Actually, Blair was way to the right of traditional labor, just as the current incarnation of the Democratic party stands significantly to the right of major policies from 1932-1980.

I don't throw the term "communist" out here a lot. If you want, go search my post history for use of the word and you'll probably not find me using it except when talking about countries which practice or practiced it such as the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, etc. I'll laugh at Bernie's awful proposals, but you won't find a post of me calling him a communist.

In the case of Corbyn, he certainly has shown himself to be quite warm to Communism and I point to his close relationship with Communist regimes as a prime example of this. He is certainly close with Cuba and Venezuela. He certainly goes out of his way to praise leaders who European socialists generally stay away from. When you praise Maduro/Chavez, you deservedly earn the label.

And as I said, by those very same standards of who you associate with and who you don't condemn, it was perfectly measured and justifiable for those college students to label Sommers as they did. So Weiss' case about free speech in danger and the overuse of the term of fascism becomes even weaker than it was already demonstrated as being in the previous thread.

Where did I condemn them for labeling Sommers? I condemned them for trying to stop her from speaking, not for labeling her as they can call her whatever the hell they please, but they certainly cannot try to stop her from speaking.

You definitely seemed to accept Sommers disingenuously self-labeling herself as a lifelong Democrat just like Weiss did when I said Sommers was right-wing. And of course, one of the primary theses of the article you gave a shoutout to was in fact that fascist is being overused these days. If you disagree that this would in fact be a case of the word fascist being overused these days and now rightly regard the article as crap for that and the other reasons I gave, great.

What people labeled her as was not the real issue. What was the issue is that people were trying to block her ability to speak. That is the issue I raised, well that and the letter from several groups, including lawyers guilds, which tried to limit the use of free speech which they disagreed with.

Except of course everything the students did can be described as a definite exercise of free speech for free speech, unless of course you believe freedom of speech entitles someone to a captive and unresponsive audience and that private individuals and organizations should not be able to set their own speech guidelines. In which case I also hope you'll endorse Alex Pareene's speaking endeavor at the NYT.

Blocking someone else's ability to speak is not exercising free speech, it is denying them their right to speech.

Except no one physically prevented Sommers from speaking, and freedom of speech does not entail that everyone must listen to you. Further, private individuals and organizations are permitted to devise their own speech regulations within their own domains. Sure sounds like you want to limit those individuals and organizations' autonomy, which itself seems inconsistent with any principled commitment to liberty.

They actively worked to deny her the venue and then had her cut her off midway though her speech so yes they were denying freedom of speech

I am struggling with what label to use for Corbyn.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

Democratic socialist to Bernie's social democrat.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby