J.D. Tuccille Discusses Culture War on HuffPost Live

WarriorsThe Warriors/Paramount PicturesRemember the 1990s, when Pat Buchanan went mano a mano with Barney Frank in a duel to the death over the drection of American society? No, neither do I. Yet the supposed "culture war" between liberals and conservatives keeps resurfacing as a concept, if only as a convenient way to frame evolving views on social issues in a partisan red/blue way sufficiently simplified so that even political journalists and government officials can understand. I appeared on HuffPost Live as part of a panel discussing just where the so-called culture war has taken us. Mostly, in a direction of greater tolerance and personal liberty, I would say, on social issues from gay marriage to guns. On economics ... well ... that's up in the air.

On the panel, hosted by Ricky Camilleri, I was joined by Mark Glaze, Director, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Matt Lewis of The Daily Caller and The Week, and Vickie Henry, Senior Attorney at the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • A Serious Man||

    Remember the 1990s, when Pat Buchanan went mano a mano with Barney Frank in a duel to the death over the drection of American society?

    That didn't happen? I took history class called The Culture Wars last year (taught by a lovely American Studies professor) and I could have sworn I came away with that impression of events.

  • Generic Stranger||

    I say we set it up, ala the Thunderdome, but it'll be a fight to the DOUBLE DEATH.

    TWO MEN ENTER, NO ONE LEAVES.

  • mr simple||

    The culture war keeps comingnup because it gives lawmakers an excuse to take more power, it activates the base, and it fills the coffers of both politicians and special interest groups.

    OT: Clark Kellogg doesn't think grabbing a player's arm or slamming into a player's chest is a foul. He must have played for an OSU.

  • RBS||

    No blood, no foul.

  • AlmightyJB||

    That's right. Buckeyes aren't pussies.

  • mr simple||

    That, or it just doesn't get called when they do it.

  • mr simple||

    ;)

  • AlmightyJB||

    I can tell you that they defiantely let them play in the Big Ten.

  • Irish||

    I refuse to watch this. Sorry Tuccille, but every time Reason tricks me into watching an episode of HuffPo Live, I dissolve into a simmering mass of hatred and loathing and suddenly want to scream at the screen or throw something.

    There is always at least one person on HuffPo live who is so brain dead that it makes me sad that they're allowed to talk to impressionable young minds. In this case, I assume that person would be Mark Glaze.

  • AlmightyJB||

    It wasn't that bad. Actually I think the host was the most annoying of the bunch. Typical leftie koolaid drinker.

  • ||

    Yeah, the host was definitely the worst of the bunch.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    . . . COME OUT TO PLAAAAAYYY-AAAYYYY . . .

  • mr simple||

    Can you dig it?

  • Paul.||

    Actually, it's:

    CAAAN.... YOUUUUU.... DIG IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTT!!

  • ||

    Come on man, his was the simple version.

  • ||

    Have you looked at the economy lately? We can't afford all of those extra "U"s and "I"s

  • PapayaSF||

    IT'S BECAUSE OF THE SEQUESTER!!

  • ||

    "Mark Glaze, Director, Mayors Against Illegal Guns"

    Man you guys are really gluttons for punishment.

  • Professional Target||

    More like Mayors For Illegal Guns the way they keep passing laws against them.

  • Generic Stranger||

    More like Illegal Mayors Against Guns, considering how many of them have been arrested for various crimes.

  • Almanian!||

    "Mark Glaze, Director, Mayors Against IllLegal Guns"

    foxed

  • Almanian!||

    Also, fixed

  • Professional Target||

    Oppses. Didn't see yours.

  • MJGreen||

    Fixed like a fox!

  • SumpTump||

    Dude makes a ll kinds of crazy sense. Wow.

    www.GoneAnon.tk

  • SIV||

    I missed the electric car troll today :(

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Glaze: The Violence Against Women Act "does what it says" - delay in passing it shows "Congress is broken."

    If it "does what it says," then does it support violence against women?

  • ||

    "The Violence Against Women Act" was the original stage name for Ike and Tina

  • Sevo||

    Kinda like getting your car 'smogged'; you take in in, they add smog!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Tuccile had the chance to mention restrictions on private businesses in the context of SSM, but he didn't. He denied that churches would be forced to marry anyone, which (outside New Jersey) isn't the question. Did he even follow Reason's own coverage of this question?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And the host was actually incredulous that anyone would support the rights of churches.

  • A Serious Man||

    And for the people that say we'll never force churches to marry gays, it's already legally required in Denmark.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    We don't have to look to Denmark, there's been coercion or threatened coercion against bread-and-breakfast owners, a baker, a photographer, a florist, a T-shirt maker, and people who rent wedding facilities (including a religious organization and its wedding pavillion). And these are just the people who took the risk of fighting their cases in court and/or in the press.

    But (and the SSM people are crystal clear about this) the victims are profit-making enterprises, so they have no rights which the government is bound to respect.

  • JW||

    You're looking at it all wrong. Soon, once ghey marriage is normalized in the country, they'll be subject to the same idiocy that the hetero community has subjected themselves to for decades. They'll be just as miserable as the rest of us poor bastards.

    As to the rest, well, that's just another example of what we call Tuesday, here in America. Letting gays marry didn't create the violence in the system and it won't end with it either. Maybe a little of sauce for the goose, will.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    What about those of us who have no interest in making *anyone* miserable?*

    As to the "violence in the system," the Maryland tour guide (I can find the link if needed; I've posted it before) specifically said he closed the wedding part of his company *on the advice of his attorney after SSM passed in his state.* Can't get much clearer than that.

    And the authors of the SSM bills could solve the problem with broader exemptions clauses. So far, their exemptions clauses only apply to religious groups, and extend only grudgingly to them. They could have a broader exemption of any private entity with an objection to gay marriage, and the bill would then get supported by everyone except weirdo cranks like myself.

    With the narrow, religious-only exemptions (I seem to remember some objection in other contexts to religious-only exemptions), the SSM bills trigger the legal principle that, if you specifically say it's OK to fish in the creek on Tuesday, you're by implication saying it's *not* OK to fish on other days of the week. So exempting religious groups only suggests that secular businesses are fair game.

    *Gay lib reply, "you're making me miserable by not granting my demands!" OK, fair enough.

  • JW||

    See my response below. Yours and mine passed in the mail.

    Wait, that sounds really gay.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Oh, and a tour company.

    But other than that, and other than people who never complained to the press because fighting would be too much of a hassle, no private parties are threatened by SSM.

  • JW||

    Oh, and a tour company.

    And the response is "so fucking what?"

    This isn't an endorsement of this vicious and thuggish behavior by our masters, but if you want to hang your KUTLUR WAR hat on that, go right ahead. You'll look like an idiot every time.

    Again, it didn't start with gay marriage and it certainly won't end there. They and it aren't the problem, well at least not for people without a hard on for gays and their seriously misguided desire to marry. The state, and it's limitless power to oppress, is.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    You miss the point that this is just the right time for SSM-supporting libertarians to have their (voluntarily baked) cake and eat it too. Just expand the exemption clauses in the SSM bills getting passed in the state legislatures. So far, the bills exempt religious organizations and that's about it. A religious-only exemption usually sets off libertarian alarm bells, and with respect, the fact that it doesn't indicates that you're simply ignoring these problems for the sake of taking a side in the culture war.

    Apparently, the "ick" reaction which used to be applied to gays is now being applied to people with a conscientious objection to gay weddings. And the "ick" reaction is driving public policy, just like with the old sodomy laws.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And if you *don't* expand the exemption, this actually gives aid and comfort to the likes of me, allowing me to score libertarian points against these bills.

  • ||

    I wonder what would've happened if instead of spending decades being vindictive about legal recognition of gays, religious leaders and conservatives had gotten ahead of the debate and set terms for the way same sex marriage laws were formed.

    I'm not sure how many points you're scoring when everyone already opposes non-discrimination ordinances outright.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I think it depends on the definition of "opposes." Tuccile was on TV above as a representative of a libertarian organization, and he never raised the point, even when there was a fairly obvious prompt.

    If a guest had said, "of course I wouldn't prosecute Rastafarians for using marijuana in their liturgy," I imagine Tuccile would have jumped in to say "I'm against prosecuting *any* consenting adults for dope! Why should religious people have all the right?" But when the lady said of course she wouldn't prosecute churches, Tuccile was silent, missing a fairly obvious opportunity, as a secular libertarian, to defend the rights of for-profit businesses.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "I wonder what would've happened if instead of spending decades being vindictive about legal recognition of gays, religious leaders and conservatives had gotten ahead of the debate and set terms for the way same sex marriage laws were formed."

    I wonder what would have happened if the dominant pro-SSM majorities in numerous state legislatures had gotten ahead of the debate and drafted libertarian-oriented laws, not blaming their opponents for the defects in their own legislation.

  • ||

    That doesn't really make sense. The battle for legal recognition of gays has largely been fought between two types of statist. Conservative statists decided to fight the battle to the bitter end and lost to proggie statists. There was no libertarian pro-SSM majority with a sweeping vision of freedom to pass your hypothetical.

  • ||

    It would help if these lawmakers would consult with us to avoid such pitfalls, but as we're constantly reminded, we don't have much pull anywhere.

  • JW||

    A religious-only exemption usually sets off libertarian alarm bells, and with respect, the fact that it doesn't indicates that you're simply ignoring these problems for the sake of taking a side in the culture war.

    I take no side other than "leave the fucking fuck alone." And you're missing the very, very simple point that I'm making:

    Same shit. Different gay.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Well, bans on dope are simply a particularized example of state repression, but that doesn't mean you can't call for legalizing it as a baby step?

    Conscientious objectors to gay weddings are the new gays, and these coercive laws are the new sodomy laws. Anyone who wanted to repeal the latter on anti-state grounds ought to be trying to either repeal the former, or even block their enactment in the first place.

  • Calidissident||

    EvH, ignoring the constitutionality of such a measure, would you support or oppose a law that made it illegal to grant marriage licenses to interracial couples (while preserving them for intraracial couples)?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Since I obviously oppose such a law, I see that you're simply trying to pull the old trope of SSM=interracial marriage. No evidence is asked or given, of course, to substantiate this equivalence.

  • Calidissident||

    "Since I obviously oppose such a law,"

    Why is that so obvious? By your logic, wouldn't reducing the number of state marriage licenses, and the enforcement anti-discrimination laws against those that may object to interracial marriage be a good thing, even if it requires discrimination by the government? If not, why not?

    "I see that you're simply trying to pull the old trope of SSM=interracial marriage."

    From a libertarian perspective, it doesn't really matter, as long as it's a voluntary union.

    But thank you for confirming that you don't actually give a shit about liberty, and only care about enforcing your SoCon agenda

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Suppose that, back when the right to marry interracially was actually a live issue, some Klansman had said that interracial marriage was just the same as people of the same sex getting married. How would the defenders of the right to marry interracually (people like the Catholic bishops and the leading civil rights groups) have responded? They would not only have said the Klansman was wrong, they would have said he was dishonest and silly for trying to link two different things.

    Now you're trying to pick up where that hypothetical Klansman left off - "if you let the coloreds and the whites marry, next thing you'll have the government recognizing marriages between men or between women!"

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Analogies [of bans on gay marriage to bans on] interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted, because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions. There is no reason why all those [marriage] laws should be transferred willy-nilly to a different union, one with no inherent tendency to produce children nor the inherent asymmetries of relationships between people of different sexes."

    -Thomas Sowell

    http://www.nomblog.com/8002/

  • Calidissident||

    And none of that is relevant at all to the point I'm making. I'm not arguing that SSM is exactly the same thing as interracial marriage. I'm saying that your logic about how SSM is anti-liberty because it expands marriage licenses and promotes anti-discrimination laws could be applied just as much to interracial marriage. Regardless of how you personally feel, some people object to both, and anti-discrimination laws regarding interracial marriage affect them.

    All I'm really asking is that you be honest about your intentions and admit that you actually don't care about effects on liberty (except to the extent you personally like to dislike a particular liberty) and only really care about enforcing your personal beliefs via the government.

  • Calidissident||

    The following isn't really related to the central point of the argument, but I'll respond anyways

    "Race is not part of the definition of marriage"

    Says who? Many people thought interracial marriage laws were invalid, and many state laws expressly stated this.

    "There is no reason why all those [marriage] laws should be transferred willy-nilly to a different union, one with no inherent tendency to produce children nor the inherent asymmetries of relationships between people of different sexes."

    Marriage laws shouldn't exist in the first place. And while a stated goal of such laws may be to promote childbearing (which is none of the government's business anyways), it is not required that a married have, or even have the capability to have, children. And while gay couples can't have a child just by themselves, they can certainly raise children through in vitro fertilization and adoption.

  • Calidissident||

    That should read "Many people thought interracial marriages were invalid" in the third paragraph

  • JW||

    Anyone who wanted to repeal the latter on anti-state grounds ought to be trying to either repeal the former, or even block their enactment in the first place.

    Holy shit, do you strain credulity with this nonsense to cover for your culture war bullshit.

    Block their enactment? The passing of repressive laws has been going on for the most of the 20th century and well into this one, not to mention that slavery thing they had in the 18th and 19th centuries. Do you have a time machine that we don't know about, that we can use?

    And no, killing Hitler in the 20's won't change anything.

    The war for individual liberty was lost long, long ago and is still being cheered on proglodytes and socons alike. It's just a war of attrition at this point and we're badly outnumbered.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I was mainly addressing those who declare that they support SSM on libertarian grounds.

  • ||

    What you always fail to grasp Eduard is that we support the repeal of those discrimination laws AND ssm. The fact that we can't get lawmakers to not include anti-discrimination language in these bills doesn't mean we should stop supporting ssm. That is the cowards way.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    What if the SSM bills contained clauses increasing the penalties for marijuana? Would you shrug it off?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "And no, killing Hitler in the 20's won't change anything."

    Where did that even come from?

  • ||

    The article doesn't discuss if they're talking about the established church or not. Most of the churches in Denmark are of the state sponsored variety. I'm assuming since they didn't say anything about mosques or synagogues that this law explicitly allows for use of churches, which are essentially public property.

  • Calidissident||

    It actually only applies to the state church. And as other people have mentioned, gay marriage laws are in no way necessary for anti-discrimination laws to exist. And such laws already affect people that may disapprove of certain straight marriages

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So lemme get this straight:

    In the current SCOTUS case against DOMA, SSM proponents explicitly use the consequence of a stupid existing law (estate tax exemption for surviving spouses) as justification for forcing SSM to be recognized... but SSM opponents CAN'T use the consequences of stupid existing laws to argue against SSM?

  • Calidissident||

    "In the current SCOTUS case against DOMA, SSM proponents explicitly use the consequence of a stupid existing law (estate tax exemption for surviving spouses) as justification for forcing SSM to be recognized... but SSM opponents CAN'T use the consequences of stupid existing laws to argue against SSM?"

    What existing laws are you talking about? Isn't EvH's argument that gay marriage will lead to new anti-discrimination laws? In any case, it's not that you can't use that argument. The point is that many people (especially EvH), in addition to conflating gay marriage and anti-discrimination laws, act as if anti-discrimination laws regarding gays would set some radical precedent for government control of business. While I disagree with all anti-(private) discrimination laws, new statutes regarding gays would represent a small expansion of such laws, relative to all the groups that are already covered under such laws. Furthermore, as I pointed out above, EvH uses inconsistent logic and is perfectly willing to tolerate marriage licenses and anti-discrimination policies that may possibly result from such licenses, as long as he doesn't morally object to the union in question.

  • Paul.||

    On economics ... well ... that's up in the air

    PULL! *raises shotgun*

  • The Hyperbole||

    Fuck sake, Tuccille. How could you sit idly by while this douche of a "host" claims that owning a gun endangers other people so it's not a personal liberty issue. I'd cite a time but I don't think I can stomach watching any of that again.

  • PapayaSF||

    Having HIV also endangers other people, so is that a personal liberty issue?

  • JW||

    Yet the supposed "culture war" between liberals and conservatives keeps resurfacing as a concept, if only as a convenient way to frame evolving views on social issues in a partisan red/blue way sufficiently simplified so that even political journalists and government officials can understand.

    It's how they keep the loyal party proles in a constant state of berzerker frenzy, which only the blood of their sworn enemies will slake.

  • Paul.||

    Mark Glaze, Director, Mayors Against Illegal Guns

    Ok, ok, ok, for real. How bad have politicians got to be when they create a group whose name literally leaves me confused.

    I mean, I would think that in Marketing 101, they'd teach you that when you name a group or a thing, you want to make it as obvious as possible what its goal is.

    People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Check.
    National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Check.
    Mayors against illegal guns. *pause* Huh?

    So someone, essplain to me, is this a group of mayors who support gun ownership, but feel that existing gun laws aren't being enforced, and so have formed a group that emphasizes that they want illegal guns taken off the street?

    Are they a group that is against guns in general, and want a whole bunch of guns to be made illegal but aren't, but jumped the gun (ha!) a bit when creating their group, assuming that at some point, the guns they're against would eventually be made illegal?

    Are they a group which is countering another group that I haven't yet heard of called "Mayors against legal guns", and they want to set themselves apart?

    Are they just as stupid as any other gun-control advocate and have no idea what they're talking about?

  • Paul.||

    I mean, we used to have a Youth Clinic in my organization, and once sitting in the manager's office, I saw a list of job duties for the "Substance abuse advocate". I asked the manager if this advocate went around evengelizing the use of drugs and alcohol, telling all the kids how cool they were?

    After that, the manager said she never saw the job title the same way again.

  • edcoast||

    "We're raising money for cancer!"

  • Calidissident||

    You could even interpret it as a group of mayors against outlawing guns (as that would eliminate illegal guns)

  • Sevo||

    "So someone, essplain to me, is this a group of mayors who support gun ownership, but feel that existing gun laws aren't being enforced, and so have formed a group that emphasizes that they want illegal guns taken off the street?"

    Pretty sure you knew this already:
    The name is selected based on staff recommendations or perhaps focus groups if the money is available to pay for them. It is intended to:
    1) Evoke emotion.
    2) Be a CV item the politico can point to for future election campaigns.
    IOWs, it has exactly the correlation with reality as do ads for womens' cosmetics; it hints at something positive, and it isn't quite illegal in its claims.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I saw this show referenced here with Cory Booker, the Mayor of NJ. Read the stats that he gives on this show. What I thought insane (not mentioned here) was that even after Booker provides truthful information about real crime stats he goes on still support going after assault weapons. Izt's like WTF dude.

    http://beforeitsnews.com/opini.....71522.html

  • AlmightyJB||

    Video. Don't watch on empty stomach.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....ntrol.html

  • Sevo||

    "Izt's like WTF dude."
    Repeat:
    "IOWs, it has exactly the correlation with reality as do ads for womens' cosmetics; it hints at something positive, and it isn't quite illegal in its claims."
    There may be sincere politicos; I tend to thing Rand Paul is one. The rest? Cynics intent on keeping jobs.

  • PapayaSF||

    The name is also a slippery evasion. What's an "illegal gun"? Anything they don't like and would prefer was illegal.

  • LarryA||

    MAIG is a warm puppy name, like "gun safety organization."
    They know gun control is unpopular, and are trying to stay away from saying that's what they want.

  • Paul.||

    He did seem to get very touchy when Elvis Costello accidently called them "Mayors against guns...". Very quick to correct and emphasize, the 'illegal' part of the name.

  • Paul.||

    And so this is the second time I've heard it. I'm settling on J.D. TooChilly.

  • Coeus||

  • Irish||

    I like that liberals believe there are two kinds of freedom: gay marriage and abortion. If a state doesn't allow one of those two things, it can't be free. If a state does allow those two things, it MUST be free, without regard for any other regulations.

  • ||

    Don't forget pot, but not heroin, or for that matter ibuprofen 800mg.

  • Paul.||

    Or tobacco, transfats, sodas of unusual size, etc.

  • Sevo||

    "or for that matter ibuprofen 800mg."
    You want pain meds? Fine. Sign up right here and tell us all about yourself. We want data!

  • ||

    I just like that you can get birth control, BIRTH CONTROL, over the counter in Dubai, but you can't here.

    Also, I maintain that the FDA assumes (possibly rightly) that Americans are too stupid to take 4x 200mg ibuprofen.

  • Sevo||

    "Also, I maintain that the FDA assumes (possibly rightly) that Americans are too stupid to take 4x 200mg ibuprofen."
    Do you include yourself? If not, why not?

  • ||

    On this particular count, no, on others, probably yes.

    Partly due to background and partly due to occupation I'm well informed on drug interactions and dosing issues.

    I'm sure there are issues that I don't have a decent enough background to know the difference between good suggestion and pointless nannying.

  • Sevo||

    jesse.in.mb| 3.29.13 @ 10:11PM |#
    "On this particular count, no, on others, probably yes."
    In which case, I'd suggest that "Americans" be left to make whatever choices they might.
    Because the alternative is what we're being offered.

  • ||

    Oh, I think you misunderstood my point. I think that making ibuprofen in 800mg units prescription only is terribly dumb. The FDA can only really get away with it by assuming that Americans won't realize they can just take 4 of the OTC ibuprofen and it's the exact same thing. I was not suggesting that the average American's knowledge of NSAID dosing was a good reason for this regulation, but was the only reason the regulation is effective in any meaningful way.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I've had people try to sell me those.

    Not as a fake opiate, mind you, but as an 800 mg ibuprofen because it's a "pain" pill.

    So yes, your assessment is accurate and in accordance with my anecdotal experience.

  • ||

    Yeah, I've had people tell me they get woozy and shouldn't be driving with ibu 800. It makes me sad.

  • General Butt Naked||

    These fools with their ibuprofen don't know that immodium is where it's really at*.

    *not joking, but the bbb is

  • Paul.||

    I hovered over the link and saw "Koch Brothers".

    They really are becoming a parody of themselves.

    Not clicking through.

  • Irish||

    I saw Koch Brothers!!!! and saw that they said 'How can North Dakata be the freest state without abortion?!?!?!

    We are through the wormhole. Their madness knows no bounds.

  • A Serious Man||

    Abortion is liberty neutral: you're balancing the rights of the mother with the rights of the baby/fetus, and NO ONE knows what the right answer is. BUt libtards will never admit to any such nuance in the debate, either you're with them or you hate women.

  • Blueman||

    Very nicely said

  • JeremyR||

    That's exactly the culture war, and why the left is winning.

    I saw the same sort of thread posted on a video game site's OT section, the original post was serious, but the mods then changed it to be more akin to Fark's headline.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Most of the comments are a silly debate on whether or not Rand Paul is a a libertarian.

    And Abortion.

    An abortion thread. Whee.

  • Coeus||

    I'm still waiting on a state where I can get some "reproductive rights".

  • Coeus||

    Someone did post this gem in the thread. So it's not a total loss.

  • JW||

    Nice.

  • Paul.||

    lol smiley face.

  • ||

    I very much like that.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I need that on a T-Shirt.

  • mr simple||

  • AlmightyJB||

    Awesome! Thanks:)

  • Paul.||

    Did the guy who runs Mayors for Illegal (?) guns just get outed?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    In two senses - outed as gay, and outed as saying his side is winning because gun-ownership rates are declining.

    Because the way to protect gay rights is to subject gays' right to bear arms to the whims and regulations of the government. We all know that government officials are all reliably pro-gay and would never obstruct a gay person trying to get weapons for self-protection against criminals and anti-gay attackers.

    And if a gay person faces an attacker, the thing to do is think pleasant thoughts about gay marriage and hope the criminal goes away.

  • ||

    There's always this though.

    There are now over 45 Pink Pistols chapters nationwide, and more are starting up every day. We are dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for self-defense of the sexual-minority community. We no longer believe it is the right of those who hate and fear gay, lesbian, bi, trans, or polyamorous persons to use us as targets for their rage. Self-defense is our RIGHT.

    Ooh look, the polyamorous are even listed. Shucks.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I certainly don't think Glaze speaks for all "sexual minorities."

    There was an article about a poly fellow who successfully defended his home against an attack by a jealous husband who didn't like his affair. Progtards were complaining that he wasn't prosecuted for defending his home against the invader. Whatever one thinks of adulterizing, one's home is one's castle, and you're entitled to defend it.

    Glaze's version of self-defense for sexual minorities seems to be holding a candlelight vigil for the unarmed victim after he's killed.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I guess the guy wasn't really poly, it was the wife/girlfriend who was poly-izing.

  • A Serious Man||

    Since we're linking retarded culture war stuff, there's this.

    It's the weekend now, so I'm not breaking my personal rule of no more than 2 dumb feminist pieces per week.

  • Coeus||

    TLDR: Everything is rape!!!!

  • mr simple||

    Don't you know when a man asks a woman out it means he thinks she owes him her body? Men should just walk around looking at the ground on only speak when a women deems them worthy.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Unless your young and really good looking and treat women like shit. Then you could call this chick that wrote this article a stupid whore and she would offer you BJ in a bar bathroom. If you're not and you even look at her you're a creepy pervert who should be flogged. SNL did a hilarious skit on phenomenon once.

  • ||

    Money helps if you aren't good looking.

  • Virginian||

    You mean the one with Tom Brady? Yeah, that pretty much nailed "sexual harassment" (as opposed to actual sexual harassment).

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah John posted this either earlier today or yesterday I think. That bitch needs to find a man.

  • Irish||

    God, another Slate article? These are going to be the death of me, but I guess I'll have to check it out.

  • Irish||

    Goddammit. I knew I shouldn't have done that.

    Davidson's prom video put Upton in a no-win situation. Say yes, and you have to go through with this prom date that will probably be one of the most awkward and embarrassing nights of your life, where you have to socialize with teenagers while being paraded around like a show pony. Laugh at the obvious ridiculousness of this entire situation, and now you're a big old meanie-head.

    Jesus Christ. If she'd laughed about it and said something like 'I think I might be a little old for him' everyone would have laughed it off and no one would have cared. As it stands, no one DOES care all that much. This is yet further proof that feminists live in a terrifying alternate reality where people constantly judge each other for no reason and the slightest faux pas will ruin your reputation forever.

    It's absurd.

  • playa manhattan||

    From the comments:
    Kate Upton thought it was cute, and though Amanda Marcotte seems to think that women who are prettier than her need her to think for them, they don't. Repeat this to yourself: Just because a woman is prettier than you does not mean you are smarter than her. Also, since this is the End of Men HQ, please tell your fellow 30-40 something walrus friends that just because they are old, fat, ugly, and nasty doesn't mean that men OWE it to them to "man up" and marry them. You entitled little princess.

  • A Serious Man||

    Yeah, even the Slate commentators think she is terrible. She's great at generating clicks though.

  • Irish||

    She's the Florence Foster Jenkins of internet writers.

    She's horrible, but people love to hate her. That makes her valuable since you're guaranteed to get tons of clicks from people like us who just utterly despise Amanda Marcotte.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Let's be clear: I'm not saying that Davidson is violent or that he was threatening Upton with anything more than having people call her a bitch if she didn't play along.

    Nope, you're just insinuating that he's a violent sexual predator. Totally reasonable. After all, he has a penis, and as we all no, anyone with a penis is a potential rapist.

    But men who are violent feel justified because they believe that women owe them their attention, their bodies, and their love.

    Bare assertions and sweeping generalizations. Truly we live in an age of wonders.

    By joining in the collective pressure on Upton to give her attention—even just the attention of a polite refusal to a request that is, in reality, too silly to warrant acknowledgement—to a young man just because he wants it, we're contributing to the overall culture of male entitlement.

    WAH! No one has the right to inconvenience me ever for any reason! I deserve to walk on clouds and rose petals cast before my feet when I stride the earth like a god!

    Does Amanda actually impose entitlement? Or does she just want some entitlement for herself?

  • Irish||

    Did you actually watch that video of the kid? It's the most innocuous thing I've ever seen. Half of it is him making jokes about how he's a short Jewish kid. He comes off as pretty self-effacing and non-threatening.

    Anyone who could watch that video and come to the conclusion that it's in any 'threatening' or evidence of 'the overall culture of male entitlement' is out of their mind.

  • AlmightyJB||

  • A Serious Man||

    One wonders how the stage didn't collapse under the weight of those two egos.

  • Paul.||

    And why is Elvis Costello running a talk show on Huffpo?

  • Paul.||

    Is the video crapping out at around 19:00 for everyone else?

  • Paul.||

    I mean 09:00?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    I mean Overtime amirite?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Is the video crapping out at around 19:00 for everyone else?

    Nineteen minutes, or nine, I suspect you're the only one who made it that far.

    I do not watch linked videos.

    It's better this way.

  • Paul.||

    Oh come on now... I get a sense of comfort on Friday nights, listening to the Reason talking heads beat up the statists while I sip my whiskey. I mean, I can't watch the videos at work while I sip my whiskey. Not without headphones.

    If that makes me wrong, I don't want to be right.

  • Irish||

    OT: Good interview with Thomas Sowell on the issue of race and academia.

    I'm a big fan of his. Probably going to pick up this new book when I get the chance.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, Sowell's the man. Cuts right through the bullshit.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

  • PapayaSF||

    Mostly, in a direction of greater tolerance and personal liberty, I would say, on social issues from gay marriage to guns. On economics ... well ... that's up in the air.

    The two are intertwined. The social liberty that removes sanctions from (and actively subsidizes) out of wedlock births means more poverty and crime, which we have to pay for via taxes.

  • Gladstone||

    There can't be any tolerance or personal liberty if the state controls the economy. This has been libertarianism 101 for like over a century.

  • Virginian||

    I don't know a single libertarian who thinks this.

  • General Butt Naked||

    C'mon VA, this guy's a playa, with a capital PIMP.

    He's just neggin' you so you'll have his babies, and shit.

    Don't you read the manosphere?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Why are you othering me, jerry? I have as much right to speak as you do.

    Maybe, just maybe, I'm some guy looking to get some trim and need a mentor to help me in my journey. And maybe, I want your help as a ladies-man to help me achieve my aims.

  • Irish||

    I'm pretty sure I could write his posts at this point and no one could tell the difference.

  • Virginian||

    I do actually, and it has a lot of good shit on it. It also has this subculture of socon dipshits who have a strange hatred for libertarians (who they of course call "libertardians") which is as full of strawmen as Tony's basement.

    I seriously do not know a single libertarian who believes that the epidemic of bastard children is driven by anything other then the fact that if your kid's actual daddy splits, then Daddy Government will step in.

  • Irish||

    Please, can we not start a flame war over American again?

  • Virginian||

    Some men just want to watch the world burn.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Irish, please help me with this. What the hell is the manosphere? I really don't know, but it's come up a few times in the past few days.

    It sounds like a bunch of sad sacks thumping their chests and acting internet-aggressive in a sort of half-gay macho circle jerk. If I'm off, and I trust your judgement so far, let me know. (I don't want to google "manosphere")

  • Irish||

    I'm not getting involved. A midnight flame war is not the way I want to spend the next hour. I'd rather nurse my Friday night buzz while watching Penn and Teller's Bullshit Online.

    That sounds more fun than arguing with American.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I seriously wanted to know, and will seriously not look that shit up.

    ....

    What episode (of one of the greatest shows ever)are you on?

  • Irish||

    I'm debating. I don't know if I want to watch something serious, or watch one of their dumb, filler episodes that are just kind of fun.

    On the serious side, I like their Drug War episode, their taxes episode and the 'holier than thou' episode where Christopher Hitchens talks about mother Theresa while pounding back glasses of scotch and chain smoking.

    On the absurd side, I like their fast food episode, the astrology one and the insane 9/11 truthers episode. I might watch the self-help episode, since I don't remember that one.

  • General Butt Naked||

    The porn one has lots of titties in it, so there's always that.

    Personally, I always enjoyed the throw away episodes. Like: organic food, astrology, GMOs, psychics. Those present a target rich environment.

    Oh, and the martial arts one was really good.

  • Virginian||

    Depends on which part General. Just like the libertarian sphere of the Internet has people like Donderooooo and others that say silly things. I find Captain Capitalism to be a good read.

    http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/

  • General Butt Naked||

    Eh, seems like standard stuff with a bit of mistrust of women thrown in.

    Here's the thing, man: I like women. I don't mistrust them. I don't think they're out to get me. I don't feel the need to be someone I'm not around women. I do think that women are different then men, thank the deity of your choice for that, but not enough to worry about.

    If you want to claim that I'm some sort of beta pussy for enjoying the company of women then that's your prerogative as you're allowed to think as you like.

  • Virginian||

    Dude, literally half the libertarians are pro-life, and the other half are pro-choice.

    Immigration is a little more uneven, but there is a definite divide there.

    God though, you sure do build pretty strawmen.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    According to the LP platform and Reason, all libertarians are pro-choice and pro-open borders.

  • Virginian||

    No, I'm here to tell you that you're bitching about the flies, instead of the manure pile. If the government subsidizes something, then the amount of that something will increase. For fifty years, they've been subsidizing bastard children. We know that. You know that. No one is in denial about that except for leftists, who believe that it is changing cultural mores that are the cause, and not the effect.

  • Virginian||

    Uh, unless you're a woman, those subsidies do not apply to you. I'm talking about all that free government money for having bastard kids.

  • Calidissident||

    Don't you supposedly get around?

  • Gladstone||

    You what other classical liberals sold out to the state due to a culture war?

  • Gladstone||

    You guys are aware that the beloved public school system was created by liberals to save us from reactionary theocrats?

  • Calidissident||

    Yes. And?

  • Paul.||

    The joke is meta.

  • SIV||

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The 21 men and one woman charged with charting the course of Europe’s economy looked down to find startling news that evening of May 6, 2010.

    WARNING! Fawning bullshit sighted!

    That afternoon, their leader, a Frenchman named Jean-Claude Trichet, had told the world in a news conference that the group hadn’t so much as discussed deploying its bottomless resources — its power to print money...

    Inflation? What's that?

    But they also have kept the world from a disastrous economic collapse of the sort their predecessors had allowed eight decades earlier, setting the stage for the rise of the Nazis and World War II.

    You know what? No. I refuse to read 5 pages of this. Just...no. Not doing it.

  • Paul.||

    They're calling the power to print money... they're suggesting... I... wha...

  • mr simple||

    Already with the hagiographies? And what the fuck did they save? Glad to know we're out of the woods now and everything is hunky dory. At least the comments mostly take him to task. I definitely couldn't get through 5 pages of that slurping.

  • A Serious Man||

    Hey, you can't prove that Helicopter Ben didn't save the world, think of the fiscal apocalypse and rebirth of fascism that DIDN'T happen!

  • SIV||

    Greece is experiencing a little bit of both, no?

  • A Serious Man||

    I want this Florida Gulf Coast-Florida game to be better, but FGCU keeps blowing opportunities to get back into the game.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    It appears the dream is over.

  • A Serious Man||

    Maybe the FGCU coach can have his wife parade in front of the Florida basket in lingerie.

  • General Butt Naked||

    How about the pens getting Ignila?

    And how about the pens' biggest problem right now is that Dupuis and Kunitz are playing so well that it seems a mistake to take them off of the first line?

    Shero smells blood in the water.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Staying healthy will be a problem.
    However I likey the idea of a Team Canada line.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Oh and our backup blanking the jets had to sting just a bit*.

    *I should tame the trash talk as the playoffs are a beast in and of themselves, and respect and humility must be shown to the hockey Gods.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Jets had their backup in as well
    The Jets happen to be the best team in the worst division

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Is North Korea trolling us?

  • mr simple||

    It's the only way they can get attention.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

  • mr simple||

    No, he changed it to that when he came of age. His parents named him Douche McButthurt.

  • Paul.||

    That... is... AWESOME!

  • General Butt Naked||

    Oh hey, it's that guy, being that guy again.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Well that's not hery helpful, jerry.

    We should engage in dialogue to get to the root of these negative feelings you have.

    Here, I'll start...

    When you say the word "slut" are you thinking of your mother or sister?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Have you been drinking again, jer-bear?

    Why don't you answer the simple inquiry I've posted and we can move on?

  • MJGreen||

    You're out of your element, Jerry.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I am the walrus?

  • mr simple||

    Wow, you didn't even have to directly challenge his ideas to make him all butthurt and defensive. That shows he's confident,right?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    That sounds more fun than arguing with American.

    Throwing myself down the stairs sounds more fun.

  • cw||

    Am I the only one who thinks there isn't such a clear distinction between economics and social issues? I look at both as one category: either there is more liberty, or less.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Once the G controls the economy, every personal decision becomes subject to the whim of the G.

    You can't drink soda because it makes you fat and that costs G money for health care.

    You can't skateboard on stairs because you might injure yourself and that costs G money for emergency surgery.

    You can't wear sweatpants because it makes you unattractive and less likely to reproduce, and that costs G money for your retirement.

    You can't drive a mile to the grocery store because that costs G money for subsidized gasoline.

    You can't have sex without a condom because that might result in a birth and 18 years of welfare.

  • cw||

    Precisely, and that list could go on ad infinitum. It's really the not-so-secret way progressives wish to control every aspect of everyone's life while maintaining that everyone can still do as he pleases socially.

  • Tony||

    Much better to let natural selection take care of everything. Civilization was probably a bad move.

  • ||

    You are free to gambol, Tony. Good luck in the wild.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement