Free Speech

Students Demand Censorship of George Will, Won't Listen to Someone They Don't Like

|

MSU
Mr. Granger / Wikimedia Commons

Another day, another group of insolent students demanding that their university censor a prominent speaker and deprive the rest of campus of the opportunity to learn from him.

George Will is slated to give Michigan State University's fall semester commencement address on December 13th and receive an honorary degree from the university. But because one of the thousands of columns he has written in his life was deemed controversial by those on the far-left side of the campus sexual assault issue, some students want him disinvited from campus.

Will strikes me as conservative with some good libertarian instincts; as such, I don't agree with everything he says. I will note, however, that he has recently made very smart contributions to the cause of criminal justice reform. In a column lamenting the brutality that caused Eric Garner's death and the miscarriage of justice evident in the grand jury's decision not to indict, Will wrote, "Overcriminalization has become a national plague." He explicitly described solitary confinement as "torture."

(Perhaps he should have just written #BlackLivesMatter and stopped at that—the only parlance deemed acceptable by campus crusaders.)

Of course, whether one agrees with an invited speaker entirely, partly, or not at all is beside the point. In fact, a strong case can be made that it is even more important to hear from notable people whose views differ from one's own—especially on campuses, where opportunities to hear opinions critical of liberalism are in short supply.

Some students, however, took a different view, according to Bloomberg:

About 30 protestors gathered in the administration building and delivered a petition calling for Will's invitation to be rescinded, said Jason Cody, a spokesman for the university in East Lansing.

MSU President Lou Anna Simon said in astatement yesterday that Will was picked because he would offer a different viewpoint from another speaker, documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, and that Will was chosen long before his controversialcolumn was published on June 6. Will wrote then that colleges are learning "that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate."

"We refuse to be silent," said Emily Kollaritsch, 21, one of about six or seven of the protestors who went into Simon's office. "We're going to have our voices heard."

More than 70,000 people signed the petition, started by the women's rights advocacy group UltraViolet, which has called Will a "rape apologist."

MSU President Lou Anna Simon, at least, has refused to disinvite Will, noting that "Great universities are committed to serving the public good by creating space for discourse and exchange of ideas, though that exchange may be uncomfortable and will sometimes challenge values and beliefs." This sets her apart from some other university presidents who caved under pressure to disinvite controversial speakers.

Indeed, "disinvitation season," as Foundation for Individual Rights in Education President Greg Lukianoff calls it, shows no sign of winding down. The problem of universities cancelling speakers on behalf of censorship-inclined students may even be worsening.

If a liberal arts education has any purpose, it is to teach students the importance of Enlightenment values like free speech, tolerance, and rational debate. When students demand that authorities silence dissenting views, they unintentionally demonstrate that they don't deserve the diplomas they are about to receive.

Related: As I argued yesterday, college has become bumper bowling and degrees are participant ribbons.

NEXT: NFL personal conduct policy as bad as I feared

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. Robby is stepping his game up lately….is Reason running some sort of competition for part of that sweet Webathon cash?!

    1. more like, “maintain your one-quality-story a day quota or we will take away your bathroom privileges”

  2. “We’re going to have our voices heard.”

    Of course, they don’t want to be heard, they want to be catered to.

    1. They want their voices heard, so they can silence someone else’s voice.

    2. Maybe we should stop referring to them as students and label them what they are; the mob.

      1. Well, a mob, anyway.

    3. I We mean, I’m we’re not gonna be ignored, Dan Lou Ann!?

      1. Hide yo’ rabbit, hide yo’ kids.

    4. Now that I’ve heard your voice, go away.

  3. You know who else didn’t tolerate free speech?

    1. 1-900 lines?

    2. Helen Keller?

    3. Derek Slubowski?

    4. The word sellers of Dictionopolis?

    5. Campus Speaker’s Bureau?

    6. AT&T?

    7. “Didn’t?” How about still don’t? The British, Aussies, and Canadians — and a bunch of other countries.

    8. Stalin?

    9. Johnny Fuckerfaster?

    10. James Madison?

  4. And the funny thing is…

    Will has been proven correct, women DO make up stories about being raped to recieve either tangible or social benefit on campus

    1. That makes him even worse!

    2. Forget your object truth, this is all about Revolutionary Truth, you male privileged cis shitlord!

      1. “objective”

        1. There’s objective truth, and there’s abject truth. Abject truths are technically correct but inconvenient, and therefore politically incorrect.

  5. Will is intolerant. Thus it is the duty of the tolerant left to not tolerate him.

    1. There are only two things I can’t stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people’s cultures, and the Dutch.

          1. The Dutch ain’t much.

  6. If a liberal arts education has any purpose, it is to teach students the importance of Enlightenment values like free speech, tolerance, and rational debate.

    How old-fashioned of you. Get with the times, ya Luddite.

    The modern purpose of a liberal arts education is to get a diploma without doing much work because a diploma from America’s shitty high schools doesn’t cut it in the job market anymore.

  7. “We refuse to be silent,” said Emily Kollaritsch, 21, one of about six or seven of the protestors who went into Simon’s office. “We’re going to have our voices heard.”

    And now you’ve been heard, so GTFO and don’t let the door hit you on the ass.

    1. … don’t let the door hit you on the ass.

      Sexual assault!

      1. Is this any better?

        … don’t let the door hit you on the ass moneymaker.

  8. Don’t tell people not to speak, teach students not to listen.

    #stopcommencementculture

    1. If only we could figure out how to not listen to you.

      1. #sugarfreeslifedoesntmatter

        1. #freesugarfreeslife

          1. I don’t even want to think about the doom cock smatter.

                1. Sorry to say, i actually checked this out. i am beginning to understand why everyone here makes fun of Warty.

  9. Does anyone who didn’t worked for a Democratic congressional or presidential campaign, served as a Democratic functionary, or promulgated lefty ideals in academia or entertainment actually give speeches on campuses anymore?

  10. Again, commencement is about the students, so get a prestigious speaker who can speak to the students’ lives and properly inspire them. If for any reason the students are offended by a proposed speaker, get another. In fact, the students should *elect* the speaker.

    Bring controversial speakers on by the bucketful, simply to hear other viewpoints, but don’t mix up that issue with commencement.

    1. That is a nice thought, but is what Will actually wrote terribly controversial to anyone who is not a loon on this issue?

      1. Even if they’re loons, they shouldn’t have their looniness rubbed in their face at graduation.

        But see below – liberal arts education should require showing your ability to summarize, and rationally rebut, someone you disagree with.

        You know, like the Scholastics did (ducks).

        1. I am thinking that there is not anyone that will not piss off some faction of loons by merely drawing oxygen.

        2. I’m sorry, I find this still to be problematic. I agree with your sentiment, but the fact of the matter is that there is hardly a person on earth that doesn’t stand at odds with some belief held by some minority of students graduating from an institution. Additionally, it is rare that I hear of a controversial leftist being the target of a disinvitation. This tends to lend credence to the concept that liberal arts institutions are more intolerant of ideas outside of what aids and comforts their beliefs. If all we give them is pablum, what do they learn from it – even in commencement?

    2. I say get rid of commencement speakers altogether. Commencements are too long.

      1. Get rid of commencement altogether. College isn’t that hard, get over yourselves and get a job. And stop being offended when you ask me to come to your little cousin’s/nephew’s/sister’s graduation and I say “I didn’t even go to my own graduation, why would I want to go to someone else’s?”

        1. I went to mine…

          …still drunk from the night before

        2. Especially when it’s a 4th grade graduation or something. What the fuck is that?

          1. They disinvited Pat Buchanan from that one.

    3. You seem to be laboring under the presumption that some majority of the graduating class objected to the speaker, rather than some loud attention seeking, primed for offense minority.

  11. Will is the least objectionable conservative I can think of. If Will isn’t acceptable then no conservative would ever be acceptable, unless we’re still counting David Brooks as one.

    These little f’ers might as well stuff their fingers in their ears and yell.

    1. These little f’ers might as well stuff their fingers in their ears and yell.

      I would wager that some will actually do so.

    2. unless we’re still counting David Brooks as [a conservative]

      The NewsHour stands alone.

      1. Oh, there’s the NY Times too.

    3. no conservative would ever be acceptable

      Bingo.

      Now, leave them alone while the slavishly devote their lives to leaders who will make a difference, by doing the exact same thing as their enemies.

    4. Well, Romney is basically Hitler. So I guess George Will is basically Pinochet.

      But you are right. If you can’t even bear the thought of somebody else listening to George Will for 20 minutes, you are either a complete bigot, or an ignoramus. But probably both.

  12. This is not news, it is rote. Write a post when they allow a controversial speaker/artists/idea on campus.

  13. How about this: Assign every student to hear a speaker (s)he totally hates, make him/her write a paper giving a fair, non-straw-manned summary of the speech, then a rational rebuttal.

    If they find themselves unable to do this simply assignment, flunk them.

    1. Do they lost marks for every logical fallacy or unsourced claim in their rebuttals? If so most people aren’t graduating.

    2. In all seriousness, that would be a much better entrance essay than “What does success mean to you?”

      1. Unless the answer to the “success” question is “it means my Dad is your largest donor.”

    3. Better yet, let’s shitcan the noble ideal of giving university students a liberal arts education, since it quickly becomes so infected by political sentimentality, and provide cheap, bare-bones trade educations to technically savvy but philosophically ineducable students.

      1. Everyone should take (preferably in high school) a rhetoric course.

        No matter what line of work you go into, knowing how to evaluate what people are saying, checking for fallacies, etc., is a useful skill for a voter and a juror.

        1. Which is why such people never get to be jurors and rarely vote.

        2. In fact (HM can correct me), people used to learn rhetoric so they could represent themselves in court.

          1. Logic,grammar and rhetoric were part of the old trivium at the base of any education.

            1. Also Latin. And Greek.

            2. It is difficult, if not impossible, to be logical without having pretty good grammar.

              1. Me disagree.

                Logic be orthogonal.

                Simple predicates only required.

                1. Agree, Un-grammer Rhetoric do suck though.

      2. Iowahawk recently:

        College: an oasis of totalitarianism in a desert of freedom.

    4. Flunk me? Flunk him.

  14. Well, hats off to President Lou Anna Simon. At least one college president in the news this week deserves their post.

  15. “We refuse to be silent,” said Emily Kollaritsch, 21, one of about six or seven of the protestors who went into Simon’s office. “We’re going to have our voices heard.”

    That’s the best these losers can do? Pathetic.

    1. The fact that what they’re pissed about with Will has turned out to be Will being correct has sort of taken a lot of the wind from their sails.

      Poor schmucks. They overreached as they always do and now, to their great horror, they…actually have to suffer the consequences of their actions.

      Too bad, so sad.

      1. Will’s crime wasn’t being right, it was having the temerity to say it out loud even if he was proven right. Especially since he was proven right. Who knows how many assaults Will has personally precipitated by being so visibly right about it?

        1. I would submit that his “crime” to these self-appointed bastions of justice was not being right or having the temerity to say it, but rather, to be of the wrong political persuasion/sex and still having the temerity to say it.

          1. Ask Karen Straughan whether being a woman (and bisexual, at that) has won her the effort of intellectually honest engagement from her ideological opponents.

    2. I have naked pictures of Emily. She’s grinning and licking a lollypop.

      1. She did not give you the right to think of her sexually when viewing the naked selfie she took and posted. This is photo rape.

        1. It was meant artistically.

      2. Does Emily have four legs or two?

  16. This sort of activism isn’t about avoiding hearing a controversial point of view. The activist is likely, having done at least enough research to come up with something objectionable, to know more about the invitee than most of the student body. Which makes these self-styled arbiters of taste and ideas an altogether darker breed of censor, the sort who wants to prohibit others from hearing a controversial point of view.

    1. I wouldn’t give them so much credit – they *know* that their opponents are in favor of rape, killing the poor, chaining women to hot stoves, lynching blacks, etc.

      1. It’s all dog whistles, anyway.

        Hey, has anyone thought to use “wolf whistle” to describe secret rape apologists?

        1. Only you it seems.

  17. We refuse to be silent.

    You, on the other hand…you shut up.

  18. Drop Will and get Coulter.

    1. The screeching would knock the Moon out of orbit.

    2. I like the way you think.

  19. Perhaps he should have just written #BlackLivesMatter and stopped at that

    That is such a depressing commentary on the state of discourse in higher education.

  20. I wonder if any of the commenters here today mocking (rightly) the MSU students who don’t want to hear this guy they disagree with are some of the ones I’ve seen talk about how they’ve ‘filtered’ the posters here they don’t like and told people like Tony or PB to stop posting (and in some cases invited them to kill themselves)?

    1. Did someone say something?

      1. I’m happy to let you speak, doesn’t mean I have to listen – but as a masochist, I often do just that.

        The student protesters don’t want *anyone* to hear the speakers they object to.

        1. “The student protesters don’t want *anyone* to hear the speakers they object to.”

          That may not be the same thing as “I don’t want this one to speak at my commencement” as you seem to note above.

          1. Their rationale is broader than “invite him to a debate, but keep him off the commencement platform.”

            The behavior of SJWs at numerous universities show they don’t draw the distinctions you and I do.

            1. I certainly don’t want to give those people too much credit (just about any would be too much). I’m just noting that when we mock them for sticking their fingers in their ears there’s some mote and beam dynamics going on with at least some here.

              1. “when we mock them for sticking their fingers in their ears”

                Not to mention sticking their fingers in other peoples’ ears.

                1. Really, so what was up with this comment of yours: “How about this: Assign every student to hear a speaker (s)he totally hates”

                  I would have thought that was getting not just at the value ‘don’t prevent others from hearing speech you disagree with’ and was tapping into the value ‘hear out those you personally disagree with too’

                  1. Poor Bo – the only principled person on this board, all he wants is to have a calm discussion about everyone else’s lack of principles. And what does he get in return? Mockery and scorn!

                    1. Poor Eddie, he wants to fit in soooo hard.

                    2. The reason people find you hard to put up with is that you are highly creative in how you rephrase other people’s ideas.

                      I suggested that students find someone they strongly disagree with and write a rebuttal including a fair summary of the other guy’s position.

                      You take that to mean that commenters on H&R should read every trollish comment anyone posts ever.

                      And by the time I’ve explained the difference between my actual position and the straw-man gotcha position you’ve build in your head, you shift to something else.

                    3. I shoudl have said *one* reason people find you so hard to put up with.

                    4. “The reason people find you hard to put up with is that you are highly creative in how you rephrase other people’s ideas.”

                      Wow. Did you notice how you did exactly what you say is your problem with me?

                      “You take that to mean that commenters on H&R should read every trollish comment anyone posts ever.”

                      I think instead I was talking about filtering or inviting people to die, wasn’t I?

                    5. Let the Lord judge between thee and me!

                      You accused me of inconsistency in these terms:

                      “I would have thought that was getting not just at the value ‘don’t prevent others from hearing speech you disagree with’ and was tapping into the value ‘hear out those you personally disagree with too'”

                      I honestly did my best to make out this incoherent accusation – of course, since your accusations have a high quotient of nonsense I can’t say I have a 100% success rate translating them into normal English.

                    6. I’ll simplify: what was the point of your suggestion? I would have thought it was something like ‘it’s morally and intellectually good to hear out and engage people you disagree with.’ Did you instead mean to say only something about preventing other people from hearing speech one disagrees with?

                    7. I wonder if Bo goes to one of his law school professors and says “hey, I go on a libertarian website and always take a contrary position no matter how absurd it might be. Can I get some extra credit for that?”

                    8. OK, here is the point of my suggestion:

                      https://reason.com/blog/2014/12…..nt_4960474

                      Of course, you read that and you see “never block Tony on H&R!” So anything I say different from that is inconsistent.

                      And if you could, you would defend that interpretation to the death, in season and out of season, showing me what I *really* meant.

                      And if I say, “no, I’m perfectly OK with blocking Tony,” that’s further proof of my perfidy.

            2. Canadian students getting into the censorship action:

              http://www.ncln.ca/blog/mcmast…..n-speaker/

          2. “The student protesters don’t want *anyone* to hear the speakers they object to.”

            That may not be the same thing as “I don’t want this one to speak at my commencement” as you seem to note above.

            Yes, and that’s more of http://www.plusaf.com/falklaws.htm#28th
            .. 28g, in particular.

            …. A bunch (7?) students purporting to speak for ALL of the students who might attend the graduation speaker’s part of the ceremony, saying that NONE of the graduates SHOULD be allowed to hear what George Will MIGHT say there?

            The more I hear about that alleged ‘school of higher education,’ the less respect I have for its students and faculty!

            And they can come and protest MY opinions any time they want, but stay the fuck off my property.

    2. There is a difference between trolling and arguing in good faith.

      1. You don’t think the people who dislike Will thought he was essentially trolling and arguing bad faith?

        1. If they did, then that only serves to prove that they haven’t actually read his work.

          1. Now if it were Ann Coulter, you might have a point.

          2. Come on, I agree with Will and I think he was ‘trolling.’ He knew that what he wrote would get up the gander of these gooses.

            1. You can get their hackles up by simply disagreeing with them. That does not constitute trolling.

              1. I think he was actually trying to get their hackles up. Read the very sympathetic to Will defenses of his column by David Bernstein at VC, he notes how very oddly the passage was written, almost as if to invite SJW’s to misread it and go crazy.

                1. If that is intended to get them excited, then it doesn’t take much. His most sensational sentence is a reference to Hamlet.

            2. *get up the gander of these gooses.*

              Holy mixed metaphors, Batman…what the blank is this supposed to even mean?

              1. Fair enough, that was a worse animal mix up than if the Ark had overturned.

    3. There’s nothing wrong with a heckler’s veto. To my knowledge it’s only American’s numerous alts that get censored, which is the more comparable corollary to having a university disinvite a speaker. Even then, I’m not sure how much of that is intercession by reason and how much, if any, is commenters reporting him.

      1. After looking up the term, which I ought to have before posting, I suppose I just meant heckling and not so much the veto part.

    4. You’re an idiot for many reasons.

      1. Filtering someone makes it so you can’t see them. It does not make it so people who want to read their comments can’t. On the other hand, stopping someone from speaking on campus makes it so that NO ONE can hear them speak. Do you see the difference between personally avoiding someone who annoys you and making it so that no one is allowed to listen to that person?

      Stopping someone from speaking on campus would be like saying Tony should be banned from the site, not like filtering him.

      2. When you filter someone, you can still see people’s comments by clicking on them. As a result, I filtered PB so that I don’t have to be irritated by his nonsensical rambling, but I still go look at what he’s saying once in a while.

      1. Correct me if I’m wrong, but a lot of the post and the op’s rhetoric has to do with listening to people you disagree with and the value of that, apart from whether you’re stopping anyone else from doing that?

        1. Um, yeah. Blocking Tony and PB because they are stupid and have nothing of value to add is the same as ignoring someone because you disagree with what they have to say.

          Only Bo would make that stupid of an equivocation.

          1. You don’t think the people who want Will out think he’s ‘stupid and have nothing of value to add?’ Or is it just that, as usual, you’re right and everyone else who disagrees with you is wrong?

            1. Um, no.

              I would imagine that they understand that a Washington Post columnist is not stupid and says things of value, or else he wouldn’t have a job as a columnist.

              I figure they want Will out because they consider him to be intolerant and offensive for saying things that stir up their fragile emotions.

              That’s the third false equivocation in a row there, Bo.

              Three strikes. I’m done pointing them out.

              1. “I would imagine that they understand that a Washington Post columnist is not stupid and says things of value, or else he wouldn’t have a job as a columnist.”

                Hahahahaha!

            2. Or is it just that, as usual, you’re right and everyone else who disagrees with you is wrong?

              Except the majority of people commenting here don’t seem to think sarcasmic is wrong. One of you is, however.

        2. Bo, I don’t filter you, I just scroll down when I see your handle — you rarely have anything interesting to say.

        3. In Universities it is important to be able to listen to other points of view and learn to debate those points of view. I don’t have to listen to every other point of view throughout my life simply because it exists.

          1. Why is it important in Universities?

            1. It’s not. Universities should be politically and socially agnostic.

            2. What universities? This is Michigan State fer chrissakes. An aggie college. Now, had this occurred in Ann Arbor it would have taken Coulter or Cheney.

        4. OK – you are corrected. You’re wrong. Per you request, I am correcting you. You’re such an obsequious, pedantic asshole, I felt compelled to honor your request to correct you if you were wrong – you were completely wrong, and are now corrected.
          You are wrong in conflating my choice to not reply to you with denying everyone else the opportunity. If you can’t see the difference, no amount of debate will inform you.
          Please – read to inform, not to quibble.

    5. Yeah. Because choosing to ‘filter’ someone is the same as demanding the administrator block them.

      Only Bo would make that stupid of an equivocation.

      1. Of course they’re not the same, but one thing both share, is this: ‘I don’t want to hear this guy.’

        1. And that’s all they share, nitwit.

        2. There’s more to it than “I don’t want to hear from him,” as I posted above. It’s wanting to prevent giving others the option to hear form him. It’s the difference between prudes forbidding smut in their homes and intellectual puritans wanting to prohibit dissenting voices in the public square.

        3. And that’s not relevant to the actual problem of the matter, which is that it’s an attempt to suppress other people from listening as well. You’re well within your rights to ignore the statements of other people, it’s a fundamentally different thing to block that speech entirely.

          It’s the difference between ignoring the stupidity of a Westboro Baptist Church protest and actively trying to have them suppressed for their views. Yes, you ‘don’t want to hear this guy’, but shockingly the manner in which you don’t listen matters.

          1. “ou’re well within your rights to ignore the statements of other people, it’s a fundamentally different thing to block that speech entirely.”

            Of course you’re withing your rights. It’s also within the rights of students to ask the college they are doing business with to have a different speaker at an event that’s for them after all, no different than telling the bar down the road I wish they’d book another band.

            What’s supposed to be wrong according to some comments here is the violation of an ideal, not a right, the ideal of hearing out speech you disagree with.

            1. They’re entirely allowed to complain, but it will go further than that. Note the seventy thousand member petition. How many of those people are actual students who will be at the commencement ceremony? Or are they people who are deliberately sticking their noses into the matters of others? How many of the actual students have complained about the speaker?

              It’s like having this comments section moderated dictatorially by Jezebel employees.

              1. I’m not defending the students actions, in fact my condemnation of them is a critical premise in my argument.

        4. No one objects to someone saying “I don’t want to hear this guy.”

          I have only listened to the Bieber once for about 20 seconds. (He is Canadian, and beavers are ubiquitous up here. Were his ancestors simply poor spellers?)

          That is my choice. I’m not trying to get others to not listen to him.

          1. In fairness to the point Bo’s making, you don’t reject Bieber from a position of political disagreement but because he’s a teen-pop idol with obnoxiously twee songs.

            So I’ve heard.

            1. I think his antics have really hurt him. I had two nieces, about 7-8, who used to adore him. Now they say ‘Justin Bieber does bad things, I’d like to punch a picture of him!’

        5. Yeah, and I also don’t want to hear the loon screaming about how the Zoltarians are in a conspiracy with the Freemasons to reanimate Elvis’s corpse and leverage him to take over the world when I’m out for my lunch break. I have to say, though, your level of discourse is pretty quickly approaching his.

    6. Also, for a third reason your argument is pure dipshittery, a comment board is not a university. Universities exist to give voice to competing ideas so that their students can learn and become better versed in ideas they otherwise would not have been exposed to.

      A comment board has no such mandate, so even if Tony and PB were banned, it is not the same thing as if a college censored their speech.

      1. So, tolerance on this comment board, not so important, eh?

        1. I’ll repeat what I said since you apparently have a difficult time reading:

          “Also, for a third reason your argument is pure dipshittery, a comment board is not a university. Universities exist to give voice to competing ideas so that their students can learn and become better versed in ideas they otherwise would not have been exposed to.

          A comment board has no such mandate, so even if Tony and PB were banned, it is not the same thing as if a college censored their speech.”

          Blocking someone who annoys you on a comment board is not equivalent to banning someone from speaking on a University campus. Can you really not see the distinction?

          1. I don’t think tolerance of those you disagree with is a value only on college campuses. I bet if you asked the owners of this board if they’d like this place to be one of tolerant exchange and polite disagreement they’d say yes, that’s what it’s for. If you want to argue the spirit of that is in keeping with filtering out people you disagree with, or, as you’ve ignored, inviting such people to kill themselves, by all means, I’d like to hear that.

            1. Have you been to a Farrakhan rally?

              1. How about a Klan or Westboro Baptist Church function?

              2. I’ve actually heard Farrakhan speak, I think it was on Cspan. He’s a good rhetorician.

          2. And Bo continues to make the case for blocking him…

            1. Awesomely meta.

          3. You assume Bo is arguing in good faith. He’s not, he’s just being condescending (“tolerance on this comment board, not so important, eh?”) and attempting to validate his perceived sense of moral superiority over his ‘tolerance’. Gilmore’s ‘moral narcissism’ in action.

            1. Sheesh. Get out your bubble now and then.

              1. Yes, continue the condescension while blatantly assuming things about me. That’s not validating my point at all.

                1. That’s not validating my point at all.

                  *has a sargasm*

                2. Wow, the projection. You’re psychologically diagnosing me and now you’re upset because I’m ‘assuming things about me!’

                  Try this.

                  Find someone outside of this message board. Tell them you have a group of co-workers or something and they were mocking this school for not wanting to hear this guy they disagree with talk. Then tell them this group (at least some of them) routinely talk about how they like to filter out speech they don’t like and how they sometimes invite those speakers to kill themselves. Get back to us and see what the person says. I’m going to bet being outside this bubble and not caring one whit about being part of this ‘online community of interests’ they might, just might tell you something very similar to what I originally did.

                  1. Or you could ask someone outside this message board if they think blocking someone from speaking to everyone is equivalent to blocking a person’s comments for yourself while still allowing everyone else to read them.

                    I think most people would say “That’s a stupid equivocation. Really stupid. Like, my mind is going numb. You really need to start ignoring that Bo guy. He’s a fucking idiot.”

                    1. I’ll repeat: if you think the only problem with these students is they are ‘blocking Will from speaking to everyone’ then say it. Let’s not have all this stuff about how these people are putting their fingers in their ears or don’t realize the value of engaging with speech they disagree with.

                    2. I’ll repeat: the only argument I’ve made here is that your habit of putting forth false equivocations makes you look like an idiot.
                      I never said I have a problem with the students.
                      I only said that your equivocations are stupid, and I’m starting to suspect that the reason is that you are stupid.
                      FIN

                    3. And once again, the condescension continues. I especially enjoy how you slowly explain social behaviour like I’m some kind of infant. You really can’t write without attempting to get some grandiose sense of superiority, can you? Especially when all you can muster is an argumentum ad populum. And if I asked people ‘is blocking annoying commentator as an individual the same as attempting to prevent a person from speaking entirely’ the response would be no.

                      I’m not projecting anything Bo, I’m basing that assessment off of your behaviour patterns on these threads. And you’re just validating it with your constant smugness.

                      I’ll repeat: if you think the only problem with these students is they are ‘blocking Will from speaking to everyone’ then say it. Let’s not have all this stuff about how these people are putting their fingers in their ears or don’t realize the value of engaging with speech they disagree with.

                      Yes Bo, we get it. You want your sense of moral superiority validated by having people say what you want them to.

                    4. Yeah, no condenscion fom you!

                      And do you not get that an argument ad populum actually has some use when the argument is about…how other people will see something? See, when you accuse someone of bad faith it’s relevant if most other people would give you the same argument, unless you’d like to believe that everyone but your small cadre of H&R buddies are just arguing in bad faith when they disagree with you.

                    5. Except the argument wasn’t about how people see something, it was about the similarities of commentators blocking and students protesting Will’s commencement speech. You brought it up as a point of evidence for you viewpoint, not as a point about how people perceive something. And then you double down on the appeal by claiming that bad faith arguments are determined by grand consensus. Quality argument there.

                      See, when I’m talking about behavioural patterns, I’m referring to stuff like this. You just go through a process of condescension, goalpost moving, moral preening, repeat ad nauseam. You literally state the opinion you want to hear so you can pat yourself on the back for your better viewpoint.

                      You are blocked because you fail to provide anything constructive and constantly fail to argue in good faith. Blatantly bitter comments like ‘everyone but your small cadre of H&R buddies are just arguing in bad faith’ reveal a lot more about your neurosis than you’re willing to admit.

                    6. “Except the argument wasn’t about how people see something, it was about the similarities of commentators blocking and students protesting Will’s commencement speech.”

                      That’s the overarching argument, and then you made some psychological mumbo-jumbo argument about how my arguing those similarities showed my psycho pathology. THAT was when I suggested that a lot of people would draw the same argument, especially if they didn’t feel connected to or part of what’s being criticized. That’s what the populum was about, not to prove my overarching point.

                    7. And if you actually read what I said above, my position on your neurosis isn’t based on that singular opinion, or even other opinions you’ve expressed, but on your behaviour and the way you express yourself. Whether other people would agree with you is irrelevant to my ‘psychological mumbo jumbo’.

                      Like I said, you’re blocked because of the way you present yourself and behave, not because of your opinions. As much as you wish it was for the latter, a lot of the people here are incredibly willing to argue with people who hold vastly different views than them. Hell, I’m pretty sure this site is helping keep Salon afloat. And it’s not like they aren’t constantly exposed to alternative viewpoints in their actual physical environments. Where people on this site’s patience runs out, however, is for those who repeatably argue in bad faith (Tony) and continue to provide nothing constructive (Buttplug). Or people who engage in neurotic behaviour.

                    8. *I should qualify that Buttplug can say something relevant once and awhile, but it’s often buried under the mounds of screaming nonsense he uses to pollute threads. It’s more a ‘garbage quantity’ over quality scenario.

                    9. Like I said, you’re blocked because of the way you present yourself and behave, not because of your opinions.

                      But his mommy says he’s so likeable!

        2. HO! HA HA! GUARD! TURN! PARRY! DODGE! SPIN! HA! THRUST!

          1. +1 Daffy Duck.

        3. Tolerance for what? Differing opinions? Authority-worshipping utilitarians? Proven liars? Bullshitters? Pedantic twats?

          1. You know, everyone (or let’s say a lot of those) who disagrees with anyone tends to eventually apply all those labels to them. I’m guessing you’ve been on the internet alone enough to know that.

            1. Not everyone. I give you more credence than Tony. I give Tony more credence than shriek. I give shriek more credence than Mary.

              That said, you can be an annoying pedant. Tony is an admitted collectivist authoritarian who doesn’t mind if individuals get harmed in the implementation of his utopia.

              Shriek is a raving shithead with occasional bouts of sanity.

              Mary is just plain nuts.

              1. It doesn’t worry you one bit, or do you note, that I bother you, but less than Tony, and he less than PB, and that probably also tracks your level of disagreement with all three?

                1. I’ve made the attempt to have rational arguments with Tony, shriek, and, God help me, Mary. Shriek is a bullshit artist that loves non-sequiturs and running in circles around the topic. That said, I probably agree with him more than Tony, but find him more annoying. I just plain disagree with Tony and his social contract theory.

                  There’s nothing with Mary to agree or disagree on.

                  So the level of disagreement does not necessarily track how much they bother me.

                  1. “I just plain disagree with Tony and his social contract theory.”

                    It’s pretty scary. There’s not a lot of room between The General Will and Triumph of the Will.

                2. That said, I don’t block anyone. After a while, I just choose to ignore what they have to say.

                3. Your hypothesis has some merit (we all prefer to read the opinions of those we agree with), but your off-base with your implication.

                  If you were to really break it down you’d find that the board agrees with Shriek on many more and important issues than they do with Tony and yet we tend to hold the latter in (slightly) higher esteem. And the old timers would likely hold the departed MNG in higher esteem still but disagreed with him far more than they would you or PB.

                  Plus, Tulpa is one of the most hated frequenters of the board, to the point where he is basically a bogeyman, despite his views being largely indistinguishable from the typical poster’s on most issues.

                  1. Thank you, Tulpa.

                    1. I’M HE’S ONLY PROVIDING A PERSPECTIVE THAT ISN’T NORMALLY SEEN! I’M HE’S PROVIDING A SERVICE TO YOU RETARDS! WHY CAN’T YOU RECOGNIZE MY HIS GENIUS!?!?!?!!?

                      /Tulpa sock

                4. Actually, if you’re talking political disagreements, shriek is probably closer to a lot of the commenters’ views than Tony. He’s just less inclined to argue in good faith. Mary’s views aren’t entirely clear. She’s just a stalker.

                  So, no, Bo. You probably got that one wrong.

    7. No one is organizing a petition to get Tony and PB black-listed from Reason. And, inviting PB to kill himself seems to me to be an act of kindness. Can you imagine having to live with that mind for another 50 years?

    8. Censorship is the new free speech.

  21. Bo Logic: If a crazy man is screaming on the street and you duck into a storefront because he annoys you, that’s morally and intellectually equivalent to stopping a Washington Post columnist from giving a talk on a college campus that you are not required to go to.

    1. Ah, but my logic master friend, I never said they were ‘morally and intellectually’ equivalent, just that they do share some similarities.

      1. If you’re not arguing that the two things are equivalent, then how can you call people hypocrites over it?

      2. A rotting corpse shares some similarities with a beautiful butterfly.

        Noting such similarities adds nothing to a discussion about either.

        1. If the conversation is about, say, things made of matter it is.

          Look, if you think it’s not valuable for people in general to hear out people they disagree with, that the only thing that’s wrong is trying to block someone from speaking to another, say that.

          1. You can’t be serious.

            1. I’m serious. If it’s a virtue to hear out views you disagree with, of course within reason (pun intended?), then isn’t it a virtue to do that generally, and not ‘in universties’ or other select places?

              1. The thing you’re overlooking is that many people here that filter those two have listened to them for years. Hell, most of them argued in good faith with them until realizing what abject retards and moral vacuum’s they are. It’s a little silly to pretend that they haven’t heard out their views in a fair manner.

                1. OK, but why not just not respond or scroll down? Even seeing the words themselves upsets them?

                  I’ve disagreed with Tony a lot on this board. I think some of his views are dangerous. But I have no illusions that he’s not making arguments that are commonly held out in the world, and he’s not the worst at making those arguments even. I’ve always been polite to him and he’s been polite back, though we disagree fundamentally. I think much of the vitriol directed at him is that he’s a leftist and this board leans heavily to the right side of libertarianism. He argues in ‘bad faith’ or ‘dishonsetly’ no more or less than a lot of others here who catch a lot less flak, but whom most people just happen to agree with politically.

                  1. OK, but why not just not respond or scroll down? Even seeing the words themselves upsets them?

                    Some of us don’t need to see the words to figure out what they are writing. They literally make the same arguments over and over again and have done so for the last several years.

          2. “Look, if you think it’s not valuable for people in general to hear out people they disagree with, that the only thing that’s wrong is trying to block someone from speaking to another, say that.”

            But I don’t think that because I do think it’s valuable to hear people you disagree with.

            I’m just saying that blocking some people who annoy you on a message board in no way means that you never expose yourself to contradicting ideas. Your inability to see this shows that you’re not 1/1000 as intelligent as you think you are.

            1. It’s not that I don’t see your point, but you can’t see how it seems at least to not be in the spirit of that value to brag about how you joyfully ignore this or that speaker?

      3. So your point is that there are irrelevant similarities? Yes, profoundly constructive insight there.

    2. Bo Logic

      One of those is not like the other.

  22. Often, there’s the argument that a “private” institution can disallow speakers and visitors as it is their prerogative. That the 1st Amendment only covers speech, etc., regulated by government and law.

    However, Ann Althouse discussed this recently (get a link later here – I promise!), saying there’s a fine line in censorship. Yes, institutions have a right to restrict. BUT when there’s a culture of censorship surrounding any and all events, it’s worrisome. One doesn’t need government to instill censorship after a certain point if intimidation and threat are all that’s needed to silence a speaker, writer, business, etc.

    It’s not just government restrictions on speech that the 1st Amendment protects – it’s also the willful restriction of all speech ubiquitously by institutions per culture of a very, very small mob of social media-ites with the loudest voices. That kind of culture welcomes government induced censorship or mob silencing. When people are afraid to voice analyses or opinions, there is a culture of censorship.

    However, are we surprised that “lefties” like free speech only for themselves instead of anyone else?

    1. Title IX requires (at least in the current administration) private school that accept federally subsidized loans to do away with due process for certain accustions of sex crimes.

      Suggest it should also require the absolute recognition of free speech, and people will treat you as though you have two heads. Then suggest it would also require absolute recognition of the second amendment.

  23. MSU President Lou Anna Simon, at least, has refused to disinvite Will, noting that “Great universities are committed to serving the public good by creating space for discourse and exchange of ideas

    Retraction and apology coming in 5, 4, 3…

  24. Will’s column today – The Plague of Overcriminalization – could have been written by a Reason columnist with a lot of help from a Thesaurus.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..eorge-will

    I’m waiting for some of you guys to get uninvited to universities.

    1. They’d have to get invited first…

    2. Kevin Williamson and Conrad Black sounded some awfully libertarian notes as well. Hopefully something good has gotten in the water at NR and that it’s transmissible to conservatives at large.

      1. I suspect Black v. United States helped nudge Conrad away from the statist side of things.

  25. It’s not just government restrictions on speech that the 1st Amendment protects – it’s also the willful restriction of all speech ubiquitously by institutions per culture of a very, very small mob of social media-ites with the loudest voices.

    Uh-huh.

    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

    Where’s the bit about mobs of social media-ites or whatever you’re going on about?

  26. The more you people argue with Bo, the closer his micropenis gets to full turgidity. JUST. SAY. NO.

    1. Sigh. Don’t bother, Warty. They must get something out of it too or they wouldn’t do it. Symbiotic relationship and all that.

    2. Don’t you see? If we don’t argue with Bo, not arguing with him shares similarities to when the Nazis wouldn’t listen to the Jews because they were too busy putting them in ovens.

      I’m not saying the two things are completely equal, just that they share certain similarities.

      1. Shut up and perv on Riven like the rest of us.

        1. Perving on Riven shares certain similarities to the roving bands of rape-maurauders during the 30 Years War, and as such I reject your attempt to make me morally culpable for the brutal rapes and murders of German peasant women by the mercenaries of King Gustav II.

          Okay, I’m done.

          1. Wait, you know who Riven is? Pics god dammit.

            1. Alright, let’s scale this back a bit, guy.

              This is why there are no female libertarians. And also why Virginia Postrel hates us.

        2. I almost positive this riven person is a man. Seems to me all the evidence points to the fact that the commentariat is being catfished by a 400 lb black floridian.

      2. Goodwin.

        Plus 1

    3. Again, awesomely meta.

      1. If that’s awesomely meta, does that mean you’re terribly beta?

        1. The beta males in the pack are the ones that act the most aggressively, because they’re the most desperate to gain status. So…yes.

          What I don’t get is how these people fail to realize that he never argues in good faith, that he’s just arguing for the sake of argument. Unless they somehow think that’s fun. I dunno. It seems less fun than normal people’s pornography.

          1. Because no one could possibly notice people who brag about filtering speakers they don’t like mocking a bunch of students who want to disinvite a speaker and think, wait, what? unless they are arguing in bad faith.

            Seriously Warty, you don’t live in that thick of a bubble do you?

            1. Except your argument, so far, is to draw a loose similitude between the two and then gesticulate while suggesting, without actually saying, that we’re being hypocrites.

              (I don’t block anyone, but I have heaped scorn on some.)

              1. My argument is just this: hearing out and engaging people one disagrees with is a good and important thing. If it’s a good thing, it’s good in multiple areas of life. Filtering people here strikes me as at least contrary to the spirit of that, though of course it’s not the same as asking someone be banned.

                That’s it. I think that’s an argument a lot of people outside the regulars here would make if they faced the same thing. It might be wrong, but it’s not in ‘bad faith.’ ‘Bad faith’ becomes something people invoke when they’re arguing with someone who disagrees with them on fundamental principles (so that only someone arguing in bad faith could make such an argument!) or they think misrepresent their argument (which is really often just a sign the person disagrees with you on the foundations of your argument).

                1. I wouldn’t disagree with you if, for example, reason gave column space to guests from New Republic. Instead, the principle targets blacklisted here are predictably repetitive to the point of seeming trollish, such as PBP’s consistent tu quoque responses or Tony’s lefty bullet-point delivery. The comparison you’re making is too inexact to be meaningful. Blocking regular dissidents here is more akin to tuning out the student socialist club.

            2. Seriously Warty, you don’t live in that thick of a bubble do you?

              Don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

          2. It’s almost as if MNG went to law school.

            1. cringe

            2. MNG had a PhD, and probably made more money than you, so shut up because adults were trying to have a serious conversation here.

              1. nice, now do joe

                1. @WTF

        2. your so charlie.

        3. Also how bout them dodgers? They made some moves.

          1. Something something Hollywood trade deal, I’m more concerned about my Browns winning it all.

            1. Johnny’s bringing that patented tongue-punch-a-strippers-asshole moxie to the Cleveland backfield. Any man who’s that unconcerned about shigella infection will be decisive in his reads.

              1. Just… wow. I’d pay money to see you dropping some of that on Around The Horn.

              2. Go Broadway Johnny.

            2. How does someone like the Browns and the Dodgers? That’s like someone liking the Patriots and the Braves.

              1. It’s a meta thing, you’d never understand.

            3. good luck according to the Marvin Lewis he’s a midget. I can neither confirm or deny this accusation with how crafty they can be with cgi/tom cruise.

              1. Could somebody explain why calling him a “midget” is somehow demeaning to somebody?

                1. #midgetlivesmatter

                2. “There are literally dozens of us!!!!!”

                3. “There are literally dozens of us!!!!!”

                4. “There are literally dozens of us!!!!!”

                  1. Well that makkes 36 if my maths skills are as supline as I think they are.

    4. I made the mistake of reading that thread. I hang my head in shame that I wasted my time reading it.

  27. It makes no sense that Will, a so-called “rape apologist”, shouldn’t be allowed to pick up an honorary degree, but Bill Clinton who is a sexual assaulter, perjuror and accused rapist has, so far, picked up at least fifteen honorary degrees since he left office.

    1. It makes perfect sense. One of them is a Republican.

    2. Teddy Kennedy actually murdered a woman and I’m pretty sure he got a few honorary degrees.

  28. “If a liberal arts education has any purpose, it is to teach students the importance of Enlightenment values like free speech, tolerance, and rational debate

    wait.

    he’s not kidding?

    1. Whoa whoa whoa. I thought those things were only contingent on feelings?

      Oh no…

  29. But what would Thos Jefferson say?

    And who would listen, because Teh SLAVEZ!

    1. By supporting T. Jeff, you are supporting his ownership of slaves and, in fact, you probably have slaves milling about your plantation right now, living in constant fear of the crack of your whip (which is made from intertwined monocles). Nothing else matters, only slaves.

      1. “A Whip of Intertwined Monocles”

        Hmmm… A SugarFree work of literature?

        1. Warty Hugeman and the Whip of Intertwined Monocles

  30. It’s also within the rights of students to ask the college they are doing business with to have a different speaker at an event that’s for them after all, no different than telling the bar down the road I wish they’d book another band.

    I believe you are confusing a University with a Tutor. Or a Turtle; it’s difficult to be sure.

    1. Universities have ivy growing on the bricks, which is green, and turtles have green on their shells.

      See? They’re exactly the same!

      /Bo

    2. A Tutor Turtle Took a Tudor To Task?

  31. They must get something out of it too or they wouldn’t do it.

    Haven’t you ever taunted a small yapping dog in the hope of inducing in it some sort of potentially lethal apoplectic seizure?

    1. You’ve seen my parent’s dog?????

  32. Intellectual movements among students is like renting out a cafeteria so everybody has a seat at the table, then hosting a tea service with only your closest friends invited.

    1. I am the worst editor ever.

      *hangs self with literature ligature*

  33. I had Hillary Clinton as my commencement speaker. If I had known it was possible to get her disinvited by raising a big enough stink, I would have devoted my whole last semester to it.

    1. I was supposed to have Bill as mine, but then I delayed graduation by 6 months and ended up with Jane Curtin. No great loss.

    2. I feel a little bad = i imagined half the student body setting themselves on fire in protest.

      1. It was NYU, so half would be a generous estimate.

  34. Will wrote then that colleges are learning “that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate.”

    Students then res-onded by claiming to be victims of Will’s microaggressive othering, and the ensuing downward spiral of the “debate” caused them all to be sucked into a black hole.

    The End.

  35. syntax “proper” making is oppressive product man of white! ended i see it want!

  36. my neighbor’s mother makes $67 /hr on the internet . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay was $16448 just working on the internet for a few hours. see here……

    http://www.Jobs-spot.com

  37. I’d like to know who invited that boring windbag in the first place. Good luck staying awake MSU trustees. I wouldn’t object to Will because he is an odious right-wing Nixon and Reagan apologist, who excused nixon’s carpet bombing of Hanoi and the CIA’s criminal misadventures in Central America. I’d object to having my commencement day ruined by some boring conservative drone on about family values and how you just have to work a little harder to get ahead in America. Yeah right, George, work hard and know the right people.

    Robby, while I was an engineering undergrad I had to listen– in stony silence– to a bunch of oil company hr directors talk about how great Exxon and Mobil were for the environment at our department’s job fair. This wasn’t an academic exercise as our livelihoods were to be determined by whoever hired us. You think indoctrination on campus is strictly from the Left? Try telling that to engineering and science majors who have to listen to old dinosaurs in the mining and oil and gas industries talk about how global climate change is a fraud. Greenpeace didn’t get an invite to my engineering department. How about yours?

    1. american socialist|12.11.14 @ 4:33PM|#
      …”he is an odious right-wing Nixon and Reagan apologist, who excused nixon’s carpet bombing of Hanoi and the CIA’s criminal misadventures in Central America”

      This from a steaming pile of shit who licks mass-murderer ass.

      1. You mean like the Contras right? No, that’s one group I never cared for.

        Notice I’m not saying Will should be disinvited– just that I understand the frustration of students who will have to spend part of their commencement day listening to that gasbag talk about the good ol’ days spent writing apologia for the likes of haldeman and ehrlichman. Fuck that. This must be one of those market failures.

        1. You much preferred Johnson’s little police action and Kennedy’s little pig roast and subsequent dick-measuring contest which brought us closer to WWIII than anyone before or since. Good job.

          1. Nope. Mosdef not a fan of Kennedy. I always admired Wayne morse (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JiLV-Xeh8bA) and, of course, Martin Luther king (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b_8A6DStk7Q)

    2. What the fuck are you talking about? The only indoctrination I got was from the Left and that includes my current management with such stunning quotes as “We’re just not gonna trash the planet!” said as he drinks bottled water…

  38. I can’t believe we’re living in an age where actual, grassroots people are the ones punishing thought crimes.

  39. Red flag toting students ran Peter Thiel off stage at Berkeley just yesterday. Truly an open forum for the exchange of ideas.

    http://www.businessinsider.com…..ey-2014-12

  40. I guess this can’t really be called a restriction on free speech. It is, however, a frightening circumstance for a college campus that they cannot stand the idea of competing ideas.

    Look for a BWell Safezone during his speech

  41. They’d rather have Michael Moor? They have to be kidding, right? These ultra leftists always get the angriest over the truth, especially when it assaults their perceived victim-hood.

  42. It’s unfortunate that lefty students who expect the right to speak out do not choose to extend that right to those with whom the disagree. This is nothing new. In the 1960’s radical students frequently shouted down opponents.

  43. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobs700.com

  44. There’s another question you might ask, Robby: How will these crybabies behave once they’re sprung from MSU’s protective womb? Once out in what we call the real world, they’re bound to encounter one boss — and likely many — who holds political opinions they won’t like. Will they cry or stamp their feet? Get red-faced and hold a demonstration at work? Perhaps even Occupy his office?

    Or might they emulate their more fanatical leftist comrades, and do something violent — even fatal? It’s not as though we haven’t seen such things.

    Could today’s college leftists become tomorrow’s terrorists?

  45. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobs700.com

  46. Why universities….or anyone for that matter puts up with this nonsense from students is beyond me. Sure these kids have a right to protest but it’s gotten silly at this point. The ones claiming to be the most tolerant are almost always the least tolerant.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.