Monthly Archives: March 2017

Existential Nihilism & Atheism…

Posted: March 31, 2017 at 6:55 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_nihilism

"He rages most of all at the thought that eternity might get it into its head to take his misery from him!" Kierkegaard

The TL;DR is that meaning and purpose are ascribed to things by intelligent and conscious beings, and that we as human beings find meaning and purpose in all sorts of things - in relationships, in marriages, in friendships, in children, in our jobs, etc. Those meanings and purposes have all the value that we give to them quite aside from whether there is any God or not. Adding God only means there is one more sentient being who can have meanings and purposes and in that sense is no more relevant or important than adding one additional human.

Doesn't existential nihilism follow naturally from atheism? That mankind, ultimately, is insignificant with no intrinsic meaning or purpose? If not, why not?

I, personally, might be considered an existential nihilist, insofar as I don't believe "meaning" is something which CAN be objective-- it seems like an inherently subjective concept, to me.

--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

Post Thanks / Like - 1 Amen

I explained it The TL;DR is that meaning and purpose are ascribed to things by intelligent and conscious beings, and that we as human beings find meaning and purpose in all sorts of things - in relationships, in marriages, in friendships, in children, in our jobs, etc. Those meanings and purposes have all the value that we give to them quite aside from whether there is any God or not. Adding God only means there is one more sentient being who can have meanings and purposes and in that sense is no more relevant or important than adding one additional human.

If our species went extinct tomorrow how would effect anything for the worse?

"He rages most of all at the thought that eternity might get it into its head to take his misery from him!" Kierkegaard

Post Thanks / Like - 1 Amen

Not necessarily. There are atheists who believe that mankind has intrinsic purpose even among philosophical naturalists, let alone supernaturalist atheists.

"He rages most of all at the thought that eternity might get it into its head to take his misery from him!" Kierkegaard

And what would that intrinsic purpose be? Exactly.

--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

The answers to that question vary, just as they do among theists. A humanist might answer that the intrinsic purpose of mankind is to help as much and to harm as little as possible. A Zen Buddhist might say that the intrinsic purpose of mankind is to discover the enlightenment latent in one's soul. A particularly morbid atheist might say that mankind's purpose is to die. Et cetera, et cetera.

"He rages most of all at the thought that eternity might get it into its head to take his misery from him!" Kierkegaard

Well I don't know about the Buddhist thing, but I think your atheist point lines up with nihilism. As far as the humanist - where would he ever get the idea of intrinsic purpose? Not from nature. Do they just assert intrinsic purpose without a rational?

--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

Doesn't existential nihilism follow naturally from atheism? That mankind, ultimately, is insignificant with no intrinsic meaning or purpose? If not, why not?

Post Thanks / Like - 2 Amen

Read this article:

Existential Nihilism & Atheism...

Posted in Nihilism | Comments Off

Why Brexit Is Best for Britain: The Left-Wing Case – New York Times

Posted: at 6:55 am

New York Times

Why Brexit Is Best for Britain: The Left-Wing Case
New York Times
Although Lexiteers have little patience for the national nihilism of Davos Man, the globalist elite, we are no xenophobes. We voted Leave because we believe it is essential to preserve the two things we value most: a democratic political system and a ...

and more »

See the rest here:

Why Brexit Is Best for Britain: The Left-Wing Case - New York Times

Posted in Nihilism | Comments Off

I Went to Studio 54, and You Didn’t – Papermag

Posted: at 6:54 am

I'm always wildly envious of younger people, but there's one thing I have over them: I went to Studio 54. The legendary 1970s disco arose like a mirage in an old theater on 54th Street. The country was in shambles due to the mass disillusionment over Vietnam and Watergate, and New York's "Fun City" tag had become ironic, because the city was dangerous and decrepit, but here came 54, where you could check your mind at the door and indulge in three floors of fabulous denial.

Getting in was a nightmare, of course. Frisky co-owner Steve Rubell wanted a mixed salad of a crowd, consisting of famous people, media, and everyday Joes who happened to look good or know someone. He once told a couple attempting entry that the man could come in, but the lady didn't quite look good enough. The guy pondered this Sophie's Choice quandary for a second, then shockingly said "Later" to wifey and went right in, choosing a night of frolicsome fun alone.

Fortunately, Rubell knew I was press, so if he was outside, he'd pull me in from the crowd, which resembled something out of the French Revolution. But if Rubell was busy in the club, snooty doorman Marc Benecke was solely in charge. Marc would eye me as if I were a decaying rodent and haughtily refuse to even acknowledge me. I'd stand there in a quilted kimono, being publicly humiliated for hours, and then I'd have to crawl over to the second best disco, Xenon, which was a fate worse than death. It was filled with rejects!

But let's stick to the times I got into 54. The main floor was the dazzling dance floor, where lit-up columns descended and rose up again, and as everyone line-danced to "Lady Bump," a quarter moon with a gigantic spoon attached came down to cheers. This place openly celebrated cocaine use! In their less agoraphobic days, Michael Jackson, Diana Ross, Cher, Dolly Parton, and Andy Warhol all mixed in with the crowd. They were right up in your grill! Purely by chance, I found myself dancing with Margaux Hemingway and talking to Liza Minnelli's best friendChita Rivera's daughter--who almost introduced me to Liza.

If you REALLY wanted to meet Liza, downstairs was the unofficial VIP room where the coke spoons weren't fake and attached to any cardboard moon. And the third floorthe balcony---was where you sat and got a blow job from a complete stranger. For all you knew, it might be Cher or Andy Warhol!

Three floors of sheer hedonism, all carried out before anyone knewor caredabout rehab, AIDS, or financial problems.

On the New Year's Eve that brought in 1979, Grace Jones was the featured performer and the invite promised a continental breakfast after the show. Grace shimmered and delivered, backed by an assortment of writhing male dancers. It's amusing that she feels Lady Gaga has ripped her off, since Grace was "liberally borrowing" from Dietrich, Piaf, and Bowie, but her lack of logic has always been incredibly glamorous, so who cares? The continental breakfast turned out to be a solitary cart, where they tried to create one crepe at a time for a starving crowd of over a thousand. Again, wildly illogical, but kind of desperately chic.

The IRS ultimately busted the club when they found shitloads of cash hidden in the walls. The owners went to jail and the new ones tried to recreate the magic, but by that point, disco was becoming deader than The Brady Bunch Hour. Today, the space is a theater again, and I always go there with a razor blade, hoping there'll still be some money in the walls.

Splash image via screenshot

See more here:

I Went to Studio 54, and You Didn't - Papermag

Posted in Hedonism | Comments Off

17th-century philosophy – Wikipedia

Posted: at 6:53 am

17th-century philosophy in the Western world is generally regarded as being the start of modern philosophy, and a departure from the medieval approach, especially Scholasticism.

Early 17th-century philosophy is often called the Age of Reason or Age of Rationalism and is considered to succeed the Renaissance philosophy era and precede the Age of Enlightenment.

In the West, 17th-century philosophy is usually taken to start with the work of Ren Descartes, who set much of the agenda as well as much of the methodology for those who came after him. The period is typified in Europe by the great system-builders philosophers who present unified systems of epistemology, metaphysics, logic, and ethics, and often politics and the physical sciences too. Immanuel Kant classified his predecessors into two schools: the rationalists and the empiricists,[1] and Early Modern Philosophy (as 17th- and 18th-century philosophy is known) is sometimes characterized in terms of a supposed conflict between these schools. The three main rationalists are normally taken to have been Ren Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, and Gottfried Leibniz. Building upon their English predecessor Francis Bacon, the two main empiricists of the 17th-century were Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. The former were distinguished by the belief that, in principle (though not in practice), all knowledge can be gained by the power of our reason alone; the latter rejected this, believing that all knowledge has to come through the senses, from experience. Thus the rationalists took mathematics as their model for knowledge, and the empiricists took the physical sciences. This emphasis on epistemology is at the root of Kant's distinction; looking at the various philosophers in terms of their metaphysical, moral, or linguistic theories, they divide up very differently. Even sticking to epistemology, though, the distinction is shaky: for example, most of the rationalists accepted that in practice we had to rely on the sciences for knowledge of the external world, and many of them were involved in scientific research; the empiricists, on the other hand, generally accepted that a priori knowledge was possible in the fields of mathematics and logic.

This period also saw the birth of some of the classics of political thought, especially Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, and John Locke's Two Treatises of Government.

17th-century philosophy - Wikipedia

Posted in Rationalism | Comments Off

Some atrocities make no sense: the Westminster attack may be one – Spectator.co.uk

Posted: at 6:53 am

On Friday noon, July the 20th, 1714, begins the small, perfect 20th-century novel The Bridge of San Luis Rey, the finest bridge in all Peru broke and precipitated five travellers into the gulf below. In the coincidence of crossing the bridge at the same time, explains the writer, Thornton Wilder, these five seemed to have been assembled by pure chance.

Or had they? He entitles this first chapter Perhaps An Accident. He spends the rest of his book tracing the lives of each until the moment when, in a twang of rope, fate hurled all together into the abyss. Thus is the readers interest engaged for the human histories that unfold. But Wilder, an American Christian humanist, falters in his rationalism. His concluding chapter is entitled Perhaps An Intention.

In fact no evidence of an intention, let alone an Intention, is adduced, and the novel stands as a gem of modern literature without need of any twist of divine intervention. But Wilder just couldnt help speculating, and the reader cannot help searching.

Searching for a hidden meaning comes so naturally to us. Its one of the hardest things in life, but especially a journalists life, to accept that some big stories may have no meaning. Tremendous events may carry no tremendous implications, but man is an intelligent animal who must always seek to make sense of lifes mess. We forever strain to join the dots; and often they do join; and sometimes joining them early proves a lifesaver.

But sometimes they are just dots. What happened at the Palace of Westminster last week may prove to be of this kind. The knife-wielding Khalid Masood may prove to have been part of no great plan, the agent of no malign external power, a pawn in nobodys game. Perhaps he was only a wretched, demented fool with a crazy idea of Gods will. He may just in his twisted way have been trying to make sense of life. If so, we pile error upon error by trying to make sense of him.

But bad things can be hard to bear when we cannot make sense of them. We search for clues as though every strange event were a riddle with the answer written upside down at the bottom of the page. We lionise, sometimes to our ruin, individuals who offer overarching explanations.

Or else, despairing of cracking the code, we resign ourselves to the supposition that theres surely an answer but we are just not clever enough to know it. There can hardly be a village graveyard in England without a headstone etched with a bewildered Thy Will be Done. God has moved in a mysterious way, but undoubtedly He has moved.

In 2013, when in Woolwich two men, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, hacked to death the blameless Fusilier Lee Rigby, there was much overheated talk about possible links with possible Islamic fundamentalist movements or websites. I, however, was not alone in expressing scepticism that these two evidently unhinged individuals could be operating under any kind of direction. And so it seems to have turned out. There was no serious network or plan.

Last year, when the MP Jo Cox was murdered by a loner who was linked to extremist right-wing thinking and haters of the European Union, an appetite flickered among some Remain campaigners to link her death to the animosities stirred by the Leave campaign. Again, I differed, warning against linking deranged minds to whatever cause they settle on. Like those little squares of treated fabric you can place with your non-colourfast wash (I said), unstable personalities will tend to blot up whatever extreme passions are doing the rounds. An unbalanced mind keeps open house for radicalisation, the radicalisation being more consequence than cause of the imbalance.

Like al-Qaeda before it, so-called Islamic State does exist and is extremely dangerous. Thus far the damage and the death toll have been overwhelmingly in the Middle East; and Isiss most realistic targets must be distant from our own shores. But thats probably partly due to the work of our own intelligence services. We should not cite their success as a reason for thinking the threat of major disruption isnt there.

Minor disruption, though, is different. No surveillance can eliminate the threat from the rogue individual who goes berserk. Islamist terrorist organisations will always be quick to claim any solo operator as their own and there will often be evidence he was inspired by or even (through electronic media) linked to the fundamentalist cause. Yes, he was one of ours, they cry. Journalists and politicians play straight into their hands if we take up that cry.

Organisations like Islamic State or al-Qaeda do have a strategy that goes beyond territorial gains in the Middle East: to shake western societies to their foundations by polarising the large groups of Muslims who live here, cleaving their allegiance away from the western societies of which they are a part, and (as the fundamentalist would see it) bringing home to them that they do not belong in tolerant, permissive, liberal cultures like our own.

Again, we play straight into the hands of the extremist strategy if we respond to atrocities like that at Westminster by associating one demented knifeman with a whole section of our population. Ive been dismayed to see the barrage of immediate reaction on Twitter, and beneath online reports and commentary, perpetuating an idea that Muslims all Muslims do not belong here. British Muslims will be viewing the murderers actions with just the same bewildered horror as the rest of us. They do belong here. Masood, like Jo Coxs murderer, does not.

Its a pity an old second world war mantra has been cheapened by its modern popularisation in a range of humorous cards, because there can be no better advice now, at Westminster and beyond, than that we should keep calm and carry on.

Here is the original post:

Some atrocities make no sense: the Westminster attack may be one - Spectator.co.uk

Posted in Rationalism | Comments Off

Originalism and the Death of Conservatism | The Harvard Law Record – Harvard Law Record

Posted: at 6:53 am

During judicial confirmation hearingson Tuesday, the Senators questions about Gorsuchs judicial philosophy centered on whether he is an originalist. This comes as no surprise, since, thanks to Justice Thomas and the late Justice Scalia, originalism is now the litmus test for conservative judges. Voters and pundits on the Right now ask judges whether they are activist or originalist, whether they legislate from the bench or interpret the law as its writers meant.

But this distinction, posited by originalists, between the acts of moral judgment and legal interpretation rests on shaky ground as legal philosophy and sits on equally questionable terms with conservative tradition.Originalism technically refers to a whole family of jurisprudential thought, but the brand of originalism advanced by Justices Scalia and Thomas, called original intent, is the one most conservatives in America mean when they talk about originalism. Original intent dictates that cases must be decided based exclusively upon the Constitution and the laws of the United States as their authors meant for them to be read. Following this approach, a judge is nothing more than one who knows the law very well and can quote the laws pertinent to a certain case in court. Court should, therefore, be a straightforward and technical matter, and a good judge is simply one who can remember and quote the laws exceptionally well. This approach appeals to the denizens of an era defined by the rationalistic extraction of normative claims from public discourse.

But the law is not as uniform as originalism suggests. Legislators and judges alike are in constant disagreement with one another over what is legal and what is constitutional. Likewise, the Constitution itself is the epitome of compromise, a document that espouses not one pure political philosophy, but all the conflicting ideologies of its squabbling framers.

Understanding the essential contradictions of the law, the role of a judge cannot be, as original intent would have it, that of a mere reader of the law. Because the written law does not express a uniform set of ideals, the judge must infer one from the laws abundant agreements and contentions.

In short, judges must engage in both analysis of the law and moral judgment of it, since it falls to them to determine the meaning of laws contradictory points and develop from it overarching principles for human conduct and the state. The difference between the originalist approach and other approaches to jurisprudence turns on the originalists insistence on the separation of the technical and moral acts of legal interpretation.

To understand this distinction between technical and moral activities, think about the difference between the construction worker and the architect: where the construction worker follows the instructions already laid out in the blueprints, the architect must design something that does not exist yet based on already existing principles, but these principles (e.g. the laws of physics and the buildings purpose) have determined ahead of time the building he will design. At times, the principles by which the architect designs may be in conflict; for instance, if it would be useful for him to build 6 feet wide and 90 feet tall, the laws of physics would necessitate he design the building otherwise. The construction worker never runs into those contradictions. He simply follows the blueprints. In the same way, where an originalist reading a passage of law claims she is engaging in a technical activity, like the construction worker. Another jurist might be more open to the fact that in deriving a unified understanding of the whole body of written laws meaning he is engaging in a moral activity, like the architect.

To be clear, the problem with originalism isnt that understanding the original meaning of the law is impossible. Indeed, such understanding is both possible and essential in many cases, where due process, for instance, has a clear and well-established meaning in English law. But difficult cases cannot be solved this way because their difficulty arises precisely from their lack of clarity. As Judge Gorsuch aptly observed, When a lawyer claims Absolute Metaphysical Certainty about the meaning of some chain of ungrammatical prepositional phrases tacked onto the end of a run-on sentence buried in some sprawling statutory subsection, I start worrying.So in deciding cases where the law is not clear, the only difference between an originalist and another jurist is the originalists lack of clarity when it comes towhat kindof moral reasoning he is using to arrive at his conclusion, not whether he is using any at all. So originalisms problem is an epistemological one, rooted in the hubris of rationalism, that rejects the moral responsibility of interpreting the law.

Many others have better criticized this insufficiency in originalism, but to me, originalisms most striking contradiction is that American conservatives wholeheartedly embrace it. On the surface, originalism may appear conservative because of the outcomes it has produced on the Supreme Court. But at its core, originalism is a legal philosophy, not a political agenda. As such, it should not be understood in terms of its congruence with conservative policy objectives, but in terms of its concert or discord with conservatism as a way of thinking about politics broadly.

By attempting to reduce legal proceedings to a merely technical activity, originalists buy into the rationalist idea that politics, like everything else, is a scientific business and not a moral one. Conservatisms greatest minds from Edmund Burke to Michael Oakeshott have argued against that very position. The entire point of conservative political philosophy pushes against the prevailing rationalist bent that attempts to separate tradition and moral activity from politics and all areas of life.

In this way, the American Rights acceptance of originalism indicates a shift away from conservatism in favor of rationalisms enticing straightforwardness. But by forgoing the essential process of moral judgment over the body of written law, we are actually participating in the removal of moral complexity and insight from political discourse. Simply put, originalism accepts law as amoral, and the Rights adoption of originalism as their preferred legal philosophy only serves to propel American politics and culture further down the straightforward, common sense road without morality.

As a natural law theorist, Neil Gorsuch avoids the rationalist pitfalls of common sense originalism. Unfortunately, his fellow conservatives obsession with originalism has made it difficult for him to avoid using the language of an originalist during his hearings. Still, conservatives have reason to be optimistic, since a Justice Gorsuch would be freer to express his commitment to jurisprudence as a moral activity. By championing moral reasoning as the basis for the law, Gorsuch offers the Right a chance to return real, epistemologically rigorous conservatism to the high court.

Albert Gustafson is a junior at Indiana Wesleyan University.

See the article here:

Originalism and the Death of Conservatism | The Harvard Law Record - Harvard Law Record

Posted in Rationalism | Comments Off

Martyr to no god – The Indian Express

Posted: at 6:53 am

By: Editorial | Published:March 28, 2017 12:05 am

Despite legal protection accorded to the freedom of religion, the assault on rationalism in general and atheism in particular continues. H. Farook has joined Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Pansare and M.M. Kalburgi in the ranks of the martyrs to no god. The only difference between them is that he was not a prominent rationalist, but a Coimbatore scrap dealer with a strong sense of identity. Farooks father has offered the finest tribute to his sons memory. Disappointed by an orthodoxy which will not brook dissent, he has decided to become an atheist himself. Thus, he has expanded a question pertaining to the freedom of religion into an issue of the freedom of speech. It is not enough to be an atheist; one must also have the freedom to proclaim it without fear.

While this instance involves Muslims, it is not a Muslim issue. When political events turn religion into a focus of identity, atheism and agnosticism threaten orthodoxies across religious divides, ignoring legal precedents which safeguard religious freedoms. The most significant precedent is a 2014 judgment of the Bombay High Court, which held that the government cannot force anyone to declare their religion in an official document. It also observed that citizens have the right to declare that they do not belong to any religion. This is really not unusual, in a region where numerous schools of atheism have flourished from antiquity. While Buddhism and Jainism are commonly understood to be heterodox, the Carvaka and Ajivika schools of Hinduism are unfortunately known only to scholars. This is apart from the numerous atheist and agnostic groups that have flourished in modern times, often as part of reform movements.

In modern times, of course, the right to be guided by the senses and the intelligence rather than scripture is a given. So is the importance of tolerance, without which the ideal of a borderless, globalised world would be unattainable. The intolerant persecution of the atheist is a special case, along with honour killings and caste abuse, since victims are attacked by the very community they were born into. Religious identity is only one of the many personas which are assigned to us, and which we should be free to change or discard. At a time when identity is central to politics, this freedom is as fundamental as the right to change party allegiances, and those who would constrain it are enemies of democracy.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App now

The rest is here:

Martyr to no god - The Indian Express

Posted in Rationalism | Comments Off

Free Speech Movement – Wikipedia

Posted: at 6:51 am

The Free Speech Movement (FSM) was a student protest which took place during the 196465 academic year on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley under the informal leadership of students Mario Savio,[1]Jack Weinberg, Michael Rossman, George Barton, Brian Turner, Bettina Aptheker, Steve Weissman, Michael Teal, Art Goldberg, Jackie Goldberg, and others. In protests unprecedented in scope, students insisted that the university administration lift the ban of on-campus political activities and acknowledge the students' right to free speech and academic freedom.

In 1958, activist students organized SLATE, a campus political party meaning a "slate" of candidates running on the same level a same "slate." The students created SLATE to promote the right of student groups to support off-campus issues.[2] In the fall of 1964, student activists, some of whom had traveled with the Freedom Riders and worked to register African American voters in Mississippi in the Freedom Summer project, set up information tables on campus and were soliciting donations for causes connected to the Civil Rights Movement. According to existing rules at the time, fundraising for political parties was limited exclusively to the Democratic and Republican school clubs. There was also a mandatory "loyalty oath" required of faculty, which had led to dismissals and ongoing controversy over academic freedom. On September 14, 1964, Dean Katherine Towle announced that existing University regulations prohibiting advocacy of political causes or candidates, outside political speakers, recruitment of members, and fundraising by student organizations at the intersection of Bancroft and Telegraph Avenues would be "strictly enforced."[3] (This strip was until then thought to be city property, not campus property.)

On October 1, 1964, former graduate student Jack Weinberg was sitting at the CORE table. He refused to show his identification to the campus police and was arrested. There was a spontaneous movement of students to surround the police car in which he was to be transported. The police car remained there for 32 hours, all while Weinberg was inside it. At one point, there may have been 3,000 students around the car. The car was used as a speaker's podium and a continuous public discussion was held which continued until the charges against Weinberg were dropped.[3]

On December 2, between 1,500 and 4,000 students went in to Sproul Hall as a last resort in order to re-open negotiations with the administration on the subject of restrictions on political speech and action on campus.[3] Among other grievances was the fact that four of their leaders were being singled out for punishment. The demonstration was orderly; students studied, watched movies, and sang folk songs. Joan Baez was there to lead in the singing, as well as lend moral support. "Freedom classes" were held by teaching assistants on one floor, and a special Channukah service took place in the main lobby. On the steps of Sproul Hall, Mario Savio[1] gave a famous speech:

...But we're a bunch of raw materials that don't mean to be have any process upon us. Don't mean to be made into any product! Don't mean Don't mean to end up being bought by some clients of the University, be they the government, be they industry, be they organized labor, be they anyone! We're human beings! ...There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious makes you so sick at heart that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all.[4]

At midnight, Alameda County deputy district attorney Edwin Meese III telephoned Governor Edmund Brown, Sr, asking for authority to proceed with a mass arrest. Shortly after 2 a.m. on December 4, 1964, police cordoned off the building, and at 3:30a.m. began the arrest. Close to 800 students were arrested,[3] most of which were transported by bus to Santa Rita Jail in Dublin, about 25 miles away. They were released on their own recognizance after a few hours behind bars. About a month later, the university brought charges against the students who organized the sit-in, resulting in an even larger student protest that all but shut down the university.

After much disturbance, the University officials slowly backed down. By January 3, 1965, the new acting chancellor, Martin Meyerson (who had replaced the resigned Edward Strong), established provisional rules for political activity on the Berkeley campus. He designated the Sproul Hall steps an open discussion area during certain hours of the day and permitting tables. This applied to the entire student political spectrum, not just the liberal elements that drove the Free Speech Movement.[5]

Most outsiders, however, identified the Free Speech Movement as a movement of the Left. Students and others opposed to U.S. foreign policy did indeed increase their visibility on campus following the FSM's initial victory. In the spring of 1965, the FSM was followed by the Vietnam Day Committee,[3] a major starting point for the anti-Vietnam war movement.

The Free Speech Movement had long-lasting effects at the Berkeley campus and was a pivotal moment for the civil liberties movement in the 1960s. It was seen as the beginning of the famous student activism that existed on the campus in the 1960s, and continues to a lesser degree today. There was a substantial voter backlash against the individuals involved in the Free Speech Movement. Ronald Reagan won an unexpected victory in the fall of 1966 and was elected Governor.[6] He then directed the UC Board of Regents to dismiss UC President Clark Kerr because of the perception that he had been too soft on the protesters. The FBI had kept a secret file on Kerr.

Reagan had gained political traction by campaigning on a platform to "clean up the mess in Berkeley".[6] In the minds of those involved in the backlash, a wide variety of protests, concerned citizens, and activists were lumped together. Furthermore, television news and documentary filmmaking had made it possible to photograph and broadcast moving images of protest activity. Much of this media is available today as part of the permanent collection of the Bancroft Library at Berkeley, including iconic photographs of the protest activity by student Ron Enfield (then chief photographer for the Berkeley campus newspaper, the Daily Cal).[7] A reproduction of what may be considered the most recognizable and iconic photograph of the movement, a shot of suit-clad students carrying the Free Speech banner through the University's Sather Gate in Fall of 1964, now stands at the entrance to the college's Free Speech Movement Cafe.[7]

Earlier protests against the House Committee on Un-American Activities meeting in San Francisco in 1960 had included an iconic scene as protesters were literally washed down the steps inside the Rotunda of San Francisco City Hall with fire hoses. The anti-Communist film Operation Abolition[8][9][10][11] depicted this scene and became an organizing tool for the protesters.

The 20th anniversary reunion of the FSM was held during the first week of October, 1984, to considerable media attention. A rally in Sproul Plaza featured FSM veterans Mario Savio, who ended a long self-imposed silence, Jack Weinberg, and Jackie Goldberg. The week continued with a series of panels open to the public on the movement and its impact.[12] The 30th anniversary reunion, held during the first weekend of December 1994, was also a public event, with another Sproul Plaza rally featuring Savio, Weinberg, Goldberg, panels on the FSM, and current free speech issues.[13] In April 2001, UC's Bancroft Library held a symposium celebrating the opening of the Free Speech Movement Digital Archive. Although not a formal FSM reunion, many FSM leaders were on the panels and other participants were in the audience.[14] The 40th anniversary reunion, the first after Savio's death in 1996, was held in October 2004. It featured columnist Molly Ivins giving the annual Mario Savio Memorial Lecture, followed later in the week by the customary rally in Sproul Plaza and panels on civil liberties issues.[15] A Sunday meeting was a more private event, primarily a gathering for the veterans of the movement, in remembrance of Savio and of a close FSM ally, professor Reginald Zelnik, who had died in an accident in May.[16]

Today, Sproul Hall and the surrounding Sproul Plaza are active locations for protests and marches, as well as the ordinary daily tables with free literature from anyone of any political orientation who wishes to appear. A wide variety of groups of all political, religious and social persuasions set up tables at Sproul Plaza. The Sproul steps, now officially known as the "Mario Savio Steps", may be reserved by anyone for a speech or rally.[3] An on-campus restaurant commemorating the event, the Mario Savio Free Speech Movement Cafe, resides in a portion of the Moffitt Undergraduate Library.

The Free Speech Monument, commemorating the movement, was created in 1991 by artist Mark Brest van Kempen. It is located, appropriately, in Sproul Plaza. The monument consists of a six-inch hole in the ground filled with soil and a granite ring surrounding it. The granite ring bears the inscription, "This soil and the air space extending above it shall not be a part of any nation and shall not be subject to any entity's jurisdiction." The monument makes no explicit reference to the movement, but it evokes notions of free speech and its implications through its rhetoric.[17]

Sol Stern, a former radical who took part in the Free Speech Movement,[18] stated in a 2014 City Journal article that the group viewed the United States to be both racist and imperialistic and that the main intent, of Stern's own group (Root and Branch magazine), after lifting Berkeley's loyalty oath was to build on the legacy of C. Wright Mills and weaken the Cold War consensus by promoting the ideas of the Cuban Revolution.[19]

See the rest here:
Free Speech Movement - Wikipedia

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off

History | Free Speech TV

Posted: at 6:51 am

Free Speech TV launched in 1995 as part of an effort to provide a larger platform for progressive perspectives on television. Founded by John Schwartz and co-founded by Jon Stout, Free Speech TV built off the popular The 90s cable and PBS show and The 90s Channel, a network of seven full-time cable channels dedicated to independent media.

The networks pioneering efforts in streaming media online won it accolades such as a 1998 Streamers Award and 1999 Webby Award.

In January 2000, Free Speech TV became a full-time channel on DISH Network, bringing truly independent reporting to a national audience. Following the World Trade Center tragedy on September 11, 2001, Free Speech TV helped launch the television premier of Democracy Now!, which remains one of the networks most popular shows.

Free Speech TV also launched GRITtv with Laura Flanders and helped bring Thom Hartmann to television, stepping up the networks daily coverage of national politics. During the Arab Spring, the network pre-empted much of its regular non-news programming to carry Al Jazeera Englishs exemplary on-the-ground journalism from Tahrir Square and other hotspots.

In 2008, the network piloted its eStudio at the National Conference for Media Reform, where it broadcast and streamed conference plenaries, workshops and special interviews conducted by Amy Goodman, Laura Flanders and Jeff Cohen. Since then, Free Speech TV has taken its eStudio on the road, broadcasting exclusive live coverage from the One Nation March, the Netroots Nation Conferences, Take Back the American Dream Conferences, talks held by The Nation and The New School, and the annual conventions of the NAACP, SEIU and the LOHAS Forum.

In 2011 and 2012, Free Speech TV coverage provided a unique window onto the unprecedented battles to roll back workers rights in Wisconsin and other states, as well as onto the Occupy Wall Street movement. To facilitate a national dialogue about growing economic disparities, the network produced Occupy the Media, a weekly, live, call-in program that featured frontline activists, policymakers and those bearing the brunt of economic injustice. A hallmark of Free Speech TV-produced content, this series offered a national television platform for many of our peers in progressive radio, print and online journalism.

In 2010, the network secured a national channel on DIRECTV, launched an app on Roku in 2011, and fulltime cable channels in Burlington, VT and Ashland, OR in 2012. Free Speech TVs television footprint has grown to over 40 million homes in the United States and reaches millions of viewers online.

An anti-transgender ‘Free Speech Bus’ is rolling through the East Coast, sparking protests and a video game – Washington Post

Posted: at 6:51 am

Think of it as the Milo Yiannopoulos ofcoach vehicles.

For the past week, anti-transgender activists have toured the East Coast in a big, orange Free Speech Bus. Sponsored by the Spain-based advocacy group CitizenGo and several other conservative organizations, theyve hopped from city to city todemonstrate againstthe notion that biological sex is different from gender identity.

Boys are boys and always will be. Girls are girls and always will be, reads a slogan emblazoned on the sides of the vehicle. You cant change sex. Respect all.

Like Yiannopoulos aformer Breitbart News editor and right-wing agitator, not to mentioncritic of transgender rights the Free Speech Bus is, by all appearances, there to provoke a reaction.

And its getting one.

The bus rolled into downtown Boston Wednesday morning, stopping first atthe Massachusetts State House. About two dozen protesters were there waiting for it, holding signs and chanting, No hate, no fear, trans people are welcome here! as the Boston Globe reported.

Then the bus moved on to City Hall, where Democratic Mayor Marty Walsh, flanked by dozens of supporters, hoisted the transgender rights flag in opposition.

We will not be intimidated by discrimination or harassment, Walsh said. And we will not tolerate these types of actions. When you deny the experience of transgender individuals, you are denying the experience of basic human civil rights.

As the Free Speech Buscrawled through the city toward its third destination, Cambridge, Mass., protesters stood in front of it, blocking its path. At one point, someone lobbed a cup of coffee at the buss door, as local media reported.

Transgender advocates say a strong response is necessary in light of the threats the LGBT community faces on a daily bases.

Words, in this setting, are violence, Mason Dunn, a protest organizer, told the Globe.Were concerned about the health and wellness of our community.

The buss organizers say theyve come to expect such confrontation.If anything, the visit in Boston was relatively uneventful compared to the buss other stops.

The Free Speech Buss campaign started in Spain in response to a transgender rights pamphletthat featuredanillustration of a boy with female genitalia and a girl with a penis. Beneath the image, a phrase in Spanish read There are girls with penises and boys with vaginas.Its that simple.

Gregory Mertz, U.S. director of CitizenGO, said they brought the tour to the United States to demonstrate against policies that accommodate transgender people.

Theres an agenda and movement thats saying its OK for a boy to be a girl and that you can use whichever restroom you want, Mertz told the Associated Press Wednesday. We think thats very harmful.

(Advocates say views like this misrepresenttheir goals. Measures seeking equal bathroom access, for example, are intended toallow people to use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity, rather than thesex on their birth certificate.)

Given the heated debateover transgender rights playing out in the country, Free Speech Bus organizers said they were preparing forconflict on their U.S. tour.

We dont know what the response to the #FreeSpeechBus will be in the US, but we expect that radical gender ideologues may try to get our bus shut down, they said in a post on CitizenGos website. Whatever happens over the next few days, we will not give into the pressure to stop this important campaign.

The bus arrived in New York on March 22, stopping at Times Square, Trump Tower and the Stonewall Inn, the Manhattan bar that was the site of the legendary 1969 riots by members of the citys gay community. LGBT advocacy groups turned outin protest, condemning it as the hate bus, as USA Today reported.

The following day, after parking in front of the United Nations headquarters, protesters vandalized the bus,spray painting it with graffiti reading trans rights and smashing its front window.

After spending a couple days out of commission, the bus traveled to New England. It skipped a stop in New Haven, Conn., but a group of demonstratorsheld a rally against it anyway, erecting banners that read, Every breath a trans person takes is an act of revolution., as the New Haven Independent reported.

The Free Speech Bus is now headedsouth, with stops planned in New Haven, Philadelphia, and Baltimore in the coming week. Its expected toarrive in Washington on April 3, organizers say.

Opposition to the bus hasnt been limited to on-site protests. The Californiagame developer Aquma recently released an online video game that allows Free Speech Bus opponents to fight the anti-transgender campaign in the virtual world, as Vocativ reported. In Ignorance Fighter II based off the classic martial arts game Street Fighter II players can punch and kick a rendering of the Free Speech Bus until the tires and windows fall off.

When players succeed,an admonition appears on the screen: Go rethink your bigoted beliefs. Gender identity is separate from biological sex.

Monthly Archives: March 2017

Existential Nihilism & Atheism…

Why Brexit Is Best for Britain: The Left-Wing Case – New York Times

I Went to Studio 54, and You Didn’t – Papermag

17th-century philosophy – Wikipedia

Some atrocities make no sense: the Westminster attack may be one – Spectator.co.uk

Originalism and the Death of Conservatism | The Harvard Law Record – Harvard Law Record

Martyr to no god – The Indian Express

Free Speech Movement – Wikipedia

History | Free Speech TV

An anti-transgender ‘Free Speech Bus’ is rolling through the East Coast, sparking protests and a video game – Washington Post

The Prometheus League

Breaking News and Updates

Prometheism

Forbidden Fruit

The Evolutionary Perspective

Transtopia Menu

Library Updates

Library Books

Future Euvolution

Lucid Dreams from Childhood

Genetic Revolution

Speciation + Self-Directed Evolution