Why Liberals Favor Campaign Season Censorship

If people can be totally convinced by a few campaign ads, then the real objection is not advertising-but democracy itself.


Liberals are nearly united against Citizens United. This means they are nearly united in favor of censorship. But that has not stopped the Supreme Court decision from being roundly denounced by everyone with progressive DNA – from the elderly solons at The New York Times to the youthful idealists of Occupy Wall Street.

Cities from Missoula to Miami have condemned the ruling. Now the prestige press has gotten in on the act, again.

Media outlets across the country have begun airing stories about how 2012's campaign ads are the unholy spawn of 2010's ruling. Already The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, and the LA Times have run such stories. NPR has run a half-dozen. ("Illegal During Watergate, Unlimited Campaign Donations Now Fair Game," ran the headline on one fair-and-balanced look at the issue.)

Media corporations such as those, which spend huge sums of money talking about politicians, just can't stand it when non-media corporations get to do the same thing.

And lest anyone forget that is precisely what the case was about. In 2008 a nonprofit, incorporated group called Citizens United wanted to distribute a documentary about Hillary Clinton. But doing so during an election campaign would have violated a 2002 campaign-finance law prohibiting "electioneering communications" within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election.

A law that forbids American citizens to urge the election or defeat of a political candidate raises some obvious First Amendment concerns. During oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts noted that book publishers are corporations. He asked the government's lawyer if the law could prohibit publishing a book that said, "Vote for X."

Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart said yes—the government: "could prohibit the publication of the book." Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21 and former head of Common Cause, later agreed that "a campaign document in the form of a book can be banned."

To its credit, the ACLU did not side with liberal censors. The provision in dispute is "facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment," the ACLU said, "because it permits the suppression of core political speech." And that is just how the high court ruled.

You won't learn much of that from the scare stories about the new "super PACs." Instead, you'll get endless variations on a single theme: Citizens United has made possible a torrent of "negative ads" from "outside groups."

The theme's unstated premise is that ostensibly unfortunate results should trump the First Amendment. This is not a wise line of argument for anyone who values a free press to make, but never mind. Are the results really unfortunate? For instance, what is wrong with negative ads? Often they do just what journalists claim is their most noble task: speaking truth to power. As a general rule, "attack" ads from opponents contain more useful information than positive ads from candidates. Positive ads show Candidate X striding manfully across sun-drenched fields while he recites a script about how much he loves America and wants to make it great again. Negative ads tell you how the guy voted.

But the ads are made by (eek!) "outside groups." Outside of what, exactly? The campaigns themselves—along with the political parties' paid apparatchiks—which do not like to have their monologues about their candidates' wonderfulness interrupted. But The New York Times is an outside group. So is the AFL-CIO, Planned Parenthood, the Brady Campaign, and MoveOn.org—along with the Chamber of Commerce, the NRA, and the National Right to Life Committee. To term such organizations "outside" is to imply that elections are for the party pros, and everyone else should sit on the sidelines.

If this is the great unspoken wish of campaign "reformers," then their great unspoken fear is that campaign ads might actually persuade. After all, if campaign ads never worked, then who spent what on them would not matter. This raises two possibilities. The first is that the people are so incredibly stupid a few 30-second spots can lead them by the nose. If that is the case, then the real objection is not advertising—but democracy itself.

The second possibility is that people are not stupid. They listen to competing cases from all sides and then choose according to their own interests and values. If that is the case, then the problem is, again, democracy itself. Why? Because every demand that A be prevented from speaking is, equally, a demand that all others be prevented from hearing. Hence the ultimate aim of rationing political speech is to make sure people who can think for themselves don't have too much to think about.

A. Barton Hinkle is a columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch, where this article originally appeared.


NEXT: Why You Probably Can't Fire Your Health Insurance Provider

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.

  1. In short, “liberals” aren’t. And they don’t think twice about silencing anyone who is evil enough to disagree with them.

  2. Liberals scare the fuck out of me. A friend on Facebook decries Citizens United at every chance, claiming that the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect corpurashuns. I replied with the text of the 1st Amendment. It protects speechs. Doesn’t say a fucking thing about who speaks.

    1. oops – now the gop is calling for campaign finance reform after the predictable CU debacle in iowa.

      1. Then they are wrong too dipshit. Who the fuck cares what the GOP wants. We are talking about liberals right now. At least try to stay with the conversation.

        1. wow some emotive response.

          1. emotive response.





      2. Politicians of all stripes like campaign finance reform, aka “incumbent protection acts.”

        1. Insane McCain is a perfect example.

      3. Look, stooopid… CU happened because some people made a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton.

        Case fucking closed. ONLY reason it happened.

    2. corpurashuns

      Does he really spell it that way?
      What a dick.

      1. It’s a running gag, making fun of liberals’ fear of large businesses. Try to keep up.

  3. Tolerance means being intolerant of anything that is not liberal.

    Inclusiveness means excluding everything that is not liberal.

    Equality means liberals are superior to those who are not.


    1. dat sum good radio entertainment there !

    2. I really makes me mad that liberal used to mean the opposite of all that. I like the word “liberal”.

      1. it still does zeb except to wingnutz who take radio entertainment as fact.

        1. Don’t have to listen to ANYONE* on the radio to get things correct, stOOOOpid.

          * Including fucktards like Ed Schultz.

  4. But, but KORPORASHUNSSSSSS!!!1!!!!11!!!1!

  5. I wish you people could just admit for one second that corporations deciding who gets elected is terrible for the country. Their first action will be to remove the corporate income tax, which will devastate revenues. These revenue cuts will be met with cuts to SS/Medicare/Medicaid, which will make the poorest of our country suffer most. Our elders will literally starve in line at the hospital.

    1. Isn’t there an off you should be fucking?

    2. Tony we are not so stupid we believe everything we see in a political advert to be true. So therefore, we fail to see how corporate sponsored advertised decides elections.

      We are really sorry you are so stupid that you can’t think for yourself and believe everything you see on TV. But we cannot destroy the Constitution just to dumb the country down for your benefit.

    3. I wish that for one second you could stop being the dumbest fuck on Earth.

    4. Before you fuck off, tell me how much money a korporashun would have to spend to get you to vote for Sarah Palin.

      1. vote for what? a MILF movie?

        1. Ok, how much corp. money would it take for you to vote for the Libertarian Party candidate?

          1. at what level of govt?

    5. OMG, Tony’s comment has to be someone trying to make him look bad.

      This is literally the most insane thing I read today, and I read Michael Mann’s insane rant that was posted on the Bishop Hill blog earlier this morning.

      1. In typical libertarian fashion, you have no problem telling old people to starve to death just to let a corporation make a few more dollars.

        1. In typical Tony fashion, I believe that sharing isn’t caring; stealing from some and giving to others is.

          1. Shit! I’ve been caught spoofing!

            1. Yep, you’re busted. Now reveal your true identity.

        2. Nah, the old people don’t have to starve – they can eat all those unwanted mongoloid orphans. Or all those unwanted dogs and cats at the shelters. There’s a nice neat, win-win solution to both problems!

          1. Better yet, I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that OWS protester is a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.

            1. It is rather immodest of you to propose such a thing.

              1. Be sure to stock up in late summer or fall; they become quite scarce in winter.

          2. I have often suggested people be allowed to eat shelter animals. If this doesn’t cause people to spay/neuter their critters, nothing will. Cuts down on overcrowded shelters and feeds people. A win for everyone.

            1. In the mid-1970s, my mother was a 6th grade teacher when the last wave of Vietnamese immigrants hit our shores after the fall of Saigon. They had a family that was “shopping” at the ASPCA, until locals figured out what was happening and sent a local preacher to inform them of the differences in customs, here in the USA.

        3. Concerned imbecile is concerned.

        4. Tony, when was the last time you drove over some hot wings to the retirement home?

          So, as a moral agent, you are a do-nothing.

          So why is it that you think you’re a great guy for vaguely favoring government *take* from many {some of whom may sorely need it themselves} to give to few?

          Yes – old people starving is bad, but since you aren’t actually helping – aren’t you, in a nutshell, basically just full of shit?

    6. “Our elders will literally starve in line at the hospital.”

      Citizens United is going to result in old people starving to death.

      rolling on the floor here…really.

      1. I think the line you quoted reveals the 12:16 post to be a spoof. A good one, though.

    7. Where do corporations get the money to pay their income taxes? Surel not from you and me, their customers!

      1. Where do you and I get the money to pay taxes? Customers? Where do those customers get their money? Damn, it’s customers all the way down.

      2. The corporate tax really is the liberal’s wet dream. Its allows them to tax consumers and workers without them knowing it. The ruse is so good even most liberals dont know they are swallowing their own shit.

    8. Our elders will literally starve in line at the hospital.

      Our children will beat kittens to death in the streets!

      Our females will be ravaged by drunken Canadians!

      Our very souls will be devoured by Ozzy Osbourne himself!!

    9. Cats and dogs, living together, mass hysteria!

      I thought evil corporations were already avoiding taxes? And doesn’t that corporate income get taxed again when it becomes personal income?

      1. “And doesn’t that corporate income get taxed again when it becomes personal income?”

        Yeah this – the corproate tax revnue lost will just mostly be made up when applied as investment or wage income. Also lower prices for consuemr goods mean higher volume on sales taxes at well. If only more people would read up on the topic of tax incedence. People would be in open revolt if they realized how much taxes they actually ay.

    10. Corporation can not decide who gets elected, so I must assume you let corporate advertising tell you who to vote for.

    11. I wish you people could just admit for one second that corporations deciding who gets elected is terrible for the country.

      Sure is. Luckily corporations do not decide who is elected but in fact it is the voters who do.

      Now your turn to admit that forming a corporation for the purpose of publishing, and producing political speech for voters to digest and consider is great for the county.

    12. Yes, you are right. Now I understand! We should eviscerate the First amendment because people are just too fucking stoooooopid.

  6. Z minus. Horrible spoof.

  7. The first is that the people are so incredibly stupid a few 30-second spots can lead them by the nose.

    Don’t be obtuse. If 5% of the population is that dumb, that’s enough to swing most elections. And I assure you, more than 5% of the population is at least that dumb.

    1. That’s how I won!

      1. Best. Response. Ever.

    2. No they are not. I could run the slickest ad in the world and it would only appeal to people who want to be convinced or already agree with me. If it were so easy to manipulate public opinion, public opinion would have never turned on things like Jim Crow.

      1. oops – the gop in iowa sure threw newt under the bus AFTER mitt’s attack ads

        1. OR maybe they threw Gingrich under the bus because he said a series of increasingly stupid and ridiculous things turning off most of the electorate.

          No, it must have been the ads. As I said above, we can’t destroy the Constitution in order to dumb down the country to you and Tony’s level.

          1. You people don’t understand, I like big government, I just want it to be against teh gays and dole out cash to MY friends.

            1. I hear that.

              1. MATT DAMON!

            2. Now you’re talking.

        2. oops – my mommy threw me under the bus thats why i’m so stupid my brains are still splattered on the [ROADZ] somewheres

          1. my mom passed. try moar harder

            1. my mom died then 5 years later i was borned

              1. …I meant spawned.

    3. That’s likely true. But at least 5% of the population is also dumb enough to believe hit stories printed in the New York Times or Washington Post or Rolling Stone or Salon. Should those be banned too?

      1. Yes! Because the NYT and WaPo are korporashunz! Burn ’em!

        1. at least you’re consistent.

      2. But at least 95% of the population is also dumb enough to believe hit stories printed in the New York Times or Washington Post or Rolling Stone or Salon.
        There…corrected it for ya.

    4. As South Park astutely observed, at least 1 in every 4 people are freaking retarded.

  8. OT, because I had crap to do and missed Morning Links:

    Guys, I know I introduce you to a lot of stupid. I rattle your chains with examples of pure retardation. And I know I always joke about how we have hit peak stupid or peak retard. But, my friends, I am afraid I may have actually found the dumbest, most infuriating site on the note.

    Allow me to introduce you to the world of microaggresions

    What are microaggresions? Glad you asked:

    You think talking about “big” racial issues like loan discrimination and redlining and police brutality against black men is hard? It’s often a lot easier than discussing race-based “microaggressions.” Microaggressions is a word coined by psychiatrist Chester M. Pierce, meaning “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of other races.”

    The discussion is hard because it requires good, well-meaning people to admit to and examine their own racial privilege. It requires those who may think of themselves as anti-racist allies to do more than tsk tsk along with black friends about some madness, say, Rick Santorum said, and recall the things they personally (and perhaps innocently) may have done to make friends, family and co-workers of color feel othered. That’s tough. And it’s not just tough for the “white girls” mentioned in Ramsey’s work. It’s hard for everyone who has any kind of privilege, be it educational privilege, sexual privilege, gender privilege, etc. (All microaggressions aren’t tied to race. Just check out the Microaggressions Tumblr to see the many non-race-related ways this can play out.) But “Shit white girls say?” is centered on racial privilege and that is what much of the push back seems to ignore.

    Here is the microaggresions website. I will post the choicest bits of stupid throuhgout the day. Your welcome, Reasonoids.

    1. What exactly does it mean to “other” someone?

      1. It means to do what Canadians do to Americans all the time.

        1. How dare you other Canadians by implying Canada is distinct from North America.

    2. Posts such as these are microaggressions against common decency.

      1. Epi, you are probably the worst “otherer” here.

        1. It’s true.

    3. Damn, began with a mispost.

      I have an older sister, who likes to work out at the gym everyday. On the other side, I usually go no more than twice a week. However, my parents insist on me doing tasks such as carrying heavy bags or furniture when we move. The worst thing is that my sister also sees it as something natural: men must do the hard job. I’m a 18 year old man, and she’s a 21 year old woman. Made me sad and confused. Why do genitals need to determine our roles?

      If your 18 year old son writes this, you have failed as a father and as a man.

      1. Someone should explain to the boy that it’s not because he’s male. They make him do the heavy lifting because they love his sister more.

      2. Sounds like this poor kid has spent too much time on Jezebel.

      3. He does sound like a whiny little turd. This really should not be a source of confusion. But on the other hand, why shouldn’t the sister carry some shit?

      4. Or it’s a brilliant troll…

        1. So that’s what you’ve been doing with all your spare time.

    4. My professor asks our class if anyone is feminist, I am the only one in the class to raise my hand, and I do so feebly because I’m afraid of how others will judge me. Another student complains about how selfish feminists are because there are “bigger” problems in the world, as if all gender issues have been resolved. In my “Cultures & Ideas” class. Made me feel stupid, unimportant.

      You probably feel stupid and unimporant because you are.

      1. Either she is, in fact, stupid and unimportant, or deep down she knows that the feminism she subscribes to really is bullshit.

      2. Also, people who tell stories about things that happened to them in the past using the present tense should be shot.

      3. “Cultures and Ideas class” – there’s your problem…

    5. That site shows how civilizations die. We are doomed.

    6. In 6th grade, a chapter in our social studies text was entirely devoted to Christianity. I’m white, but born Muslim and raised mostly secular. I didn’t perform well on the quiz for that chapter. One question I answered incorrectly was, “Why did Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem?” I had blanked and responded “to vote.” My teacher responded incredulously and scoffed, “Come on, how could you get that wrong?” She vocally didn’t understand how anybody (least of all a white person like me) could not know the details of the birth of Jesus. In elementary school. Made me feel isolated, othered, confused, embarassed.

      You’re in 6th grade, but still in elemtary school? I have to agree with this person- it is a dick move to make fun of the mentally challenged.

      1. Well maybe the schools are different where you are, but when I went to school, elementary school was K-6; middle school was 7-8.

        1. My area, it was K-4 then 5-8 then High School. Either way, elementary school makes me think of cute little first graders, not sixth graders.

          1. I thought was how it is in most places now. Although when I was goin through school some people still informally called 7-8 “junior high”, but officially k-4 was elementary, 5-8 middle, & 9-12 was high school.

          1. I mean k-6 then 7-8 then high school

      2. Interesting how a sixth grader has a college level vocabulary, but hasn’t picked up the Christmas story in any his/her studies. Also, was this a parochial school? I went to sixth grade in a public school in eastern Montana in the 70’s and don’t recall any mention of anything from the Bible by any teacher, ever.

      3. No one is born Muslim.

    7. In 6th grade, a chapter in our social studies text was entirely devoted to Christianity. I’m white, but born Muslim and raised mostly secular. I didn’t perform well on the quiz for that chapter. One question I answered incorrectly was, “Why did Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem?” I had blanked and responded “to vote.” My teacher responded incredulously and scoffed, “Come on, how could you get that wrong?” She vocally didn’t understand how anybody (least of all a white person like me) could not know the details of the birth of Jesus. In elementary school. Made me feel isolated, othered, confused, embarassed.

      You’re in 6th grade, but still in elemtary school? I have to agree with this person- it is a dick move to make fun of the mentally challenged.

      1. Why is a Muslim going to what seems to be a Christian parochial school?

        1. Could just be a public school is Missouri or Alabama.

          1. Maybe. I can’t believe the local atheist gadfly wouldn’t be suing over this. I was under the impression it was pretty much illegal to so much as mention Christianity in a public school text book.

            1. Take it outside, God Boy…

              1. 1st Amendment how does it work? That means I can say whatever the fuck I want wherever I want. Don’t like it move to a communist country.

                1. That means I can say whatever the fuck I want wherever I want.

                  Actually, it doesn’t. If you come over to my house and I don’t like what you’re saying, I can tell you to GTFO. If you don’t, you’re trespassing and I can have le gendarmes escort you elsewhere. And there wouldn’t be jack squat you could do about it.

                  1. Yes, but you could tell him to GTFO and call the cops to arrest him for trespassing if he chose not to leave. But you would in no way have prevented him from exercising his right to say those things. You’d merely be exercising your right to not have to listen to that kind of crap in your own home. Save yourself the trouble; don’t be friends with people who disagree with you.

                    1. 1. I have lots of friends who disagree with me and with whom I disagree on a lot of things.

                      2. The difference is there would be nothing he could do about it – i.e., he could not sue me for not letting him freely speak on my private property. Just like Reason could delete every one of his comments here and permanently ban him from this site, and he would have no legal claim.

                2. 1st Amendment how does it work? That means I can say whatever the fuck I want wherever I want. Don’t like it move to a communist country.

                  If you were responding to me, John, you didn’t get the joke. It was a line from the Simpsons where a kid was caught praying in school, and the principal told him to, “Take it outside, god boy”

                  1. My apologies Paul.

        2. Also, even if so… to get the history of Western civlization, you kind of have to know some shit about Christianity. Actually, to get a lot of books, movies, etc. you need to understand the basic Christian origin stories, given that refrences to things like the Crucifixtion are made in even fairly secular movies like Platoon

          1. Christian origin stories, given that refrences to things like the Crucifixtion are made in even fairly secular movies like Platoon

            Movies made by leftys are obsessed with Judeo-Christian themes.

            1. Which you would have no idea exist if you didn’t understand what they were referencing.

          2. Yeah, a knowledge of Christianity is kind of necessary if you want to get by in a country that’s, like, seventy-five percent Christian. If you were growing up in a majority-Muslim country and you told your teacher that Muhammad led his followers to Mecca “to vote,” you’d probably get looked at funny too.

            In part because who the fuck thinks that 6th century Arabia (or 1st century Palestine) was a fucking representative democracy?

            1. Hell, 21st century Arabia isn’t a representitive democracy. Plus in a lot of predominately muslim countries getting funny looks would be the least of your concerns. You know what they about when religion ruled the world…

            2. Bullshit.

              None of my kids has ever stepped into a church in their lives, we don’t teach them any crap at all about religion and they are all doing just fine in the USA.

              Several Halloweens ago, my son and I accidentally got roped into trick or treating with our fundie neighbor and their daughter. At the first house my neighbor Flanders asked his daughter after she got her candy “What do we say now?” and she replied with a “God bless you.” Then he asked my son the same question (my kid had already said thank you by the way). Son, “See you next year”. I think he is coping just fine.

          3. We know a couple who went off the deep end and got fairly religious. They insisted my heathen wife and I (who hasn’t been inside a church for mass since 1979) go see that Mel Gibson muder pr0n movie. They even offered to watch our kids. So my wife and I dropped the kids and went so a different movie, giggling the entire time.

            Unfortunately the caper unraveled when they started quizzing us about the movie. Turns out that neither my wife nor I could answer any of the simple questions about the movie because we knew so little about the crucifixion.

            Unfortunately being christians, they forgave us our trespasses and still invite us to their house.

    8. I prefer macroaggresions. Like if someone tries to foist this nonsense on me, I just say STFU, DIAF, ESAD.

        1. Barely. Just barely.

    9. My world history textbook refers to Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, animism, and Buddhism as “religions”. In the chapter on postclassical Mesoamerica, it refers to Aztec religion as a “cult”.

      I too regret our modern world’s disapproval of human sacrifice. BTW, this was filed under religion AND race. Aparently, not being into human sacrfice is racist.

      1. I agree that that one is odd. Cult is just a word for an unapproved religion.

        I just don’t understand why any living person would be offended.

        1. Actually, cult or occult usually refer to religions that are generally not fully understood. When we find objects that appear religious in nature, we refer to them as Occult or Cult Objects. It confuses students sometimes.

    10. Okay, I’m only going to put up about three more, but I could mine that site for weeks.

      I volunteer for a performing arts center, and I am told on my second day of ushering that women are not allowed to wear neckties because “it’s distracting.” I am dressed identically to the man ushering with me, but he is not instructed to remove his formal black tie. I am queer, as are many of the patrons of the center, and I am not comfortable in “women’s” clothing. Made me wonder when clothing will stop being gender policed, and made me feel like not wearing a tie is more important than my ability to keep patrons safe and happy.

      Want to know how John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln? Strangled an usher with their own neck tie.

      1. You know what’s really distracting as far as the garb of a female usher? When they wear those tight jackets that push their boobs right up into your face so you can look straight down into their cleavage. Or very short skirts.

        A tie? What a crock. I would have thought a lesbian would have been welcome at a “performing arts” center.

        1. “performing arts” center.
          What is wrong with “theater”?

          1. “Theater” sounds too gender specific, noninclusive, and generally otherizing.

      2. I don’t get “queer” as the PC version of “gay”. It’s like “little people” instead of “midget”. The PC sounds worse than the supposed pejorative.

        1. That’s just because you’re “cis”-gendered.

          And therefore a micro-aggressor.

          It is therefore acceptable, and in fact preferred, that the collective must shun you. Shun!

          1. Arrrgg. My kidney!

        2. I don’t get “queer” as the PC version of “gay”. It’s like “little people” instead of “midget”. The PC sounds worse than the supposed pejorative.

          It is worse, or rather was worse. It’s “reclaimed”. Take note other marginalized groups, this is how you reclaim a word. I rarely hear “queer” used pejoratively by the under 60 crowd. This is because they decided that they wouldn’t be offended by it and used it instead. Compare this to other “reclaimed” words. The only way to take the sting off a pejorative is to hear the word and say “so?”.

    11. Rick Santorum said, and recall the things they personally (and perhaps innocently) may have done to make friends, family and co-workers of color feel othered.

      Wait, what?

      If I get up in the morning and don’t feel “othered”, I already suspect something’s wrong.

      1. I guess it’s OK for them to other Rick Santorum, but not for Rick Santorum to other them

        1. Othering a so-con is fair game (and I agree with this), but othering a progressive is othering. Othering = bad.

          I feel everyone should be othered early and often.

      2. I feel “othered” whenever a Canadian says that something is “American-style”.

    12. Whenever I am bored, I am just now mining this site. I’m going through the class tag, and it is hard to choose just one. But I decided to go with this:

      Freshman year of college at a private university. I’m crying because I just lost a grant and I’m deeply concerned about my ability to pay for the rest of the semester. I’m telling my friend that I don’t know what to do, that I have no money or knowledge of loans and I have no assistance from my family. She said, “Why are you here, then?” Poor kid among the wealthy. She made me feel angry and hurt, as if I didn’t deserve the quality education that I’d worked for because of my class.

      Well, no, you just shouldn’t go deeply into debt when you clearly don’t understand finances and also aparently are less intelligent than you think, given you posted on the microaggresions blog.

      1. Must be a case of microfinanceaggressions.

      2. $10 says she was planning to major in either “Philosophy”, “Women’s Studies”, “Sociology” “[fill in the blank] literature” or some other equally worthless bullshit (while going into massive student load debt). She may not know it yet, but they probably did her a huge favor.

    13. Okay, last one till evening links, I promise.

      In a lift in a Hong Kong hotel. A Caucasian woman thanked me for holding the door open for her. In badly pronounced Chinese. I kept quiet. Then she got off at her level and wished me good evening, also in bad Chinese. I’m Indonesian of Chinese descent, and I don’t like it when people immediately assume that I can’t understand English. I’m 20, Hong Kong. Made me feel very annoyed.

      Wow, this woman sounds like a bitch. Some white woman is trying to thank a Chinese looking person, in China, in what 90% of the time will be that person’s native language, and this woman throws a fit? Screw her.

      1. So the lady actually said “thank you” and also “have a good evening,” and your beef is that she didn’t do it in the language you would have preferred?

        Fuckin’ a. What an arrogant asshole.

        1. I’m going to start giving dirty looks to people in elevators who thank me in badly pronounced English.

      2. …and I don’t like it when people immediately assume that I can’t understand English.
        And yet I’m the villain for assuming everyone CAN understand English (if spoken loudly and slowly enough).

      3. What a racist bitch that Caucasian woman is to assume someone in Hong Kong speaks Chinese, not English.

    14. OK I finally went and took a look at the actual microaggresions website.

      What a bunch of fucking whiners.

      I should put up my own “microaggresions” website. It would consist of one page, with the following text in large black type on a white background centered on the page:

      “People are assholes. Get over it.”

      1. This is my favorite alleged “aggression”:

        I feel like not being attracted to someone because they are black or white is the same as having a preference with hair color.

        Now the particular preferences can be “-ist”. So, if I were attracted to men, does that make me sexist against women now?

        1. Depends on whether you’re a man or a woman. If you’re a dude that means you’re gay, which would make you part of an oppressed class and therefor a “good guy”.

          If you’re a woman that would make you straight, in which case you’re a victim of the mysoginistic matriarchichal society who just hasn’t been “liberated” by the soft caress of a bull dyke’s vibrating dildo yet.

          1. Thank you, that is hilarious

    15. Some people just need to grow the fuck up and get fucking backbone.

      Whaaa!!!!! you hurt my wittle feewings!!!!! WHAAAA!!!!!

    16. Damn you… clicked link… brain hurts… Argghhhhh…

    17. I suggest using metric names for even smaller aggressions. Attoaggression (aggresion felt standing in a grocery checkout line). Femtoaggression (cold fries at McDonalds). Yoctoaggression (the aggression you feel when a USB plug doesn’t fit).

  9. Great article. But most of the liberals I know have no problem with book banning.

      1. Yeah. I’d like to see some examples of books that liberals have banned.

        1. Nineteen Eighty-four
          The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
          Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
          Lord Of The Flies
          To Kill A Mockingbird
          And many, many more. Sorry Zeb and O3, prudishness and intolerance are depressingly non-partisan.

          1. i was required to read ALL of those by union teachers in a PUBLIC HS. >it tries moar harder

            1. You know, I would never have guessed that you went to public school.

            2. In the US, a “banned book”, is usually “banned” from the collections of a single library, or from the curriculum of a single school or school district. The fact that you read it doesn’t mean that some other school district didn’t take objection to it.

          2. I guess it depends on what you mean by banned. I also read all of those books in school with the full support of my liberal parents and teachers. The fact that some stupid school district somewhere has tried to ban some books is not evidence for the proposition that liberals have no problem with book banning. Liberals believe lots of dumb things. That does not mean that they believe all dumb things.

            And I just get tired of “liberals do this, liberals do that”. That is about as intelligent an assessment as “libertarians are just republicans who smoke pot”. There is tremendous diversity of opinion among self described liberals and it is just stupid to ascribe all ideas from any of them to all of them. It’s as fucking stupid as Thomas Frank asking “what’s wrong with kansas?”.

            1. Insert conservative for liberal in your post and it wouldn’t change anything. Most conservatives aren’t out banning books either. It is almost always the case of some moron government employee or one with out a backbone who gives in to a busybody parent.

            2. Only sensible post I’ve read thus far. It’s peculiar that many of the people posting on a site called Reason are incapable of using logic or reason.

          3. I can see why libs would want to ban 1984… it’s their playbook, after all.

      2. “Earth, Hitler, 1938”

    1. Tolerant liberals have no problem with banning books that they deem to be intolerant. That’s what it means to be tolerant. To not tolerate intolerance.
      Anything that is not inclusive should also be burned. That is what inclusiveness means. To not include that which is not inclusive.
      See? It makes perfect sense.

          1. Great. None of those books is banned. And I see no evidence that it was specifically liberals who tried to ban them.

          2. The first one on the list is banned by a Baptist College! Plenty of liberals there, boy howdy. You should try actually reading your sources.

      1. In honesty, the only reason they favor book banning is because the only way for their argument to prevail is to stifle knowledge dissemination. Hence SOPA/all the same bullshit ones before it.

    2. They don’t ban books , they “other” them.

      For instance, anyone caught reading “The Skeptical Environmentalist” is automatically considered a earth-raping corporate shill.

  10. I love the fact that TEAM BLUE can’t give up this obsession, because 1) it exposes them for being utterly anti-free speech, and 2) it’s a battle they keep fighting and keep losing, badly. Keep it up, morons!

    It’s just like TEAM RED and pornography.

    1. It’s honestly quite a relief to see how many people will still defend free speech they don’t agree with though.

    2. I hope you are right. But I am not so sure they are losing it so badly. But pornography is a good analogy. So is guns. How many elections does the Brady campaign have to lose before they shut the fuck up?

      1. I think something like 86% of americans now support the right to own a firearm in the last poll I read about it. Of course, I think that poll was conducted by the NRA, so I don’t know how accurate it is.

        You’d think they’d have already shut the fuck up about it. I doubt they have any fundraising ability outside of DC.

    3. The GOP can keep making culture war remarks to their voters, but once they threaten or act to restrict speech, they’re being idiots. That ship has sailed. Like off the planet. The cat is out of the bag. The genie is loose. A rey muerto, rey puesto.

      They could win by eleventy billion votes, even with one of their bullshit candidates, if they’d just run on the economy and the government being out of control. But they, like the Democrats, are incapable of focusing on important issues.

      1. To be fair, it’s the primary right now. I think even the candidates left realize it’d be dumb to get bogged down in “TEH GAYS!” and “ABORSHUN!” during the general election.

        1. True enough. Still, there are enough crossovers and moderates to appeal to even in the primaries. And you can play the social conservative card without actually proposing government action. Heck, Paul does that.

          1. I agree with what you just said; but look at the polling cycles. They ‘steal’ the anti-Romney vote by being hard-core on specific issues that Romney’s flip-flopped on. Then, they fuck it up by saying something stupid about being hard-core on some completely unrelated issue. For Cain, it was the economy; bombed by “infidelity.” Perry; immigration. Newt; big government. Santorum; teh gays. I don’t really have one for Bachmann or Huntsman, but Huntsman’s strategy appears to be more liberal than Mittens.

            1. If I ever run, I’ll carve out a niche and camp there, answering everything from that perspective.

              Also, I think a lot of candidates are stupid about not admitting that they don’t know enough right now to make an off-the-cuff response. Yes, we tend to expect a bullshit answer that no one really means, but the reality is that presidents aren’t supposed to just wing it, present occupant aside. Presidents have staff, agencies, etc. to help them make and implement policy.

              1. Cain tried that tactic and it was actually resonating. It’s a shame the tactic didn’t make it to a caucus/primary vote to nudge others into being able to admit their own ignorance on certain subjects.

        2. Did someone mention the gay?


    4. TEAM BLUE hates porno, too, though. It’s degrading to those porr, fluffy-headed widdle womyns who couldn’t possibly know what they’re geting into.

  11. Most of the liberals I know take the tack of “Citizens United says that corporations are people.” (insert soilent green reference here) I, in fact, got a facebook request from a friend just a couple days ago to sign a petition that said corporations are not people.

    1. Fun thing to ask those who freak out about corporate personhood: “Okay, without corporate personhood, who do you sue when BP’s well blows up in the gulf? Can’t sue BP- BP isn’t a person with legal liabilties or a duty of care.”

      1. That’s pretty much how I respond to the corporate personhood thing. Mine is “I bet you like that they can get sued like a person or taxed like a person, don’t you?”

        1. Great point ecian. I think both the left and right have blind spots here. The left hates corporate personhood. Absolutely reviles it according to my facebook feed. Except of course when it comes time for those “nonpersons” to pay taxes. Then they love them some corporate personhood.

          1. I love seeing the mental contortions leftists can go to with the corporate personhood argument. They’re not persons! But we can talk about them as if they are persons, and they can still bear moral responsibility and financial liability. But they’re not persons!

            I’ve seen one overzealous guy say they’re not persons, and then call corporations “sociopaths” with “blood on their hands.”

        2. “I bet you like that they can get sued like a person or taxed like a person, don’t you?”

          Fur chissake. There is nothing inconsistent with thinking that corporations are different than individuals and have a different set of rights and responsibilities. A corporation is a corporation, a collective, a different class of entity than a person. Different rules apply.

          If you want to argue that this different class of entity should be EXACTLY equivalent to an individual, that is fine, but there is nothing logically inconsistent with treating clearly different things differently.

      2. The shareholders. The whole idea of corporate personhood is antilibetarian. It’s great for capital formation and markets, but it doesn’t follow from first principles, and I can’t for the life of me understand why libertarians defend it so vigorously.

        1. If the shareholders can be collectively sued, why can’t they collectively advertise?

    2. Um, yep. Corporations are people. Just like families are people, churches are people, political parties are people, unions are people, nations are people. Unless you say “persons”, you’re just straight up self-evidently wrong. And since limited legal personhood is the entire point of corporations, you might as well just ask to ban them altogether. It would be a more respectable stance, and wouldn’t give government a foothold from which to further assault freedom of speech.

  12. Money and power find each other.

    The liberals need to focus on the power side of the equation. Then again if they did they’d be libertarians. The good thing about the outside groups doing this is that the money doesn’t go directly to the candidate’s campaign. Money going directly to a candidate is much more likely to be seen as a soft bribe.

    1. Trouble is, they actually see political power and economic power as being equivalent.

    2. This. I’m puzzled by how they can see the giver of the “bribe” as evil but the recipient (i.e. the politician) as innocent. And if all lawmakers are such gumbies why should they be trusted with power?

      1. If the recipient of the bride is a demorat, they’re innocent. IF they’re a republicunt then they’re a shill for the CORPORASHUNZZZ!!!!

        “if all lawmakers are such gumbies why should they be trusted with power?”
        They’d have to stop and actually think for that to occur to them.

  13. But we must save Kansans from themselves!

  14. I have an older sister, who likes to work out at the gym everyday. On the other side, I usually go no more than twice a week. However, my parents insist on me doing tasks such as carrying heavy bags or furniture when we move. The worst thing is that my sister also sees it as something natural: men must do the hard job. I’m a 18 year old man, and she’s a 21 year old woman. Made me sad and confused. Why do genitals need to determine our roles?

    If your 18 year old son writes this, you have failed as a father and as a man.


      1. That’s the The Grand Galactic Inquisitor to you, buddy.

    2. Lazy fucks whines about being lazy.

      And yes, his father (if he was around) should hang his head in shame.

      What Would Ron Swanson Do?

      1. Way to microagress, RC Dean.

      2. What Would Ron Swanson Do?

        Nothing. He’s a fictitious caricature. Like the cast of H&R.

    3. Because all you do is sit in your room and play video games all day while your sister attends college, you lazy fuck.

      1. I AM TEH 99%

    4. No, no, he’s right–he needs to turn in his genitalia. He won’t need them.

      1. …sorry, but what sort of a man calls his junk: genitals?… probably a commie.

        1. Someone who will never have to worry about using them.

          1. Ok, what can we agree to call them? The twig and giggle berries? Frank and beans? The ole’ coin purse?

            1. Manliness Projection Unit.

            2. …presenting: fuck-hammer and the boys

    5. + 1,000,000 !!!111ELEVNTYBAJILLIONZ!!

  15. Well, liberals (and not a few “conservatives”, remember that McCain-Feingold is McCain-Feingold) favor campaign season censorship for a relatively simple reason, the prestige media, which in turn sets the agenda and narrative for the rest of the legacy media, is largely friendly to them and is not subject to this censorship. A “dialogue” is so much more enjoyable when it is a lecture.

    1. McCain is a compassionate conservative.

      The only difference between a compassionate conservative and a big government liberal is their stance on gays and abortion.

      Other than that they’re pretty much the same.

      1. radio meme. teh lub-rahls understand the establishment clause

        1. Evidently, a lot of them don’t.

          1. oh really? the lub-rahl “war on christianity” IS applying the establishment clause when using tax monies.

            1. Stop the microaggression of subsidizing poor people to go to schools that may now and then mention god, or environmentalism, or other religions.

        2. Now they just need to familiarize themselves with the rest of the first amendment.

  16. Team Romney makes the case for a quick primary

    What’s better, that Team Romney doesn’t consider Paul a contender or that they think Perry is?

  17. To its credit, the ACLU did not side with liberal censors. The provision in dispute is “facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment,” the ACLU said, “because it permits the suppression of core political speech.” And that is just how the high court ruled.

    And I can tell you right now that this only occurred after a long, protracted fist-fight brawl in the central offices of the ACLU.


    NEW YORK – June 19 — Nine former leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) today publicly released a joint statement declaring that the current ACLU leadership has misread the First Amendment as it applies to campaign finance laws and that significant campaign finance reform — including a soft money ban — is constitutional.

    The nine former leaders constitute every living person to have served as ACLU president, executive director, legal director or legislative director during the past 30 years, except for one person currently in government service, and therefore, not free to express a personal opinion.

    1. Usually, the ACLU’s political problems happen at the local or state level. The national ACLU seems a little more moderate and consistent. However, they are going to have these battles, particularly with the people who joined to grind a political axe.

      The right shouldn’t be so dismissive of the ACLU, because the organization clearly has room for right-libertarians. Who could influence things mightily through the intake process and at the policy-making level.

      1. I remember a local NPR call-in show where they had a rep from the ACLU on defending the ACLUs position on campaign finance reform. He was flooded with callers taking him to task for fighting such an obvious protection to all that was decent in democracy. The guy was almost apologetic to the callers, but he stood his ground. I bet parties were real fun for that guy to go to.

        1. The ACLU gets more respect across the board when they take the absolutist position. Even their opponents get where they’re coming from when they do that. But when they say, “Freedom of speech, except for corporations, for harassment laws, etc.”, they lose potential allies, as those smack very much of politics.

          1. ACLU took a lot of crap from members
            (“Cancel my membership.”) when the defended the right of nazis to march in Skokie.

            1. Which, of course, was one of their greatest moments. Battles over freedom of speech very frequently occur over speech most of us find personally objectionable.

              1. And I hate Illinois Nazis.

                1. But you thought they were funny in the movie, right?

  18. Perry says that RP would be ideal candidate for the Federal Reserve Chairman:


    1. Yeah, right. That’ll happen. In about never.

  19. No limits, full disclosure – the only standard we need. All politicians, by law of nature, are in someone’s pocket. It would be a lot easier if we just knew whose pocket every time.

    “Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

    1. Reminds me of the Lewis Black joke that the politicians should wear sponsor patches like at NASCAR.

    2. So unlimited speaking (spending) is constitutional, but anonymous speech (spending) shouldn’t be? I like the IDEA of full disclosure, but I have a problem with exposing people who may want their donations to remain anonymous.

      Which is a more effective form of support for a candidate: telling your friends about him, or taking out a TV ad? I believe donating to a campaign is more powerful of a statement than is voting for that candidate. If spending can’t be done in secret, why should we bother with a secret ballot?

  20. We don’t think for ourselves, so it’s not fair that other people should be allowed to!

    1. aint that the truth. i take my marching orders from jack kennedy’s ghost for example.

      1. spoofer

        i suck my marching orders directly from obamas dick

  21. The conflict between campaign finance reform and individual freedom arises from the individual’s voice being drowned out by that of groups. Is the solution to this conflict a redefinition of freedom of speech and of the press? Consider this:


    (Commentary in {..}, not part of proposed Amendment}

    No candidate for the Presidency or either house of Congress shall accept contributions in cash or in kind from any organization or group of persons for expenses incurred in a campaign for that office. All such contributions shall be made only by individual citizens who shall attest that the funds or other items of value are from their own resources and that they have not received, nor have they been promised, offsetting items of value from any other party in exchange for their contribution. The identity and extent of contributors to such campaigns shall be made public for a period of thirty days from receipt before being employed or used as collateral for a loan by such campaigns. Organizations of any type, {i.e. corporations, unions, gun rights advocates, environmental protection groups, even “Susie’s Flower Shop”, a theoretical small business cited in the Citizen’s United Case,} may, without restriction, expend money to advocate a position on any issue before or likely to come before the electorate insofar as no candidate’s name or description is included in their expressions of advocacy.

    {The intent of the above is to bring “transparency” to campaign financing by removing any group from the process whereby that group may conceal the identity of an individual contributor as well as limiting the influence of such groups or “special interests”. It further prevents an organization from making such contributions when an individual within that organization, such as a union member or corporation stockholder, may oppose the candidate. Considering the large equity position in certain corporations that the federal government has recently taken in response to the economic crises, this is particularly important in excluding such influence. The money from “special interest” groups will then go to promote that for which they exist, their “special interest”. The media will be directed to expositions on the issues facing the electorate, thus enhancing discussion and hopefully understanding of issues, bereft of personalities.}

    1. There is no way for an individual’s voice not to be drowned out… they can amplify their voice by joining a like-minded group…

      1. …pullet Pudgeboy

        1. …^^^This!

    2. It further prevents an organization from making such contributions when an individual within that organization, such as a union member or corporation stockholder, may oppose the candidate. Considering the large equity position in certain corporations that the federal government has recently taken in response to the economic crises, this is particularly important in excluding such influence.

      You write that as if campaign finance reform laws preventing corporations from airing political ads were preventing or “excluding” this influence…

      But of course we are all well aware of industries’ using billions in lobbying to directly write legislation such as the health care bill, in order to ensure their interests are protected.

      So not sure the point there… with regards to Citizen’s anyway…

  22. Goddamnit Reason commenters, you fuckers are always the reason I’m late getting back to work from lunch.

  23. Justice Anthony Kennedy on Citizens United, “When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

    1. An astonishingly good quote from an otherwise pretty terrible justice.

  24. AuH20 you bastard, now I am trolling the microagression site to find the stupidest/saddest post. This is a contender:

    I want to go grab a snack at the corner store, but last night when I went a man approached me and did the “why aren’t you smiling/smile for me” routine and now I’m afraid that the same thing (or something worse) will happen again, so I’m probably not going to go. I’m 22 and in Detroit. Made me feel helpless, like a prisoner in my own home.

    OK, what? So much for female empowerment. Sure the “smile, baby” routine is annoying, but if that’s the worst thing that a crazy bum has done to you on the street, count yourself lucky, lady. I invite you to experience the joy that is Seattle bums. And, if you’re really terrified to leave the house because someone might talk to you, you have bigger problems than street harassment.

    1. WTF? That site has to be a spoof.

      1. Damn you AuH20. I cant quit reading the stupid microaggressions site now. Gee gods are those people for real? I even looked at their facebook page…..loads more stupid whiny pussies there.
        Yeah, I know….pussies….I am a microaggressor.

    2. Seattle invented bums, right?

      1. Pro L I think we attract them. Young, prospective bums come here to learn the age-old craft of pissing themselves and muttering creepy, vaguely threatening things to women on the street.

        The thing that puzzled me was the Honolulu bums I saw when I went there a few months ago. They were a pretty high caliber on the Seattle Scale and I had to wonder: how did they get there? Are they homegrown or did they stowaway on a tanker or what?

        1. I believe the term “Skid Row” comes from Seattle’s Skid Row. Reflective of Seattle’s really weird history of boom, bust, boom, bust, boom, bust, boom.

      2. Seattle invented bums, right?

        I have always found Seattle bums to be an oddly upper class version of the bums I was used to back home. Polite, well equiped, fairly nice smelling (frequent outdoor showers???), not that scary. Albuquerque bums all have a very aggressive edge or are walking victims clearly abused by their peers for years. And, of course, the NM sun makes them all look 1000 years old after about two summers.

    3. I sense a H&R competition – go to that site, submit a fake story, link to it here, and everyone votes on which is the best.

      It would be funny to see how outrageous and stupid a story it would take for the mods at that site to finally catch on that they’re being spoofed.

      1. Was just gonna say….I gotta put my thinking cap on.

        1. Don’t put on your thinking cap. They’ll see right through you. The dumber the better.

          1. It sometimes takes great skill to sound like an idiot. Take me for example.

            1. Or Tony-boy.

            2. I’m not sure if you just othered me or not.

      2. I LOVE this idea.

        I love it so much I need to put it in Mike and the Mad Dog terms: “Dawg, Dawg, that YOUGELY GREAT call by you.”

        Okay, so here is the scoring:

        Each tag you get is worth 3 points (Age, gender, sexuality, race, trans*, class)
        Every comment you get is worth 2
        Every “like” you get is worth 1

        (I was going to go with 1, .5, and .1, but decided this was an easier system)

        Let the games begin.

        1. Per their submissions site:

          it may take up to a few months to be published

          That’s too bad. Sug’s example is right on point and would totally get past them, I think.

          1. I submitted my microaggression to a tumblr about microaggression and they ignored me for months. I feel micromicroagressed against.

            [starts micromicroaggression tumblr. reality disappears up its own ass.]

      3. My white friend and I went to a locally-owned, organic, fair trade coffeehouse. We both ordered a latte. When the order came up, the cup with my name had coffee in it that was a much darker color than the coffee given to my white friend. When I looked up at the barista she didn’t smile at me.

        1. When you submit, you get this screen:

          Thanks for the story and the courage to submit it.

          Please allow up to several months for the submission to appear on our site. (We receive hundreds every week, but only post a handful per day!)

          The courage to post anonymously on a website that solicits your story: The bravest, most couragy courage there is…


            1. Butthurtedness is at epidemic proportions.

            2. H & R commentators in about a day. Why do you ask? Anyway microaggression? No all my aggressions are large. Even my passive aggressions.

            3. There’s a lot whiny little pussies out there, or haven’t you noticed?

            4. Isn’t the better question, out of the hundreds, what constitutes the difference between an accepted post and a rejected one?

              Can we see a blooper reel?

          2. I made my more butthurt and paranoid before sumbitting:

            My non-person of color friend and I went to a locally-owned, organic, fair trade coffeehouse. We both ordered a latte. When the order came up, the cup with my name had coffee in it that was a much darker color than the coffee given to my non-person-of-color friend. When I looked up at the non-person-of-color barista, she smiled at me very hatefully. I threw the coffee away.

        2. I have one where I could probably get the gender, trans*, sexuality, age and class tags on it. I still can’t figure out how to work in race, sadly.

          1. You add the tags yourself, so they probably shouldn’t be a game criteria…

            1. Really? Damnit!

        3. This is fantastic.

        4. Tried to write “This is so awesome” – got flagged by the spam filter. Maybe why first the porno guy writes such long, weird intros to his spam.

          This is, like, a monkey peeing the word “monkey” in the snow awesome.

      4. Awww yeah – just thought of the perfect anecdote. I actually felt good about it at the time (still do), but I can totally flip it to make it look like I felt “othered”.

      5. My submission (based on a true story)

        Riding in a car with a group of about 4 friends, one friend decides to go around and give everyone a label, to make them part of a certain group. One friend is “the fashionista”, another is “the punk rocker”, another is “the artist”. Well, this friend cannot come up with a label for me!! It makes me feel so othered and apart to not be labeled as something!

        Context: gender, class, age, sexuality, politics, education

        How it made me feel: It made me feel like I didn’t fit in, that I was not part of some collective

        1. Nice

      6. Oh, children, you people will have to get up earlier to beat me. Here was mine:

        I have just recently come out as a gay trans man, and so I decided to speak with a counselor at my college. They didn’t understand why I was worried that the loans I have to take out to pay for my education will make my transition harder because it will leave me unable to afford trans surgery. Regarding the surgery, they even asked, “Aren’t you a little young to be mutilating your body? There’s nothing wrong with being butch or a lesbian.”

        I am not butch, female, lesbian, or too young. I am a 19 year old gay trans man in North Carolina.

        I thought the North Carolina was a nice touch.

        1. How it made me feel: othered, hurt, marginalized, silenced, angry, depressed.

    4. AuH20 you bastard

      I try, Dagny, I try.

    5. . I invite you to experience the joy that is Seattle bums.

      We don’t call them “bums” in Seattle, we refer to them as domicile-challenged.

  25. They aren’t against political advertising, they just don’t want people exposed to *other people’s* political advertising.

    These are people who honestly believe that the government should “educate” people using anti-obesity and other public health advertising.

    They are fine with using political propaganda to influence public opinion, just look at the artwork, public murals and so forth from the 1930s.

    The problem is that they want total control of the kind of propaganda the public is exposed to. They want the government (assuming they are in control of it) to cajole the population in to “good citizenry” (as defined by them) using exactly the same kind of political advertising.

    So yeah, they aren’t against political advertising, they just want to be the only ones allowed to use it.

    1. There are few creatures on the planet more despicable than a censor….it is no surprise to me that the liberals condone censorship.

    2. It’s not advertising, Hazel. It’s educating the public.

      Remember, reality has a liberal bias.

    3. Like this

      (I was really irritated by text walkers until the NYT put their stench on it. Now I intend to bring my phone to work and text my ass off on my commute)

  26. “Why Liberals Favor Campaign Season Censorship”

    Because their economic ideas are idiotic and ignorant and only look good to people who are either stupid or don’t know about any of the alternatives? That would be my first guess.

  27. Newspapers are corporations. This one observation should shut up all of the idiots who think that CU was a bad decision.

    1. I know libertarians have a hard time understanding anything more nuanced than a three syllable slogan, so let me try and make this simple for you: freedom of the press applies ONLY TO THE PRESS.

      1. I know liberalshave a hard time understanding anything more nuanced than a one syllable slogan, but let me try and make this simple for you: freedom of the press applies TO ANYONE WHO OWNS A PRINTING PRESS.

        1. tarran is right on that one.

          1. Or at least partly right. It really applies to anyone with the means to publish speech, which includes lots beyond the printing press.

            1. Or more precisely, it applies to everyone…and says they have a right to publish speech using technology.

              1. Neu, I agree with you. I wrote what I did in order to preserve the symmetry of the thing.

                I also do not agree with the first sentence. I wrote it to microagress Tony by othering him.

      2. No, Tony. INDIVIDUALS have a right to freedom of the press. Because only individuals are people.

        Corporations, being non people, have no righs. Therefore, the following can statement can not be made: “The New York Times endorses Barrack Obama”. The New York Times is not a person, and has no right to free speech that would allow it to endorse anyone.

        Punch Sulzberg, the owner, may endorse Obama, but they should print that, instead of continuing with this coporate personhood dishonesty that they like to rail against.

      3. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

        1. Right, but it doesn’t say WHICH PEOPLE, fucknut.

          1. It says “the people”, which one could conclude includes all people. Leave it to a leftist statist cumrag to split hairs on the 1st Amendment. Go censor someone else, then die.

            1. Better yet, die trying to censor someone else.

          2. spoof

            1. I liked it, though.

      4. So if I buy a printing press and keep it in my basement, I’m good?

      5. …abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…

        Really Tony. You must have a permanent bruise on your forehead.

      6. The press is a medium of communication, not a specially privileged group of people and corporations. It CAN’T mean only journalists or news organizations. That woudl require some government agent deciding who is and is not the press. If you can’t see what is wrong with that, shoot yourself now.

        1. The first amendment applies only to NYT and MSNBC. It’s not for proles.

      7. Epic, toxic-waste grade stupid right there.

      8. freedom of the press applies ONLY TO THE PRESS.

        Define “Press”.

      9. Ok, so freedom of speech applies only to… speech? All speech?

      10. You understand the “freedom of the press” is meaningless if the government can decide who qualifies as “press”?

        oh wait, maybe you don’t.

        1. It should be self-evident. The press means the NYT, the Washington Post, and all broadcast networks except Fox.

  28. If the great unspoken wish of campaign “reformers” is to allow party pros to control elections, and have “outside groups” sit on the sidelines, then their great unspoken fear is that campaign ads might actually persuade.

    Of course, if the “if-then” is just empty rhetoric, then…

  29. Who watches commercials? Outside of live sports, I haven’t seen one in years.

  30. Ok AuH2O I submitted this one….we will see if they fall for it.

    “I walk around with my feelings on my sleeve all day long. I mean, its like I am turned inside out. The slightest contact with another human being makes me break down in tears. Just this morning I looked out the window and the mailman was putting things in my box. My box! I started thinking about him putting things in my box and I felt so ashamed.”

    That is the dumbest shit I can come up with.

  31. “She doesn’t iron his clothes and she doesn’t even COOK for him.”
    Quote – Permalink
    Some of my family members, about a relative’s spouse, whom they called lazy and a bad wife for not taking care of household chores like ironing and cooking.

    Um…so what DOES make a bad wife, then?

    1. I can think of a few things, but she probably wouldn’t like them either.

      My wife doesn’t iron clothes or cook for me either, now that I think of it. But that’s mostly because I can cook better than everyone and who the fuck irons clothes anymore?

  32. “I’m raising my son so that he’ll be a good husband to his wife and a good father to his children.”
    Quote – Permalink
    Said by a woman in my social welfare class. It made me feel angry and annoyed that she assumes her son is going to grow up heterosexual and that he will want to get married and have children. It also made me feel like my asexuality had been ignored and erased.


    1. Yeah….I cant quit reading them either. I have tears in my eyes from laughing.

      1. “You don’t look disabled?”

        A high school classmate in diversity class said this to me in a discussion about disabilities. I have an emotional disability. It made me feel upset and shocked.

        I agree with this one. Looking to be offended by anything someone says is an emotional disability.

        1. “Diversity class”?

          Not a single one of my children will ever set foot in a public school.

          1. Assuming the little abominations have feet instead of hooves, of course.

            1. That was a risk you accepted when you married your sister, Warty.

              1. “That was a risk you accepted when you married your sister.”

                Said to me by a man on a website I frequent. It made me feel sad and tired that incest is still assumed to cause birth defects in this day and age.

                1. s/incest is/non-traditional family relationships are

                2. Absolutely perfect, crying from laughing, thanks

        2. “Diversity class”!!!!????

          What. The. Fuck. Tax dollars are being used for this shit? No wonder our public schools suck ass. It’s shit like this that make fear for our future. I graduated HS in 1996 and I never had to take a diversity class.

          But maybe that’s why I’m not a professional grade whiny pussy who goes around nursing grievances all day.

          1. *make me fear…

    2. Damit! Stupid work computer won’t let me look at the whining goodness!

  33. C’mon no one else has submitted a bullshit story to microaggressions? I am the only one? OMG I feel so alone

    1. You don’t feel alone. You feel othered

      1. Now you are scolding me in front of everyone. I am so othered….

        What a bunch of horseshit. Every single one of those people are personality disorders. If they want to know what it feels like to be ‘othered’ they should try having people shoot at them. Pussies.

        1. I don’t recommend trying that, ever.

        2. Maybe I should post a story about how I felt unimportant and worthless when the Iraqi militias stopped mortaring the FOB I was on and went to Fallujah. Talk about feeling “othered.”

          1. Well, you are signals. The infantry is much more important than you.

            1. Not quite signals, but combat support nonetheless.

    2. Read above – both SF and I submitted.

      1. And Goldwater

        1. I see now….I thought they were lifted from the site (what does that say?). I am not so othered now.

          1. It says we didn’t go far enough and need to try harder. I’ll have a coupole of cocktails tonight (I’m on a manhattan kick lately) and see if I can do better.

            1. I only know how to make wine spritzers!

  34. I have a winner for the most entertaining…..

    “Practicing already huh?

    My step-dad said this to me when I was 8-9 while I was eating a popsicle. At the time I had no idea what he meant, but now it makes me feel dirty.”

    Dr. Pepper shot out of my nose after reading that one.

    1. For those of you that don’t have kids, you should realize that sometimes being hilarious takes precedence over what some call “good parenting”..

  35. Wait, this “microaggression” is a real thing? I thought it was a joke.

    1. Ooohhh.. I’ll bet you feel othered now…

  36. I never understood the obsession with paperwork. Surely these people don’t believe that free speech doesn’t apply to groups of individuals acting together? then why care about whether it’s an LLC, a 501c, a C corp or a sole proprietorship?

    Paperwork is not the issue here but these fools can’t seem to get past it.

  37. Nikola has come to us fresh from her home in the Czech Republic. When we say fresh, that’s exactly what we mean.

    She is as refreshing as a light breeze at dawn. 18 year old Nikola has a fragile charm. She manages to be both mysterious and na?ve at the same time. This is a rare quality. Her photo assignments with us are the first major ones she has undertaken. Until now she has concentrated on her studies at a business academy. Very recently that she has come to see that her beauty is as much of an asset as her intelligence. Gradually she is becoming aware of how powerful her sexual aura is. She is looking forward to exploring it.

    Nikola is like a new-born colt. Awkward and stumbling at first, it quickly becomes a graceful and powerful creature that is full of passion. Nikola will be transformed. We can watch the amazing process unfold.


  38. the first amendment is a limitation on govt.

    people like tony, etc. see it as “giving” a right to (certain) people, but not of course to corporashunz

    the 1st amendment doesn’t “give” the right of free speech to ANYBODY

    the right exists, and thus the govt. is prohibited from restricting SPEECH… it does NOT MATTER from whence that speech comes – a corporation, a person, god on high, etc.


  39. As a “scary” Liberal I agree that if a person had half a brain and did their homework as a “citizen” the vast amount of money “Citizens United” dumped into the laps of the corporate media monopolies should be irrelevant! One thing I think the writer of this post got wrong; he seems to group liberals with “Democrats”? As I said I am a Liberal and me and “my people” do not buy into the “hope and change” of Obama, or either of the totally corrupt two ruling parties.

  40. First of all, to label this “a few campaign commercials” is an outright lie. These are thousands upon thousands of highly targetted misinformation attacks on a population that has neither the time, nor the inclination to study the matter much further than the pablum coming in through their magic movin’ picture boxes.

    Second, to claim that propaganda doesn’t work exactly as those who are paid untold millions to produce and disseminate it think it does flies not only in the face of logic but in the face of provable fact. Simply put, advertising and propaganda work…the more exposure, the better they work.

    Third of all, to claim that Freedom of Speech is furthered by allowing those with access and wealth to drown out the voices of those who have neither is to say that Screaming in a Theater is a freedom of speech issue.

    Fourth, to claim that advertising and propaganda don’t work contradicts the beliefs of those who most think it does…the people paying for it. Corporations and wealthy private individuals KNOW that the more they spend, the more the government will trend away from objective assessments of the well-being of the republic in preference for repaying those who purchased them their seats.

    The result isn’t just “unfortunate” it is disastourous.

  41. Just remember – if a progressive candidate runs and wins on a platform of raising income taxes and redistributing it through social programs, that’s not buying votes/elections! It’s just people getting money from the government! Don’t you know anything!?

    But if a corporation donates money to a non-affiliated PAC allowed to run ads 30 days before an election, that definitely IS buying elections!

  42. Online shopping facility that RightShopping.in provides is really a welcome boost for the shoppers. Not just because all the leading brands are under the single roof, but also because the shopping facility in the form of discounts, price leverage, brand specifications and so on. Really it’s a shopping carnival that http://www.rightshopping.in has resulted.

  43. Stopped taking seriously after “Liberals…”.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.