[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I find your entire perspective on this fundamentally opposed to mine, so I'm interested to hear about it, but you're being very superficial in your responses.

Originally Posted by rubecube

So what? Consensus isn't a requirement. There is never going to be consensus over anything where the privileged and the powerful are being asked to give up something or behave differently than the manner they're accustomed to.

There is no basis for determining who gains the privileged "unprivileged" status and the right to place barriers to expression in the name of preventing offense. This is fundamentally authoritarian.

These things aren't a result of liberalism. They're a result of feminism, queer theory, etc. Ahistorically appropriating them to liberal doctrine is pretty disingenuous. Did liberalism provide them with the vehicle to be heard? Maybe in theory.

It takes some balls to say this and accuse him of being disingenuous. For example, queer theory was the source of progress on gay rights? Really? I am extremely dubious, so please explain how. It seems to me that more or less progress on that issue has been heavily focused on equal rights. "Rights" being the operative term there.

In practice, the dominant forces of "liberal" societies have worked incredibly hard to suppress these, often citing reason and empiricism as much as morality.

Examples, please? I suspect if we play them through, any resort to supposed empiricism as a tool of suppression will ultimately yield as a result of empiricism. I can't think of a single instance in history where a society has suffered as a result of too much rational, evidence-based thinking.

Historically, an extreme catalyst has been necessary to spark progress. Look at the suffragette movement, or the civil rights movement for instance. Each of these movements had wings of peaceful protest and discourse, but they were also flanked by small groups of militant extremists, who most historians agree were critical to their success.

I again disagree, I think, but again you're being superficial and not fully explaining what you mean. For example, are you suggesting that the civil rights movement with the Black Panthers but without MLK would have succeeded? In my view, first, these are all very different stories and lumping them into a common narrative is foolish. But moreover, the success of civil rights, women's rights, gay rights have all involved a gradual recruitment of the majority to the minority's viewpoint.

Additionally, equality, human rights, etc., as we've come to understand them are not located in traditional liberal doctrine. They've traditionally been found in socialism, humanism, Marxism, Kantianism, and feminism; basically those doctrines that espouse the concepts of duty or collectivism/cooperation, which are largely antithetical to traditional liberalism.

This is baffling. I'm fairly certain it's completely wrong, but as you've again just superficially asserted it, instead of rejecting it I'll again ask you to explain how. Equality is fundamentally a liberal principle, for example, that may be enacted in socialist doctrine, but where does Kant come into it? You're just saying provocative things, there's no substance here.

Furthermore, this idea that progress, knowledge and truth are only possible in a liberal society is akin to the claims many Christians make that morality is impossible without religion or Christianity.

Utter nonsense. First, no one has said that they're only possible in a liberal society, only that these principles have fostered the development of progress better than other alternatives that have been used. Second, morality and social progress are fundamentally distinct things; one's abstract and the other is practical.

This wasn't really my point. My point was the fact that any or all of these other cultures are more patriarchal, sexist, racist, etc., does not mean that Western culture lacks any of these traits in heaping spoonfuls.

There isn't really any kind of comparison.

In the days ahead, the Saudi justice system — a term to be used advisedly — is scheduled to execute a married Sri Lankan housemaid, a migrant worker...

She, being a woman, and therefore in the Saudi system even more guilty, will be buried up to her breasts, and then a crowd of Saudi men will enthusiastically throw rocks at her head until she perishes from massive brain injury or a heart attack, whichever occurs first.

There is no equivalence here.

These questions do come to mind and have been addressed by some on the left, but you actually need to do some digging and seek out these arguments and their primary sources (assuming you haven't).

You've done this a few times. Can you point to a specific piece that might be referred to to broaden my perspective on a particular issue we're talking about here?

Holding people accountable for their words and ideas is not the same as restricting speech.

It depends on how it's done, obviously. If, for example, I said I was pro-life, and was subsequently fired from my job, it would obviously have a chilling effect on speech.

Where in the history of the modern world has progress been made by legitimizing antiquated ideas through discourse? It's not like the progressive left are attempting to kybosh new and novel ideas.

Absolutely they are. See: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/70...eform-movement

Gotta go but those are my instant reactions anyway.