1. Someone who believes that Islam is incompatible with the Western way of life.
2. Someone who thought there are biological differences in talents between men and women.
3. Someone who is against all forms of immigration to this country.
4. Someone who thinks that homosexuality is immoral and dangerous.
Only for #4 were as low as 66% against removing their works from the university library. For 1, 78% were against, for 2, 81% were against, for 3, 74% were against.
While that may still be troubling, it's clear peoples willingness to have them removed from the library depends significantly on the specific statement, and another way of presenting this is that the more clearly a statement was flat out expressing bigotry, the more willing people were to remove works by that person.
But maybe that sentiment has outlived its purpose now that higher education is so ideologically tilted towards one side.
Does that fit within the ideological narrative you've constructed here for yourself though?
It doesn’t take a majority of a population to get changes made, just a persistent and vocal minority.
But please, do go on about my narrative. Especially when you come to this thread with narratives like “The "extreme left" is not even a fraction as represented as even far right within popular consciousness and, more significantly, political representation.”
Which is farcical when you look at how mainstream and accepted ideas from the left are in the culture of the west. Unless you shift the definitions of what far-left and far-right are.
OK. Far right idea are built on a simple idea. We (our group, nationalist, cultural, religious) are inherently better than the others. This can be proven by Y[0]. But right now, we are feeling inferior to (our neighbours, elites, educated people, [1]). The only rationnal explanation is that (the liberals/the communists/the jew/the illuminati/the deep state) are plotting against us from within. Once those are purged, we will get our rightfull place in the world.
Far left: A class war exist. this can be proven because X[2]. The non-essential properties should be communal. The mean of production should be owned and paid for by the men and women who work them. The undemocratic republic is a tool for the bourgeoisie to keep people content with an illusion of choice and power. Police and armed forces are the other tools of the bourgeoisie to protect their property more than to protect lives[3]. The bourgeoisie must be purged for the working class to thrive again.
I think both are pretty prevalent, one we talk much more about the former than about the later.
Do you think i misrepresented one part? If so, don't hesitate to correct me.
[0] often a racist sentence, hence its often left to the auditor understanding
[1] French, Jews, Africans, mediterranean (including italian for the Nazi). The list was not the same for Fascist Italy/Spain/France, but close enough.
[2] Warren buffet said so/worker are manipulated into de-unionizing/ transversal fights are a diversion by the bourgeoisie
For people realy on the far left reading this: you are behind the fascists and the liberals in the culture war: go to your group and start opening overton windows about the far left culture: violence against property as a mean of expression, street occupation and guns right as a mean of self-defense (rememebr the Black Panthers? Go do the same thing! Or at least talk about it).
But in my own experience all sorts of people who hold views on the Left tend to 1) distance themselves from “the left”, 2) claim that what is perceived as left-wing is actually only barely left wing, and 3) claim that the right has dramatically more power and influence than they really do.
So I’m not really looking for a definition of what the left and the right are. I’m just noting how the person I was responding to must have a radically different definition that convention.
I think a better writer could make a good book, less ironic, even more convincing and less upfront with the idea. If this book existed, would you let young people read it? I mean, you could argue back that heir add value by living and pushing their parent to earn even more money, and killing them would kill their motivation, but now, killing the 3rd generation should not have any influence on the early motivation, yes?
That being said, an individual’s actions may be outlawed or punished, but I see that as distinct from what they read and publish.
Historically universities have been the birthplace of various revolutionary movements. It is arguably one of their roles in society.
That sounds very much like someone whose only experience is with large public universities. I don't really know what "quasi-governmental" means, but any reasonable meaning I can assign it is far beyond my small university--and there are way more small universities than big ones.
Certainly, curating which books are placed in the university library is detrimental to diversity of thought and exposure to various views (even knowing what extreme views are out there is important if you wish to counter them). But it's not really the same as say a government ban of controversial books.
Also, this survey was done in Germany, where you can already go to jail for claiming the holocaust didn't happen.