----------------------
First, Dr. Soderstrom:
"In the wake of the horrific events that recently plagued Charlottesville, Virginia, I’ve heard many people—most notably, the current president—attempt to draw a false equivalency between white supremacists and those who oppose them. News flash: Exposing and countering hate is not itself hateful. In fact, it’s quite the opposite.
"By condemning and extinguishing hate at every turn, we inch ever closer to a peaceful, happy society. I don’t know about you, but that’s the type of America—the type of world—that I want my children and grandchildren to call home."
Now, Mr. Racine's response:
"In a letter published on Aug. 17, Nick Soderstrom prescribed 'extinguishing hate at every turn.' By doing so, he said, 'we inch ever closer to a peaceful, happy society.'
"Actually, no, we don’t. Humans disagree widely about fundamental matters—religion, the scope of civil institutions such as marriage, immigration, economic arrangements, even the basic purpose of government—but nowadays those on the left (evidently including Soderstrom) equate any disagreement with their views as hatred. And egged on by the irresponsible media, they attempt to silence such disagreement.
"However, silencing people doesn’t change minds. And it’s a potent way of actually generating or intensifying hatred. As columnist Mark Steyn has noted, if you force people to shut up and, thus, drive their concerns underground, they’re left with no recourse other than punching your lights out.
"That Soderstrom has such silencing and 'extinguishing' as goals reveals a totalitarian mentality.
"It’s useful that Soderstrom included 'PhD' in his signature, as this can help to demystify advanced degrees for those intimidated by them. The late physics Nobelist Richard Feynman once said, 'I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.' Analogously, we don’t know what Soderstrom’s PhD subject was, but we can infer from his letter that it’s not in a field that involves careful thought about human societies."
And Dr. Soderstrom's rejoinder:
(Found here.)
"To be honest, I initially thought that Stanley Racine’s letter (published Aug. 26)—which was a response to my letter (published Aug. 17)—was satire. I quickly realized is wasn’t.
"In my original letter, I made the argument that hate should not be tolerated and that by 'extinguishing hate…we inch ever closer to a peaceful, happy society.' That’s an uncontroversial, non-political message, right? Well, not for Racine. He wrote, 'Actually, no, we don’t,' and then attempted to portray my position as leftist and totalitarian. Really? Claiming that the world would be a better place without hate groups like the KKK or terrorist groups like ISIS is leftist and totalitarian?
I then realized that the thrust of Racine’s argument was based on a false premise. Specifically, he seemed to think that when I called for ridding the world of hate, I meant that we should not tolerate people who disagree with us. Yikes! This couldn’t be further from the truth, and I’m shocked that Racine twisted my words in such an irresponsible way. Of course disagreeing on issues is not the same as hatred! Nowhere in my letter did I say it was. Diversity should be celebrated, not snuffed out. Hate groups want to snuff it out.
What’s so alarming about Racine misrepresenting my position is that he seemingly did so to score a political point. Well, if being intolerant of hate groups is leftist, then I don’t want to be right.
-------------------
Dr. Soderstrom dissembles. He represents his view as uncontroversial and non-political. However, his original statement is anything but. I quote: "I’ve heard many people—most notably, the current president—attempt to draw a false equivalency between white supremacists and those who oppose them." Is this what Dr. Soderstrom considers non-political? Does he think he can refer to the president in negative terms and yet be considered non-political?
Dr. Soderstrom sidesteps Mr. Racine's statement: "...nowadays those on the left (evidently including Soderstrom) equate any disagreement with their views as hatred." It's an important distinction Mr. Racine makes. Yes, it is uncontroversial to oppose hate. However, who gets to decide what hate is? And who gets to decide what the sanction for hating will be? These are perfectly legitimate questions, questions that get in the way of Dr. Soderstrom's utopian vision.
And that's the problem. As is typical for the Left, concepts are dressed up in noble terms, terms like "condemning hatred." But those noble terms conceal an agenda quite different than what Dr. Soderstrom pretends. For it is abundantly clear that disagreeing with a leftist is regularly deemed hate. And these suspected of hate are doxxed, picketed, ran out of their employment, and beaten for their expressions of diversity.
So when Dr. Soderstrom writes, "Diversity should be celebrated, not snuffed out," He means "diversity I like." If he doesn't like it, then it's hate. And in his view, that can be countered with all the opposition one can muster.
(Found here.)
"To be honest, I initially thought that Stanley Racine’s letter (published Aug. 26)—which was a response to my letter (published Aug. 17)—was satire. I quickly realized is wasn’t.
"In my original letter, I made the argument that hate should not be tolerated and that by 'extinguishing hate…we inch ever closer to a peaceful, happy society.' That’s an uncontroversial, non-political message, right? Well, not for Racine. He wrote, 'Actually, no, we don’t,' and then attempted to portray my position as leftist and totalitarian. Really? Claiming that the world would be a better place without hate groups like the KKK or terrorist groups like ISIS is leftist and totalitarian?
I then realized that the thrust of Racine’s argument was based on a false premise. Specifically, he seemed to think that when I called for ridding the world of hate, I meant that we should not tolerate people who disagree with us. Yikes! This couldn’t be further from the truth, and I’m shocked that Racine twisted my words in such an irresponsible way. Of course disagreeing on issues is not the same as hatred! Nowhere in my letter did I say it was. Diversity should be celebrated, not snuffed out. Hate groups want to snuff it out.
What’s so alarming about Racine misrepresenting my position is that he seemingly did so to score a political point. Well, if being intolerant of hate groups is leftist, then I don’t want to be right.
-------------------
Dr. Soderstrom dissembles. He represents his view as uncontroversial and non-political. However, his original statement is anything but. I quote: "I’ve heard many people—most notably, the current president—attempt to draw a false equivalency between white supremacists and those who oppose them." Is this what Dr. Soderstrom considers non-political? Does he think he can refer to the president in negative terms and yet be considered non-political?
Dr. Soderstrom sidesteps Mr. Racine's statement: "...nowadays those on the left (evidently including Soderstrom) equate any disagreement with their views as hatred." It's an important distinction Mr. Racine makes. Yes, it is uncontroversial to oppose hate. However, who gets to decide what hate is? And who gets to decide what the sanction for hating will be? These are perfectly legitimate questions, questions that get in the way of Dr. Soderstrom's utopian vision.
And that's the problem. As is typical for the Left, concepts are dressed up in noble terms, terms like "condemning hatred." But those noble terms conceal an agenda quite different than what Dr. Soderstrom pretends. For it is abundantly clear that disagreeing with a leftist is regularly deemed hate. And these suspected of hate are doxxed, picketed, ran out of their employment, and beaten for their expressions of diversity.
So when Dr. Soderstrom writes, "Diversity should be celebrated, not snuffed out," He means "diversity I like." If he doesn't like it, then it's hate. And in his view, that can be countered with all the opposition one can muster.
No comments:
Post a Comment