguments is enough to discredit me?

Daniel: I genuinely thank you for encouraging reasonable discussion, and doing so in an eloquent manner! I particularly like your term “Debate Cheerleading.”

Pastafarian: An excellent adaptation of age-old wisdom to our current situation. Your starchy overlord must be proud. My golden apple-chucking goddess is.

J. Edward Tremlett

You do make a very good point, and tolerance should be exercised. However there is a line that tolerance shouldn’t cross. I submit to you the literal translation of “First they came…”

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Though the situations are quite different, the key point is similar. If we allow Nate’s viewpoint, and other intolerant viewpoints to be “expressed” as they like, we rationalize this via the belief that they are not hurting anyone. However what happens when they DO start hurting people?

The problem is right and left boil down to black and white and it isn’t. A similar problem is very many leftists believe that everyone no matter their viewpoint should be able to have full freedom to express it, and unfortunately that too is false, because the extent “full freedom” goes to can be interpreted in many ways.

Nate references sexual deviants, who I can only imagine include homosexuals, feminists, and people of other cultures as a source of ruination in our country. So you say that he has the ability to voice that. Ok lets grant him that. Now what happens if he starts an anti protest at say a gay or women’s rights rally? Is that ok? How disruptive does he and the YAF have to be before we take notice?

I bring to the table, the Klu Klux Klan. Is it legal for them to burn a cross on a African American Man’s property? It is moral? Is it ok? Most would say no just due to the “get off my property argument”. What about if he did it in the street then, off your property. If the fire code and street codes were not violated, who is to stop him. Is it still ok? What if he did this EVERY NIGHT? Is that ok? When does it start hurting people?

See now people might say that the cross burning is harassment, and should be prevented, but if that is the case, this article is also harassment. By expressing this viewpoint he is in fact insulting and outright damning people of the opposite viewpoint. If he said “well I believe this but we can all co-exist” that would be a different story, but he is calling for the abolishing of feminism, multi culturalism, and anything really other than Christian values. He is stating to save america, we must remove certain people with certain viewpoints FROM america!

That is a blatantly antagonistic statement. Words carry power, and his words were an attempt to motivate people to hate people with other values. It is in essence, a verbal battle, which surpasses the status of “argument”. By saying nothing you are surrendering the battle. Granted many people made many arguments that weren’t antagonistic and that is the way to go, but saying “they have a right to their opinion” is like saying “i have a right to beat faggots, if I so believe”.

Now many people would say “THATS HORRIBLE ITS HURTING PEOPLE” but what if the aforementioned gay-basher didn’t view homosexuals as people? In their mind they have done nothing wrong. But of course then you will say “well thats crazy of course they are people” but AHA, now who is forcing their point of view on others! By disallowing that hatecrime, you are forcing your point of view that homosexuals are people on someone who believes otherwise. To have the right to do this you also must have the right to say that their standpoint is wrong. To say their standpoint is wrong, you have to be able to argue against it. To argue against it, you are forwarding the purpose to silence that point of view, so that people DON’T believe that homosexuals are not people and DO believe they are. See, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

What Nate says is both real and hurtful to many people, and the SLWS slogan only compounds the antagonism. You seem like an intelligent guy ed, and I enjoyed your other posts, but I simply cannot agree with a hands off, everyone says what they like standpoint. Sure, everyone has the right to SAY whatever they want. No one will stop them there. But saying certain things has certain consequences. You could SAY an insult to my mother in front of my face, and no one will stop you, no one will put their hand over your mouth or call the thought police, and you are even free to continue thinking bad things about my mother, but if you DO in fact say that, I’m going to punch you, and I’m going to punch you hard.

Actions have consequences and the YAF and Nate are just feeling the consequences of their freedom of speech. If the viewpoint of “anyone can say anything regardless of consequence” could hold, EVERYONE would have to believe it. But Nate obviously dosen’t. So if every intelligent person in the world decided to take the standpoint of “Be bigger than the YAF and don’t silence them” but the YAF does not, then what it will boil down to, is that the YAF will be the only voice in the country because everyone else is trying not to silence them with their own POV’s. I don’t think anyone wants that.

(Please note Ed, I have a great deal of respect for you and this comment was not meant to be insulting or antagonistic in any way and I apologize if it comes off as such.)

Shnar – I did not mean my post to be insulting to anyone, especially Josh Caleb. In fact I applaud him for responding to Kirks counter-argument with such collected, intelligent words and thoughts. Although I think the “(endowed to us by some vague notion of a “creator”, weird)” comment was put forth in a needlessly sarcastic tone, and that it references something that could be accounted for in just about any religion, not just Christianity (just about every religion out there has creation stories and myths, and just about every religion’s great creator is that which gives us inalienable rights, for all we know it could be the Spaghetti Monster Pastafarian referenced), he does bring up several good points in his posts and I do not believe there is any degree of cut-and-running involved. Although a lack of a response can be considered conceding the argument (although this is not always the case, sometimes you simply do not have access to a computer for a time), I do not think it necessarily means he is running from the argument, or is mis-informed. I actually would like to see more of his responses and I think he might be able to lend a credible voice to the right-wing point of view, which by now it most dearly needs, considering the absolute massive influx of people chanting “Smash Left Wing Scum”. In my humble opinion, intellectual discussions should be kept intellectual, and outside the realm of petty insults.

“However what happens when they DO start hurting people?”

When they start hurting people, we use the law against them. And that’s why we have to let people like Nate and his YAF buddies air their spew in places like this: so we know who they are, and what they really feel like, so when they try to BECOME the law we can reference their old spew – now part of the public record – and see they never do.

Put it another way: do we ban the American Nazi Party and the KKK? If David Duke hadn’t had the right to join them, each in turn, and have his “youthful indiscretions,” he’d have been governor of Louisiana back in the 90’s and done untold damage to civil rights in that state. But since he disgraced himself as a matter of public record, the people of that state chose a crook over him for governor.

Nate has just disgraced himself. He is never going to be anything more than what he is, right now. Maybe he’ll get a job with FOX News, someday, and be that Bill O’Reilly. He might even write a book, if he can get a ghost writer to clean up his crud.

But he will never get the opportunity to slink into a legislature, somewhere, and screw with our laws and checks and balances, so long as this is – and whatever else he writes with State News – is part of the public record, and we keep harping on the fact that it exists, and he wrote it.

You do have a point Ed, in that allowing them to say this is a way to figure out who they are, and as I said before, the ability to SAY something is fine, but consequences arise from saying those things, and one of those consequences is the desire for people to silence the aforementioned opinion. Case and point, via your outlook we cannot silence nate, nor can we silence the people who want to silence him… which you kinda tried to do, nor can we silence the people who try to silence the people who try to silence him, and so forth.

When it comes down to it, anyone with an opposing viewpoint is, although indirectly, working toward silencing the original viewpoint. Even if you just posit your counterargument as a learning experience, if enough people find the original argument is flawed, they will stop believing in it, and thus it will be silenced.

In addition, I understand why you said we should use the law against them and in a vacuum, that works, but we don’t live in a vacuum. We live in a world where law enforcement is many times retroactive. It doesn’t take much to drive to someones house and beat them to death. All it takes is a car, a baseball bat, and the willingness to do so and this opinion spreads the willingness to do so.

The reason I want Nate silenced is actually very simple. I do love America and I do love being an American. I believe it is or at least it should be the land of the free, where everyone can live the way he or she wants. As such, I don’t want people like Nate in my country, people who spread the message of hate, and intolerance, and flat out violence, damning people for who they are or who they want to be even when they aren’t hurting anyone. I want peace, and what he proposes is directly opposed to peace.

Healthy reservation via silencing can sometimes be a good thing. If someone is taught all their lives that something is wrong by all the people around them, there is a greater chance they won’t do it. In this example, if enough people in the intelligent thinking world can outspeak, outreason, and essentially prove Nate’s position to be objectively wrong, there is a lot less of a chance that anything horrible will come from it. However, if we do allow him to continue spouting his nonsense, who knows, one day he and his friends might get drunk and kill somebody because they are different. It happened with Matthew Shepard, and the law was too late. Sure the offenders received their punishment, but it was far too late, a life was already taken. Is that a worthwhile sacrifice to allow people like Nate to continue spewing messages of hate? Is it ok to wait until after crimes are committed and people have been sacrificed because we allowed hateful people to continue thinking and speaking in their hateful ways?

Just type in gay bashing or gay beating in google or hell go to godhatesfags.com. Just look at how many people lose their lives every year due to this attitude, and thats just gays, don’t get me started on sexist and racist crimes. I say, if this is an attitude that harms so many people, it deserves to be silenced.

The hypocrisy of much of what I have read in response is unbelievable. We actually have someone on here talking about how he loves America and loves freedom, yet openly asks “Is it ok to wait until after crimes are committed and people have been sacrificed because we allowed hateful people to continue thinking and speaking in their hateful ways?” This type of thing is exactly why YAF not only exists, but is necessary in this day and age. There are very scary people out there who want to control what we say and even what we think.

When I read about how this guy wants peace, the dork that lives inside of me couldn’t help but think of Star Wars Episode III and the line where Palpatine talks of the Sith once again ruling the galaxy and stating that when the Sith rule “there will be peace.” In other words, MyLifeIsAnRPG wants to force peace and his own ideas of “tolerance” though the use of fascist though policing. Yet, the political correctness/tolerance police of today have the gall to call YAF a fascist organization. They say that YAF is an organization that has perverted the concept of freedom while they are the ones advocating that freedom be taken away from YAF. How dare they!

I think its fine – even good – that people disagree with what YAF, Nate, Myself, etc stand for. That is what America is all about. YAF has not once stated, directly or indirectly, that people don’t have a right to disagree with them. Perhaps someone can state to me why its never conservatives that are trying to restrict political speech, expression, and thought – its always the liberals. The only explanation I can think of is that modern liberalism is so ridiculous that it cannot compete with conservatism, and thus, the only way liberals can be successful is to silence the conservatives. That is exactly what the left is trying to do now at MSU and it’s exactly what the left has tried to do for years at MSU. It’s the same old song and dance over and over again: free speech for me, but not for thee.

My challenge to MyLifeIsAnRPG and the other libs on this forum is simple: Go out and do better than YAF. If you all truly believe that your message is the right one for America, then why not promote it in the same way that YAF promotes its message? It’s your right – make use of it. I would rightfully call you a coward if all you want is for big brother to constantly step in and force the people you disagree with into silence.

Good point Jason. You know what, I will concede that the YAF is a non-violent organization if you can just answer this following scenario.

A homosexual couple wishes to get married. One is a writer who unfortunately cannot gain benefits through his choice of career. The other is a businessman who can easily support his significant other through his own career. The writer has cancer. They decide they will do whatever it takes to extend the medical benefits to each other, and get married in a legal state. But later, they move to an un-legal state, due to necessity and family. The insurance company realizes they are a gay couple and threatens to take the insurance away and stop the writers treatment.

What is the correct course of action for all parties involved so that the most people out there can live happy lives?

More to the point, if the the couple found a way to continue extending their marraige rights to each other, and the YAF found a way to interfere which would prevent this from happening, with no consequences, would they?

Also in terms of mobilization toward a point of view please check out these organizations.

* Alternative Family Project * American Medical Student Association [1] (AMSA) * American Medical Association [2][3] (AMA) * One National Gay & Lesbian Archives * Affirmation: Gay & Lesbian Mormons (Mormon Church) * Basic Rights Oregon [4] * Bay Area Physicians for Human Rights [5] (BAPHR) * Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere (COLAGE) [6] * Daughters of Bilitis * Digital Queers (DQ) * DignityUSA (Catholic Church) * EQCA (Equality California) [7] * Equality Florida [8] * eQualityGiving [9] * Equality Maryland [10] * Equality Virginia [11] * Fine By Me * Gay Straight Alliance Network International (GSANI) * Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) * Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) * Gay and Lesbian Medical Association [12] (GLMA) * Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network [13](GLSEN) * Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund and Leadership Institute [14] * Gay Liberation Front (GLF) * Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA) [15] * Gay Men of African Descent (GMAD) * Gay Straight Advocates for Education (GSAFE) [16] * Gay Pride Virginia (GPV) [17] * GenderPAC (GPAC) [http://www.gpac.org/ * Human Rights Campaign (HRC) * Immigration Equality [18] * IntegrityUSA (Episcopal Church) * Kansas Equality Coalition * Keshet, Inc. (Keshet, Keshet Boston) [19] * Lambda Legal [20] * Lesbian Avengers * Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) * Love Makes a Family – Connecticut * Marriage Equality * MassEquality [21] * Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC Churches) * National Center For Lesbian Rights [22][NCLR] * National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (The Task Force) * National Youth Advocacy Coalition (NYAC) * New Gay Liberation Front * Our Family Coalition [23] * Out & Equal * Outright Libertarians * Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) * Queers and Allies, University of Kansas * Queer Nation * Rainbow Health Initiative (RHI) link * Rainbow Law * Rainbow Sash * Safe Schools Coalition of Washington [24] * Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) [25] * Soulforce * Stanislaus PRIDE Center (SPC) * Stonewall Democrats * Touro University Gay-Straight Alliance [26] (TUGSA) * National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) [27] * Queer Commission of the Socialist Party USA * The United States Gay and Lesbian United Front

aaaaaaaaand thats just for gay rights.

“nor can we silence the people who want to silence him… which you kinda tried to do”

Nope, I’m not trying to silence anyone. I’m trying to point out that both sides engage in the same kind of ‘hey, keep it quiet’ rhetoric that doesn’t do anything except make the other side get antsy and cry censorship, just like Jason just did. If critique and criticism were censorship we’d be screwed.

And Jason, last I checked the fascist movement of the early 20th century was decidedly right-wing, whatever their economic policies may have been. So yes, there were conservatives who tried to restrict speech and thought. They were in Germany and Italy. Remember them?

Jason Van Dyke: In my last post, I stated:

“Nate should be silenced because of his rampant use of inflammatory language akin to propaganda, his poor grasp of the English language (which is a language he seems to value), and his baseless and often hypocritical argumentative style.”

If Nate used reason and good arguments instead of propaganda, if he was to support the English language through proper use, and if he was to provide solid premises and fall victim of his own hypocrisies I would say he has every right to publish his opinion. But he doesn’t have these things, and I have proven it.

I’ve accepted my little challenge to make America a better place. It is my career. I teach children science so they will know that they do not owe their lives to some piecemeal deity. Ten-thousand of them a day.

Here’s my counter-challenge to Jason Van Dyke and his kind. I feel like my rebuttal was sound, especially those against each of Nate’s points. If you can’t address all of my arguments (it is a big task), then address Skip and my argument that Nate’s Christian solution to multiculturalism is guilty of employing a multiculturally created religion, and hence meaningless.

re: Kirk’s counter-challenge.

Before you claim one argument is without merit, look at your own. First and foremost, the column appeared on an opinion page of a collegiate newspaper. What do you expect to see on a page like that, fair and balanced reporting? It is called the opinion page precisely because the views expressed there are not necessarily going to be fair and balanced. I suppose words like “inflammatory” and “propaganda” are both terms you could use to describe such views that you disagree with.

And silencing someone because they allegedly have a poor grasp of the English language. There is a literary work I would like to recommend to you. It is an old play called “The Clouds” written by the Greek playwright Aristophanes. Since its not all about multiculturalism, it is probably not a work you are familiar with from your classes at MSU. Read about Socrates (as he is portrayed in the play) and the satirical manner in which “wrong argument” prevails over “right argument” – then explain to me the relevance of grammar and argumentative style as such things relates to whether one’s opinions should be censored (or silenced, as you put it).

And since you felt compelled to mention it, I am opposed to prayer in public schools. Not because I think there is anything wrong with praying in public, but more because I was a victim of public education . If I learned anything from public school, I learned that public school teachers are among the last people who ought to be teaching religion or leading prayers.

Jason,

I will say one thing. I don’t think stalinism should be tolerated either, and it scares me equally as much as severe intolerance that people do not fight it. But then again, we do live in a very complacent and sadly uneducated country. If more intelligent people got outraged more of the time, I think our country would change for the better more often.

The purpose of my thought experiment was simple. I wanted to know if you personally would harm a fellow human being to further the ideals of the YAF. However, when it seemed to boil down to Gay Marriage + Survival, and No Gay Marriage and No Survival, you seem to have chosen Gay Marriage, which I do commend you for. It is not a decision that many people can make, to allow something that goes against their ideals for the sake of human survival, and since I value human life above all else, I have needed to re-evaluate my aforementioned opinion .

I still greatly disagree with the YAF and I still believe they spread a message of hate. In addition, if I ever see them perpetrating violence toward one of the groups that Nate mentions, I will fight back full force. I think that largely the YAF preaches a form of Neo-Nazism, of the ideals of a single master race, single master sex, single master sexuality, and single master culture. However, by choosing Gay Marriage legality for the sake of survival in my aforementioned scenario, you have proven to me that there is at least one (provided you are one) YAF member that stands for the principles of peace and non-violence.

Nate’s message, I believe, was poorly put together and based on false assumptions. I think Kirk and Skip did a wonderful job of showing those false assumptions, and I think no one has really responded to either of them. I grant you did take a stab at kirks argument that Nate’s poor command of the English language, but I am more interested in his point by point rebuttal of Nate’s premise, as well as Skip’s evidence that Christianity itself is a product of multiculturalism. No one has really brought up a counter argument for these, shy of DJ’s “Your Stupid” post. Count me in as one more person out of the ranting, raving, emotional speech department, but if this conversation is going to take a more intelligent turn, I need to see some more credible defense.

Shnar, Go to class. You need to work on your writing skills. Your responses are not calm, collected nor reasoned. They are just the self-important words of a small child. You are the only person who felt it necessary to brag about yourself. How sad for you. Really, go to class.

Jason: “I am not exactly sure how they justify that.”

Well, we’ve seen it justified right here on this comment trail. One side thinks the other is so wrong that it has to be silenced before damage is done, or more damage is done.

And before you jump up and say “NO!” remember that they’ve got a point: speech IS dangerous. Look at how a fringe political organization, the Nazi Party, became one of the worst governments of the 20th century by taking advantage of a bad situation and talking at crowds until people agreed with them. Look at how the view of one man, Karl Marx, spawned horrible “revolutions” whose caretakers turned totalitarian and kept billions under state control. If someone had suppressed Hitler and Marx, we might have never had WWII, the holocaust and the cold war, and those billions of people might never have been held back by Communism.

Now, you see how enticing an argument that is? How do you tell someone, after reviewing the historical evidence, that no, censorship is wrong, and people should be free to speak and hear what they want, and change the laws in an orderly, peaceful manner to suit their views? (Hitler WAS voted in, lets not forget)

I’m one of the few people I know who will, when folks harp on that point, insist that it’s better to let the fringe types air their spew so we know who they are. I wonder sometimes if I’m missing the point, but I have to believe in freedom and self-determination, even if the results are sometimes ugly.

“But when people are openly calling for the censorship of certain political views, calling for student organizations to be forcibly removed from a college campus (as MEXA did last semester), and when dirty hooligans, criminals, and thugs cause a civil disturbance for the sole purpose of disrupting a speaking event because they don’t agree with the message…that is the type of thing that should be highly objectionable in a free society.”

I agree. But does this mean YAF will not be calling for people to silence the Vagina Monologues this year? ; )

Jason,

As the responses by you have been less inflammatory than most, I am actually quite enjoying speaking with you on these issues. Believe it or not, I am in agreement with you in that I do not thing Marriage is a government permissible action. Along the same lines, I do not think Marriage is an action the government could ban.

In truth, I am in favor of separating the rights associated with marriage all together. In my proposed system, there would exist both Marriage and Civil Unions for ALL people, both gay and straight. Civil Unions would be the civil process, by which ones possessions become grouped with the others, and access to health care and other benefits are granted, and so on. All legal stuff. Marriage in my system would be something for the individual church, or institution to decide, and would be kept on a strictly ritual and spiritual basis. Both gay and straight people would have to do both to amount to the “Marriage” we have today, gay people obviously having to find an institution that is ok with it first.

Civil unions obviously would be accessible to anyone, regardless of Marriage state, and regardless of sexuality. This makes Marriage a private institution, instead of a public one, and the qualms are brought down to a personal, not a state or federal level. All that a gay couple would have to do to get married is find a church that is ok with it, and if their current church isn’t, well they can either start a small community movement to change that, or find another church. Either way it takes power out of the governments hands and stops this gigantic gay marriage in politics debate once and for all.

I am curious as to how you see this proposed revision of our current marriage state. I know it is a bit off topic, but I think we can go back and forth on Nate bashing/heralding till the cows come home, and although I have missed old bessie as the years go on, I think it would be more productive to debate particular issues that Nate has brought up. This of course refers to his condemning of “Sexual Deviancy”, which, lets not fool ourselves, is a way to dance around saying “Queer People” with “Promiscuous People” thrown in the lump.

Anyway looking forward to your opinion.

Hey Kirk, let’s make it easy for Jason and pick one issue he can create a counter-argument for. In his article, Nate cites rap/hip-hop music as an example of multiculturalism ruining our society. Yet, as Kirk pointed out, these music genres seem to have developed in America. Furthermore, there are many rap/hip-hop artists who advocate for peace and numerous other principles of christian morality. Please address.

Kirk: I chose the rap/hip-hop point because it seemed like something easy to address whereas your point about Christianity is much more daunting and less likely to be actually addressed by Nate et al. Not to mention that it requires a historical argument, and given Nate’s version of history, namely ignoring racial and sex discrimination, any answer is likely to be full of dubious facts. Either way the point remains the same, the article is poorly written, poorly researched and little more than propoganda. If this article is so profound and momentous, as the spartenspectator seems to think, it really should be easy to defend.

Jesus Christ was the greatest MC of all time.

On to the subject of hip hop.

First and foremost, many of these hip-hop artists have about a 50 word vocabulary (if that) and an IQ to match. Subtract profane and offensive words from that list and there isn’t much left. Do African-Americans in general really want to be perceived as uneducated? I don’t think that they want to be perceived in such a manner and I do not think they deserve to be.

Listen to the content of this music. If we removed all glorification of drug use, criminal behavior, the “smacking” of women, and promiscuous sex from these songs, could someone please tell how many hit rap songs we would have left? To be more blunt, I could ask if criminal activity and promiscuity is part of the African-American culture. I am not going to say that it is or it isn’t. What I will say is that, whatever the answer to that question is, do we want people to get that perception that the African-American community is comprised mostly of criminals? How does that do any good for anyone?

Finally, look at the behavior of some of these hip hop artists. We will start with Flavor Flav. Does anything other than “Flavor of Love” really need to be said? What about Tupac Shakur? A thug if there ever was one who ended up shot by members of a rival record label. He had a rap sheet longer than Robert Downey Jr. And people glorified him along with Suge Knight (still in and out of prison). And now we have 50 Cent – another absolute thug and probably one of the best (and I use the term loosely) that rap music has to offer. A guy who has been shot nine times and remains walking and talking proof that firearms come with sights for a reason. Even Snoop Doggy Dogg – who I will admit is pretty mellow – like the Willie Nelson of rap music – was one time charged with murder. Again I ask whether these are the people that African-Americans want representing them as a community? I may be wrong, but I do not think they do.

The point of all this? Hip-Hop demonstrates the failures of multiculturalism because, in my opinion, it has caused people of one culture to either (a) falsely attribute bad behavior to another culture; or (b) glorify a “culture of crime” that ought to be condemned in the strongest possible way. The rest of the world looks at us glorifying people like 50 Cent while condemning Alan Keyes. It is all done in the name of “multiculturalism” and, through some voodoo magic, it’s supposed to make us better.

Sorry, but I don’t buy it.

Jason Van Dyke: Thank you for a well thought out response! You are a merit to your beliefs, and you bring dignity to your position!

That said, I have to give a counter-argument. First, a small defense to my position, that Christianity is multiculturally defined and hence a poor solution to reject multiculturalism. Your accounts of Peter and Paul are giving Christianity a bit more monocultural credit than it’s worth. In a totally non-condescending way, (because I respect you) you should really take a look at the religions that inspired Christianity. Christian influences come from all across Europe during the time it was becoming popular. Even C.S. Lewis is quoted as writing that he “loved Balder before Christ” in his collected letters. In the end, Christianity is made up out of bits of older mythos, and it retains this culturally fragmented ideology. This isn’t a new sort of liberal thing either, Joseph Campbell has been saying this sort of thing for over fifty years.

As for unity in Christianity, I still have to be convinced. I for two mini-arguments involving the topic. First off, the massive amount of sects do agree on some things, but many of them take radically different stances on emotion laden topics such as abortion, gay marriage, and even masturbation. I’m a big fan of Unitarians, but they are about as liberal as Christian can get. And then there’s the Catholics, who have some pretty unique stances of their own. I went to Catholic mass with a girlfriend every Sunday for two years (she was very pretty), and they didn’t recite the Nicene Creed there. Then she left me to have premarital sex with a married man with a child she met through church. I’m still a little bitter… anyway, point being, you’re right that many Christians share the tenets of the Nicene Creed, but that leaves all the controversial issues that Nate specifies up in the air, and disagreed upon by different sects.

Second mini-argument (can I still call them that?) is that there are a lot of multicultural Christian sects. I have polish friends that go to polish churches, where the mass is never in English. I have some black friends that go to all black churches that are really different from all the white churches I’ve been to (man, you have to go to at least one funeral!). I have Hispanic friends that go to all Spanish speaking churches. Point being, a lot of the multiculturalism that Nate seems to be against already has Christian values, and believes in Christ. Most of it, really.

Now, as for rap and hip-hop. Jason, I don’t know what music interests you, but I’m sure you know the difference between pop music and real rock bands. The kind not sold to the RIAA. You just can’t defend pop stars, who have music that is unrelated to their lives, says nothing, and isn’t even made by them. I know that a lot of people consider rappers like Flavor Flav, 50-cent, and Snoop Dogg somehow representative of rap, but anyone who knows anything about the scene know these guys are just a different kind of pop music. They’re vacant, produced, and just in it for the same money the Brittneys and the Timberlakes are in it for. Even the Beastie Boys, who were kinda cool for a while, suck the corporate teat. They threw DRM that installs in the background without notifying the users when you play their new album on a PC. If you’re gonna condemn these guys, I’m on your side Jason! The Gangsta rap era was late 80s to mid nineties. Anyone still referencing it in modern times is talking about pop. But there’s a lot more to hip-hop than cheap MCs looking for a buck.

Hip-hop has culture four elements, the DJ, the MC, the breakdancers, and the graffiti artists. You don’t need an MC for good hip-hop. Dan the Automator and DJ Shadow are two high-quality DJs that are pretty mainstream these days. No gang ties, no vocals, just music that says more without words than a hundred Jay-Zs. There’s plenty of great MCs out there too that still speak from the heart. I mentioned Del and Jurassic 5 before, I can add Mr. Lif and Ugly Duckling on there if you’re still hungry for something good and new to try. And there’s always the old progressives, like De La Soul Tribe Called Quest, and Mos Def. Those guys saw what was happening with Gangsta rap and chose to have none of it.

But a lot of people have misconceptions about different kinds of music, and electronic music can be really hard to track the history of. Here’s a link to di.fm’s hosting of the Ishkur Guide 2.5 http://www.di.fm/edmguide/edmguide.html This is something of an icon in the music world, spending an hour with this site might change how you think about music. It did for me.

In closing defense, Nate is only referring to easily targeted pop genres of hip-hop. No one who likes hip-hop gives Nate’s targets the time of day. Yes, pop music is inane and sends irresponsible messages about sex and violence. If Nate wants to crusade against the big labels and the degeneration of music, I’ll be his right hand man. But to say all rap and hip-hop has these gang-violence traits is to pass judgment on a part of uniquely American culture that he doesn’t understand.

Jason, I’d like to thank you again for your response. I was really hoping I’d get to converse in a mature fashion.

Wow, I never thought I would see the lyrics to ‘Protoculture’ in the comments section of a political article on the State News website, LOL!! Great song/artist

Yar, matey! I’ll see thee upon the next Nate Sherman column, no doubt. We’ll keel-haul those land-lubbbers yet! Arrrrrr

SLWS!!

sLWS: Some Lady Wants Scones?