August 26, 2008 | In Politics | 2 Comments
After an amusing two-hour debate in the wee hours of this morning, I gained the proud distinction of being banned from ‘Babble,’ a division of Rabble.ca, and one of Canada’s leading “progressive” internet forums.
Although I fully expected Babble to ban me at some point in time (let’s just say my posts there haven’t had the best or receptions), I was quite surprised at the culture of extreme narrow-mindedness and intolerance for any diversity of opinion that is exhibited in their so called “anti-racism” forum.
The site’s policy statement says that “babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and essential values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism, and labour rights are to be debated or refought. Members that join babble who indicate intentions to challenge these rights and principles may be seen as disruptive to the nature of the forum. Such members may be warned, have their accounts suspended, or banned altogether.”
A little restrictive, but fair enough, I thought. I don’t consider myself a racist, and have no desire to debate or re-fight the value of anti-racism or human rights. I do, however, have a significant ethical problem with the concept of “affirmative action” programs, which I see as morally equivalent to institutionalized racism, and definitely well within the range of constructive criticism, even on a “progressive” discussion board.
Seeing that Babble members unanimously supported such programs in the name of “anti-racism,” I carefully outlined my position, presenting them with a quick hypothetical scenario demonstrating the inherent hypocrisy and unintended consequences of affirmative action. (Although I used university admissions as an example, my argument applies to all forms of reverse discrimination, including employment quotas, race-based fishing rights, etc.)
My post generated a firestorm of replies, primarily ad hominem attacks accusing me of being self-interested, “bitter,” “racist,” and in violation of the forum rules (which I patiently pointed out that I was not). Several Babble members even took it upon themselves to sift through all of my blog entries over the past year or so, trying to deflect attention to various articles I’d written about mandatory union membership, veiled voting, and other topics. (What can I say but thanks for the links, guys. 
)
What nobody provided was logical rebuttal of my argument that affirmative action is morally equivalent to racism. The closest anyone came was claiming that that racism was/is systemic and demands systemic solutions (which is a purely pragmatic argument, based on the assumption that the ends always justify the means – not a rebuttal of my position).
As soon as the ‘Babblers’ realized they had lost the debate, one of them claimed that the “phoney lying hypocritical pretense of ‘equal treatment’ breaks down very quickly when confronted with people who are of a different colour, gender, and cultural background than you,” then went on to inform me that ideas like mine (i.e. supporting ‘equal treatment’) have “no place in a civilized society,” after which I was promptly banned from the forum.
Of course, Babble enjoys the same property rights as any other website (no thanks to their hard core pro-socialist and anti-freedom agenda), and can ban anyone they like. I’m not complaining about that.
Sadly, however, the narrow-minded attitudes exhibited by the various ‘Babblers’ in this scenario have become hallmarks of the Canadian left, which is not open to logical discussion but bows to politically correct orthodoxy every step of the way.
Those on the right (at least from what I can tell from reading FreeDominion and The Western Standard, as well as from personal experience) are far more open to honest, logical debate than their leftist counterparts. Even the most staunchly ideological conservatives (and classical liberals) tend to confront and criticize ideas they disagree with, and are often willing to agree to disagree once an issue has been hashed out.
Canada’s modern-day left-liberals and socialists, meanwhile, just condemn and censor opinions that they find inconvenient, then return to their make believe bubble of One World Ideology.
