Freedom of Speech

Lefties Are Too Good and Right to Talk to You and Me

Which is an opportunity for us to create alternative institutions so we don't bother their delicate feelings

|

CNE CNA C6F / Foter / CC BY-ND

Former Clinton staffer and current Fox News token liberal Kirsten Powers has a book out today, The Silencing, that blasts her co-ideologists for their increasing intolerance toward dissenting ideas and their attempts to muzzle those who disagree with them. She points to the Maoist state of too many college campuses, including trigger warnings, "safe spaces," and drama over speakers and student groups that deviate an inch from the accepted wisdom of the flock—the sort of totalitarian crazy that Reason covers in depth.

Powers also covers the Obama administration's weird (and ongoing?) denial that Fox News is a "real" news outfit. That attempt to shut out the popular news network was very obviously a reaction to its critical rather than fawning coverage of the current White House occupant.

Frankly, Powers has plenty of fodder for her contention that much of the political Left has gone from arguing with its opponents to screaming "shut up!" and clamping delicate hands over easily offended ears. But, as mentioned, she has a slot at Fox News. She's also a born-again Christian. That will probably make it easier for her nominal political allies to wave off her warnings of crimes against free thought and free speech. Whatever Powers' bona fides among progressives, though, the evidence of a real problem on the Left speaks for itself.

In the latest example, just days before the pub date for Powers' book, Rebecca Roache, a Lecturer in Philosophy at Royal Holloway, University of London, reacted to the unexpected Conservative win in the U.K. election with a…tantrum. She announced online that she was "unfriending" all of her Conservative Facebook friends.

Why?

Because their preferred policy prescriptions are supposedly, on their face "as objectionable as expressing racist, sexist, or homophobic views."

OK…So yet one more lefty academic is emotionally ravaged by disappointment at electoral outcomes. Big whoop. Except that this post wasn't on a personal blog, it was on the University of Oxford's Practical Ethics blog. You know—a place to discuss ideas and stuff. That's wonderfully ironic (as pointed out in the interesting comments) and also wildly problematic in terms of her relations with colleagues and, especially students (also pointed out in the comments). This window into the hermetically sealed thinking inside academia has turned the incident into a minor event.

Interestingly, the "not really a news station" for which Powers now works developed as an alternative when conservatives thought they were being shut out of established news media. (And libertarians—a sympathetic interviewer told me in the mid-'90s that I'd been denied a job at a now-defunct outfit when the top boss discovered my political views). Its success is directly related to attempts, perceived and real, to marginalize dissenting views.

Now it's just funny when White House officials whine that the opposition press publishes "not real news" in a fit of pique over unfriendly coverage. Enough people wanted more diverse viewpoints in their news coverage, that they exist now, in spades. Politicians don't have the power to prevent critical coverage, so they just whine and stomp their feet.

Academia looks like it's on the same track. The soaring college tuition bills that students and families foot are expensive subsidies for teachers who refuse to engage with whole areas of human thought and villainize those who disagree with them. Add in an environment of hothouse-indulgence of hypersensitivity that produces debt-burdened graduates who aren't all that attractive to many employers, and there's a real opening here for…not something else, but all sorts of different models of learning without having to conform to groupthink.

I think Kirsten Powers and the critics of Rebecca Roache are correct—many lefties have retreated into a totalitarian denial that anybody can legitimately disagree with them. In the short term, this is an annoyance for those shunned or penalized by a chorus of "right-thinking" types who consider unfriending half the world to be better than actual debate. But in the long term, it's a spur to develop parallel and competing alternatives to institutions that are paralyzed by enveloping clouds of smug.

Your reaction to the world is to clamp your hands over your ears and chant, "I can't hear you"? Seriously? OK. The conversation goes on without you.

Update: Ron Bailey notes research revealing that liberals, libertarians, and conservatives really do think very differently.

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.

410 responses to “Lefties Are Too Good and Right to Talk to You and Me

  1. I wonder if we are finally reaching the point at which progressives shrink into their own isolated enclaves and leave the rest of us the fuck alone. Not because they are any less interested in messing with everyone, but because they simply don’t have the wherewithal to expose themselves to viewpoints they disagree with.

    A man can dream…

    1. ^^this

      *wishes upon a star*

    2. Nah, forcing other people to live how they want them to live is too integral to their identity. The ones willing to live in communes or putter along in the feathered nest of academia are already doing it.

      1. Agreed Nutrasweet..

      2. And while LynchPin is the wind beneath my wings, you are the lead weight tied to my feet. 🙁

        😉

        I agree with you, though. :-/

        Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

        1. Hmm, a perl programmer. Retro. Python’s all the rage these days among the youngsters.

          1. – “Python’s all the rage these days among the youngsters.”

            Get off my lawn!!! *shakes fist*

        1. *opera jazz hands*

          1. *Places palms together and bows toward Fist*

            1. Tell me that wouldn’t make a great parody story. But who would the gulch be named after?

              1. Could we just call it “Hypersensitive Hollow”?

                1. “Hypersensitive Hollow”

                  THIS!

                2. – “Could we just call it “Hypersensitive Hollow”?”

                  /thread

      1. Beatnik finger snapping….

        1. Your hipster beret is triggering me.

          1. downtwinkles

    3. I think it’s more plausible now than I would have expected even a year ago; the proliferation of trigger warnings, safe spaces, free speech zones, rape culture, yes means no, gamergate, and all the other progressive temper tantrums — this can’t go on. It’s like the dystopia sci-fi where half the population is so zoned out on drugs that they can’t function, or the real world equivalent where politicians scream about expanding drug use — as if a society could exist where so many people were completely disfunctional.

      Their world can’t survive. Just as it is easy to joke about socialism eventually collapsig when they run out of other people’s money, so will progressive thought soon fence itself into such a small circle that they will cease to be visible to general society. So something has to give, and just as socialism eventually stops expanding ane even contracts a little, so must progressivism eventually wake up and smell the dirt the roses are planted in.

      1. …and just as socialism eventually stops expanding ane even contracts a little, so must progressivism eventually wake up and smell the dirt the roses are planted in.

        Nope. They’ll get violent first. Really, violence is much more logical a consequence of their ideology than withdrawal. Trigger warnings, safe spaces, free speech zones, rape culture, yes means no, gamergate, etc. aren’t about protecting their bubble as making everyone else shut up. If no one is allowed to speak differently, their consensus becomes universal – that’s actually part and parcel of their worldview of how their “oppression works”.

        1. One of the Scandinavion socialist paradises contracted considerably; Sweden, I think, but I wouldn’t swear to it.

          Britain contracted its welfare state some.

          The US workfare contracted some.

          Even Gorbachev’s USSR contracted some.

          Now how about you provide some examples. Venezuela is the clearest example I can think of, but much of its violence can be attributed to an ordinary strongman struggle.

          1. Now how about you provide some examples.

            Students for Democratic Society – The Weathermen
            student activists – Red Army Faction

            1. Those don’t seem like terribly convincing examples of what you are talking about, though. Those are small fringe groups that never got much broad support even among the hard left and never amounted to anything. And there is plenty of similar violence from the right and the just plain wacko.

              Today’s left just seems like a bunch of giant pussies to me. The revolutionary fervor that can spur groups like Weatherman just doesn’t seem like it’s there. Especially in the US. If they do get into more violence, I expect vandalism and rotten fruit, not bombs and long knives.

              1. Twitter bombs

                yes, you’re right about the “Giant Pussies” issue

                however, this just means they like to inflict violence whenever they feel there is no individual risk associated with it. So they engage in mob tactics whenever possible.

                1. I don’t believe you can do violence over the internet.

                  1. “Zeb|2015/05/11 14:47:31|#5291634

                    ~new~

                    I don’t believe you can do violence over the internet.

                    Well, *they* certainly do. (see: Gamergate “‘harassment”)

                    I think when they mob up and demand someone be destroyed, and they pull it off (as in the case of the Mozilla CEO)… i think it encourages them, and i think they will continue to test ways to make their influence felt… via the internet, or through whatever institutions where they have the most control (like universities)

                  2. They don’t need to do violence, the police will do it for them. “To protect the women.” Or whatever. The instigators can be as big of pussies as they want. If they can influence the law (and they can), then they don’t have to do any stongarming at all themselves. And these days, the institutions through which they can coerce people are soft and amenable to them, not like in the ‘old days’ when they would meet with serious reactionary resistance.

              2. You all are confusing ‘liberals’ and ‘the Left’. The Left are not numerous enough to do any serious violence. They will stay on their communes, etc. for now. ‘Liberals’ are numerous enough, but their leadership are now almost entirely corporate-warmonger types, so they keep getting gypped. The many restrictive policies in universities derive from the fact that they are now essentially large businesses, where certain kinds of decorum are required to maintain order. Liberals will quarrel among themselves about the degree of repression appropriate, but the structure demands it, and will get it.

                I don’t know about giant pussies, though. At the moment I think they’re just depressed. At some point someone is going to start raising hell about their issues, and you might get some of that violence after all.

              3. But the creation of the Weathermen did coincide with a precipitous decline in SDS’s influence. It’s likely that it was SDS’s crackup that created the Weathermen rather than vice versa, but there might’ve been some positive feedback too.

                OTOH, the NCLC went thru a violent phase that seemed to increase their influence.

        2. “They’ll get violent first.”

          That is what they have always done in the past, so yeah.

      2. So… I’m not going to buy into every claim of every aspect of “rape culture” as a completely pervasive and inexorable thing, but… last week’s “Date Night” with my wife was us going to see “Sixteen Candles” at some local indy theater.

        And a major plot line of that movie is the Protagonist Crush Object shipping his completely blackout drunk girlfriend off with the Comedic Relief and saying basically “Do whatever you like, she won’t remember anyway”.

        I mean, it’s basically the opposite of those “Don’t be that guy” billboards in movie form, starring popular actors. So… I think I can pretty easily understand how some fairly reasonable people might see that as having a deleterious effect on teen’s perceptions of how to behave.

        1. Is PCO cast as a giant douchebag after this interaction?

          1. Hell no. Plot winds up with Protagonist Girl winning Protagonist Crush Object’s affections, after his (now ex) girlfriend decides she likes Comedic Relief better.

    4. “reaching the point at which progressives shrink into their own isolated enclaves…”

      What the author of the article doesn’t tell you is that enrollment in US colleges has never been higher. They’ve also attracted more females and more ethnic minorities.

      1. What the author of the article doesn’t tell you is that enrollment in US colleges has never been higher.

        Academia Macht Frei.

      2. ” They’ve also attracted more females and more ethnic minorities.”
        Considering that females are already a significant majority, shouldn’t you regard this as a bad thing? Shouldn’t we want more males going to college? Especially since it’s uneducated males, not females, who tend to end up in prison or prematurely dead more often?

        Or am I throwing an inconvenient wrench into the established ‘categories of analysis?’

        And indeed it is a concern that ever more people are getting useless degrees at taxpayer expense or through unaffordable debt, and it will be bad for all of us. We need more doctors, not more sophists.

        1. “And indeed it is a concern…”

          For you sure. I can see that. It’s not a concern of mine, I promise you.

    5. You are the wind beneath my wings.

    6. dream the fuck on. the only time a progressive is ready to leave others the fuck alone is when they are dead. do gooders are never done doing good on to others

    7. There is already such a Utopia, it’s called North Korea.

    8. +1 *performing chicken, goat, elephant sacrifice for this to happen

  2. Kirsten Powers is an utter hack. However, she’s correct about this, of course. Blind squirrels, nuts….Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles can see this one, though, so…..

    Whatever.

    1. Be ready to have your mind blown.

      1. I KNEW IT!

      2. Sir, Stevie Wonder cannot see.
        He is actually Daredevil.

    2. I find Kirsten Powers incredibly hot.

      1. Crazy vs. Hot matrix candidate…

        1. She’s certainly no unicorn.

          1. You make it sound like black astronauts are easy to find.

            1. Well, it kinda makes sense, I mean if you hire a black astronaut you might lose him because he blends in so well with space.

      2. Yeah, I’ve fantasized about a Kirsten Powers and Dana Perino sandwich once or twice. Good times.

        1. Swap out Dana Perino with Meghan Kelly and you have the avatar of one of the blander periods of my masturbatory roll-a-dex. Thank God my son getting invited to other toddler parties has refreshed it beyond my wildest….well….

          1. Meaning the MILFs, not the fucking toddlers dipshit(s)

            1. Not the fucking toddlers, dipshit(s); rather

            2. “fucking toddlers”

              You monster.

              1. Yeah, but getting to hang with Woody Allen and Roman Polanski at parties is cool.

    3. ‘Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles can see this one’

      And Heller Keller.

  3. That attempt to shut out the popular news network was very obviously a reaction to its critical rather than fawning coverage of the current White House occupant.

    But this kind of thing worked so well in Chicago!

    As far as the rape-denialist (or whatever-ist) Powers is concerned, it doesn’t help that she’s a looker.

  4. Okay, you can’t tease us, who failed yo hire you?

    1. The New Century Network, which was a spectacularly failed venture into new media by old media.

      1. Just as well, that’s a terribly Stalinesque name.

  5. Powers is confusing as she has written such a book to criticize the left on certain issues.

    I am just astounded to her reaction to other views presented on FOX that “the left wing view is correct”.

    Maybe she is paid to present that view 😀

    1. You can think the left-wing view is correct while still believing you shouldn’t shut conservatives out of the debate entirely. I think left-wing views are incorrect but wouldn’t argue they should be stifled.

      1. You can think the left-wing view is correct while still believing you shouldn’t shut conservatives out of the debate entirely.

        It’s the difference between liberalism and progressivism.

  6. “She announced online that she was “unfriending” all of her Conservative Facebook friends.”

    what would be more surprising, given the current state of most progressives, was that she had any in the first place.

    1. Yeah, this is exactly what i thought too when i read that

      and quite frankly, libs are 1000x more annoying on facebook than conservatives are

      1. They thrive on their own moral superiority. They’re fucking terrible.

  7. Anyone unfriended by Rebecca Roache should be thankful to have a bitter hater out of their lives.

    1. Addition by subtraction++

  8. the Obama administration’s weird (and ongoing?) denial that Fox News is a “real” news outfit.

    Well DUH!? They *make money*. And everyone knows that REAL news organizations, like The New York Times, or Salon.com, should be losing at least a dumptruck of money a day.

  9. You have the “right” to say things they don’t want to hear. Why isn’t that enough?
    STFU.

    1. Not for long.

    2. Why did you put “right” in scare quotes?

    3. You have the right to say it, but the Constitution doesn’t give you the right to broadcast it.

      /derp

      1. You mean you have the left to say it, but not the left to broadcast it.

        /newspeak

  10. Much of the left’s intolerance takes the form of what seems to be racism, class snobbery, religious bigotry, and sexism. Go to any lefty comments section, and you will see plenty of people openly talk about how much they hate Republicans for being white, working class, Christian men.

    Many of them seem to truly believe that being on the left is about fighting people for being white, working class, Christian, heterosexual, and male. It’s just like listening to Geller fans talk about how we are and should be fighting a war against Islam–and the left is doing it in the name of tolerance!

    Go to some of the popular lefty sites, and commenters will absolutely abuse you as a troll for suggesting that there isn’t anything wrong with being physically attracted to women.

    I suppose I should confess. There are numerous times in my life when I have noticed, talked to, and spent time with some women (rather than others) specifically because I found them to be physically attractive.

    I said, “I confess”, but I haven’t and won’t apologize. …and I think that makes me intolerable for much of the left.

    If you’re ashamed of being white, heterosexual, Christian, male, or from a working class background, I think that’s supposed to make it okay. But you have to be willing to publicly humiliate yourself and apologize for being those things–sort of like in China’s Cultural Revolution. And then you’re supposed to call for ending your own privilege.

    1. Much of the left’s intolerance takes the form of what seems to be racism, class snobbery, religious bigotry, and sexism. Go to any lefty comments section, and you will see plenty of people openly talk about how much they hate Republicans for being white, working class, Christian men.

      I disagree, as many of the loudest voices also fit into these categories. Where their racism lies, IMO, is in the fact that other “white, working class Christian men” don’t treat blacks, women, Hispanics and gays as somehow inferior to the point that they need to be coddled, taken care of and pandered to to the point of absurdity because they honestly believe those people to be incapable of providing for themselves or capable of achieving a normal life from the same starting line as everybody else.

      1. I think there’s something to that racism of low expectations, but overt bigotry has become a staple of the left–in comment sections everywhere.

        They really do hate you for being Christian, and they’ll tell you so to your avatar.

        They hate you for being white and heterosexual, too.

        And if you’re uneducated on top of all that, then their hate level expands by some order of magnitude.

        I would love it if the left wanted to reform the drug war and the police for libertarian reasons. But many of them really are against the police–because they’re white.

        I feel about them the same way I feel about the free speech rights of the Klan, the neo-Nazis, and other scumbags. I really do have to clarify when I’m talking about their free speech rights that I despise the Klan and neo-Nazis.

        I despise bigotry on the left, too, and it’s a large and growing problem. The left is giving real tolerance a bad name.

        1. I would love it if the left wanted to reform the drug war and the police for libertarian reasons. But many of them really are against the police–because they’re white.

          That’s what was brilliant about Black Flag’s (IIRC) “Suck This” album cover: a cartoon of a white’s hand sticking a pistol in a black cop’s mouth.

          1. Darn, had to look it up to be reminded of its full brilliance: It wasn’t, “Suck This”, it was “Make me come, faggot!” Works in sooo many ways.

      2. They don’t start from the same line. This is not a feeling, it is statistical fact. Doing nothing about it is not to treat minorities with dignity, it is to guarantee them and their descendants an indefinite future of relative poverty.

        1. Yes, Tony!

          Tell us how blacks need your kind guiding hand because they are too stupid to care for themselves.

          Tell us how racist we are for not wanting to tell them how to live, how we want them to slip back into savagery!

        2. They start from the same line, asshole. They have the same access to a public school education. College is more accessible than ever. There are more self-learning resources available than ever for free on the internet to any person with access to a computer (which there are plenty of at public libraries). They pay the same tax rate. They start out with the exact same credit score.

          They. Start. Out. At. The. Same. Starting. Line.

          1. No. They. Don’t. How much money your parents have is hugely determinative in how able you are to succeed. Not all neighborhoods, or the schools in them, are equal.

            You have to promote a very racist explanation if you insist that everyone starts at the same place. Don’t you? Or what accounts for the relative economic disadvantage of people of color?

            1. By your standards, there is no such thing as equality of opportunity. That concept is foreign to me as a rational human being.

            2. Or what accounts for the relative economic disadvantage of people of color?

              Are you asserting that Chinese-Americans and Indian-Americans are in a position of relative economic disadvantage?

              1. “Or what accounts for the relative economic disadvantage of people of color?”

                I think racism is a genuine problem.

                Even the disproportionate burden blacks bear from law enforcement as a function of the Drug War is to some extent a result of young black males having fewer, less dangerous opportunities to succeed than whites.

                That being said, nothing Tony has proposed will solve the problem of racism. Tony hasn’t suggested anything that will even address the problem of racism.

                Tony just keeps talking about white privilege, which isn’t a course of action. It’s like Obama talking about “hope”, without specifying what we’re supposed to hope for. It’s like Obama talking about “change”, without specifying what he wants to change. Who’s against hope? Who’s against change? Who isn’t against racist privileges?

                Meanwhile, yeah, some people’s parents are wealthier than others. But white kids born in the most hopeless part of the West Virginia also have that problem. What does Tony plan to do about that?

                If black kids have to contend with racism like white kids don’t, what does Tony intend to do about that? So far, all Tony has proposed is that bigotry against white, Christian, heterosexual, poorly educated, males is defensible. But defending bigotry isn’t the solution to anything.

                So what have we learned–that Tony defends bigotry?

                We already knew that.

                That Tony is an ethically challenged, lying idiot?

                We already knew that, too.

            3. Tony is right. They don’t start at the same line. I’m pretty sure your Spike Lee’s and Oprah’s and other wealthy blacks don’t. Dare I say, they start ahead of poor white kids! Same with the Obama kids.

              But that’s…’different’.

            4. What shall be done with them?
              Our answer is, do nothing with them; mind your business, and let them mind theirs. Your doing with them is their greatest misfortune. They have been undone by your doings, and all they now ask, and really have need of at your hands, is just to let them alone. They suffer by ever interference, and succeed best by being let alone.

              They suffer by ever interference, and succeed best by being let alone. The Negro should have been let alone in Africa ? let alone when pirates and robbers offered him for sale in our Christian slave markets ? (more cruel and inhuman than the Mohammedan slave markets) ? let alone by courts, judges, politicians, legislators and slave-drivers ? let alone altogether, and assured that they were thus to be left alone forever, and that they must now make their own way in the world, just the same as any and every other variety of the human family. As colored men, we only ask to be allowed to do with ourselves, subject only to the same great laws for the welfare of human society which apply to other men, Jews, Gentiles, Barbarian, Sythian. Let us stand upon our own legs, work with our own hands, and eat bread in the sweat of our own brows. When you, our white fellow-countrymen, have attempted to do anything for us, it has generally been to deprive us of some right, power or privilege which you yourself would die before you would submit to have taken from you.

              1. In like manner, we answer those who are perpetually puzzling their brains with questions as to what shall be done with the Negro, “let him alone and mind your own business.”

                /Frederick Douglass

                1. Money quote from SLAMMER!
                  PLEASE, SLAMMER, DON’T HURT ‘EM!!!

            5. Ironic considering that you are the most racist motherfucker on this site, in that the only think that matters to you is the color of someone’s skin for determining your policy choices.

            6. And from here is the point where you talk about abolishing private schools and thinking parents reading to their kids is unfair to other children. It is where the idea of equality strangles the idea of liberty.

            7. I’ve lived with black roommates on two separate occasions in my life.

              Both grew up with more money that I had and both had better access to education.

              Your racism rewards upper and middle class blacks, specifically punishes lower class whites, and does nothing for lower class blacks other than convince them to vote your way.

              You are the racist pig Tony. Just because you are too arrogant and racist to see it does not change the fact that it is an objective truth.

          2. I’ll have to agree with Tony on this one thing. If you live in a poor area the public schools you have access to are likely to suck. If your parents don’t put much emphasis on education or don’t provide a stable home life, then as a child it will be more difficult for you to get on a trajectory towards success. If you aren’t being fed a healthy diet then as a child it will be tough for you to go out and eat the right kind of foods. If the people that surround you glorify a life of crime (regardless of whether those crimes should actually be illegal), then you yourself are going to face a lot of pressure to go down the same road.

            To a large degree these are issues of poverty, but poverty follows racial divides and historical institutional segregation and oppression do play a role in that. So do current policies.

            None of this is 100% deterministic. People are still free to choose how they live their lives and bear ultimate responsibility for that. But its absurd to pretend that, on average, black youth have all the same opportunities as white youth.

            None of this is to say that Tony’s preferred solutions will work. But there is no good reason to ignore the problem.

            1. None of this is to say that Tony’s preferred solutions will work.

              Not only would their “solutions” not work, they actively oppose any solutions that would work but won’t fix the problem for everyone all at once.

              Take school choice. Allowing parents, guardians or students themselves to pick which school to attend would instantly make things better for some if not all students involved. The kids that get out of their lousy public school would undoubtedly be better off. And if the school loses the funding they would get for that student, it might spend more time and effort improving the school so that they won’t lose more students in the future.

              And yet, progressives hate school choice.

              School choice is the number one example of this for me, but there are many many others.

            2. But its absurd to pretend that, on average, black youth have all the same opportunities as white youth.

              I still disagree. Every American has a right to the same public school education and colleges are easier to get into than ever.

              An educational opportunity is just that…an opportunity. And as a person that taught himself almost all of what I learned in high school and college (because I didn’t pay attention in class), I have no sympathy for another person that doesn’t seize the opportunity they are presented.

              1. Well said Sloop.

                I am tired of all the excuses by people that want to remove personal responsibility from the equation. People make bad choices. Some of those choices will impact more than just them. The left’s pretense that this is a bad thing galls me. What these busy body leftists basically are pushing for is the ability to make choices for some group of people they think are too stupid to make their own right choice, and that to me is anathema.

                Life is not fair, but it amazes me how much “fairer” things get when you work hard & smart and don’t expect others to give you free shit. What doesn’t surprise me is that the left feels an obligation to punish the people that do this sort of thing, because they want equality of outcome.

                1. You don’t understand. The socialists literally cannot see the individual. Neither your sucesses nor your failures are your responsibility. You didn’t build that, and you didn’t screw that up. That is their entire worldview and justification for the hive even though so much of their “argument” is based on anecdote.

                  1. We can see the individual. The problem is you see only the individual. It makes it hard to identify patterns in society and thus to formulate good policy. It results in bad logic. If blacks are underprivilaged on average, we’re talking about a social problem. If you want to claim it’s just a bunch of individual problems, you’re proposing a racist explanation, which is the ugliest form of collectivism as we know.

                    1. Racism is grouping a set of individuals into a common collection based on their skin color, and you claim that treating them as individuals, um, collectivizes them. Wow, that’s some special kind of twisted Leftie “logic.” You have zero comprehension of the individual as you demonstrate every single time you post.

              2. Every American has a right to the same public school education

                I don’t know about “the same”. More school choice would help with that.

                And, for younger children especially, if your parents aren’t motivated to exercise your right to an education, it isn’t a choice that realistically exists for you.

                Of course, these are not problems that can be fixed by force or by throwing money at it. It’s going to require a few generations of cultural change.

                1. It’s going to require a few generations of cultural change.

                  OMFG RAYCISS!!!1!111!!

                  J/k good point.

            3. Poverty also follows decisions. Having children when you can’t afford to have them. Idolizing thug life. Being a victim, instead of just working your butt off.

              I know alot of successful black people (Astronauts, Flight Directors, CEOs). They made themselves a success.

              On average, the black youth don’t take advantage of their opportunities.

        3. Doing nothing about it is not to treat minorities with dignity, it is to guarantee them and their descendants an indefinite future of relative poverty.

          More often than not, doing nothing is effectively better than doing something…if that something is the wrong thing. And damn near 50 years of doing the wrong thing has gotten us to the point we are currently are.

        4. “They don’t start from the same line.”
          The solution to which is to put them at the same line, not lower standards for important jobs thereby screwing everybody over.

          Here’s a fact you leftists never seem to get through your heads: an unqualified black guy is just as unqualified as an unqualified as an unqualified white guy; it doesn’t matter if his reasons for being unqualified are different, all that matters in terms of the job at hand, is that he is still unqualified. End of story.

          Wanna fix the problem? Break the teachers’ unions’ stranglehold on education, defund social science/humanities programs at universities that disproportionately waste minorities’ time on worthless degrees, and get rid of protectionist measures that drive down poor people’s purchasing power and keep unemployment high for the sake of privilege AFL-CIO union labor.

          In short, ditch the idiotic leftist agenda. The fact that minorities made more economic progress toward equality under the rule of racists before the 1960s than under that of well-intentioned progressives says more than enough about how far your intentions will carry them.

    2. You’re not supposed to be ashamed for how you were born, you’re just supposed to check your privileges. Instead of doing that, you’re actually whining about the woes and travails of being a white heterosexual male in certain contexts. You don’t see that you’re doing that, do you? That is the primary conservative impulse–utter myopia–that lefties tend to find ridiculous, and thus ridicule.

      1. Shorter Tony: Life isn’t fair! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

      2. It really is always projection with the left.

        1. It absolutely is. When they cry “hater”, you know their emotional responses are driven by hate. They call others bigots then let fly with terms like teabagger and redneck to describe people they’ve never met. It’s despicable.

      3. You’re trolling, aren’t you? The “check your privilege” canard is so hackneyed at this point I can’t take seriously anyone still using it. “Check your privilege” is a slightly less manic rendering of “SHUT UP SHUT UP AND LISTEN WHILE WE TELL YOU TO SHUT UP.”

        1. Fine, different words. Have enough perspective to appreciate that being criticized on a comments board is somewhat less of an oppression than being guaranteed a life of diminished prospects and relative poverty because of persistent historical patterns of such, fed in large part by the bigotries of the more powerful groups.

          1. guaranteed a life of diminished prospects and relative poverty because of persistent historical patterns of such, fed in large part by the bigotries of the more powerful groups.

            GUARANTEED!?! GUARANTEED?!?

            You are such a worthless sack of shit, Tony, you know that? Your ignorance, prejudice and smug belief in your superiority and nobility are nauseating. There is no question in my mind that a century ago, you would have gladly thrown on a white hood and gone out to terrorize the black people you sneer at.

            You know what you should do? Go buy a bunch of Insane Clown Posse cd’s and start hanging out with juggalos. Because they understand civilization and morality better than you do.

            1. I’m just talking about statistical reality. Thus “guaranteed” is not the right word. Black females can achieve greater success than white males. They just have to try a lot harder than they do.

              But shutting your eyes to this reality, if not advocating actively maintaining such social imbalances, is to support equality and dignity, to you. Fascinating.

              1. Nice try Tony.

                Projecting your racism on others may fool the more simple minded. It’s not going to fly here.

              2. Your “statistical reality” has no bearing on my life, or that of any other individual. Leaving aside the obvious fact that statistics in the political realm are largely manipulated and abused, they’re just not useful for predicting outcomes in individual lives. We’re not defined by the groups that we’re arbitrarily assigned to unless we blindly accept such assignment.

                Every person has a unique set of advantages and disadvantages. My parents were poor. Disadvantage. But they were good parents who prepared me to cope with the real world. Advantage. I’ll cop to the fact that in many ways I was lucky, but it has nothing to do with your insistence on viewing people as mere ciphers in collective groupings.

              3. Goddamn, you are one racist motherfucker, Tony. The only fucking thing out of your mouth is “Black this, white that”….

                Are people EVER people to you and not identities?

              4. Tony, in my experience, the only statistically significant bigotry I have observed is “blacks vs. everyone else”.
                I have seen women, Hispanics, lesbians, gay men, Asians, Native Americans, and just about every other “disadvantaged” group thrive in business and in academia. A Hispanic with a BS fits right in. Nobody gives a shit. Heck, an Indian or Pakistani in Silicon Valley probably is buddies with 10 white guys. Nobody gives a shit about that either. Well, if you don’t speak good English that’s an issue, but that’s solveable.

                The only group that really has a claim on systematic discrimination is blacks. And Everyone not just white males discriminates against them, even the Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans.

                1. Everyone not just white males discriminates against them, even the Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans.

                  You’d think Tony world know this given that Native American ownership of blacks was systematic when Oklahoma was Indian Territory. Hell, there was even a huge controversy back when I lived there about the Cherokee tribe trying to expunge the descendants of their slaves from the tribal rolls.

              5. “Statistical reality” . . . statistics are not “reality” but a mathematical model for representing someones estimate at reality.
                Get an education. You seem to have a good brain, but it’s cluttered with baggage from your victim mentality.
                You do entertain!

            2. Because they understand civilization and morality better than you do.

              Tony understands civilization and morality like they understand magnets.

              1. Tony’s “statistical reality”: Progressive Great Society programs pay poor single black women to have kids, and when those kids grow up in poverty and have their own kids and perpetuate the cycle, it’s the fault of white privilege and racism.

                1. Word.

                2. Not just black women, but yes.

                  1. I only mentioned race because that’s what Tony is focused on.

          2. don’t ever change, ‘Tony’. Let the derp flow.

          3. than being guaranteed a life of diminished prospects and relative poverty

            I’ll be sure to let Oprah WInfrey, Ben Carson, Lebron James and myriad other blacks that.

            Also, nice play on the “relative” poverty bullshit class warfare garbage. Because if you were to really measure relative poverty, like by measuring standard of living for each quintile compared to each quintile from 20 years ago or 50 years ago or 100 years ago, poor people in America are wealthier than the middle quintile by a great stretch.

            You’re a fucking idiot.

            1. Than the middle or even second quintile from 20 years ago.

              Sorry, I didn’t proof my comment.

            2. LeBron grew up in a total shithole in public housing in Akron. But his mom made goddamn sure he’d go to a good school (St. V-M, which is a private, Catholic school a fair distance from where he WOULD have been had he gone to Akron Public Schools – he’d have probably gone to Akron East, which is awful).

              1. yep – blame “institutional poverty” on the institutions – namely the terrible public schools, and the ridiculously corrupt mismanaged government.
                Perhaps if government would allow the people to keep their money instead of confiscating it to put into “programs” to help people; the people could help themselves – pay for better(private) schools for their children, pay for better colleges, start their own businesses etc….

                However, Tony only sees government intervention in people’s lives as a way to improve their lives, which of course it doesn’t and in fact lowers the standard of living for all citizens ESPECIALLY the poor.

        2. It looks like they handed off the sock puppet to another puppeteer. Check your Privelege is a huge meme for the progressive online cognoscenti, but not a typical rejoinder for this troll

      4. “Instead of doing that, you’re actually whining about the woes and travails of being a white heterosexual male in certain contexts.”

        I haven’t whined about the travails of being a white, heterosexual, male ever–you lying sack of shit.

        I complained about the overt bigotry on the left and their open hostility to tolerance.

        Do you support bigotry–if it’s against white, male, Christian, heterosexuals?

        I don’t support bigotry against anybody.

        1. Of course he supports bigotry, so long as it is directed at the right people (climate deniers, libertarians, conservatives, Christians, white people who aren’t ashamed of themselves for being white…).

          Principals, not principles.

        2. Neither do I, but too often people of your political stripe will concern yourself too much, perhaps exclusively, with the supposed indignities suffered by white heterosexual Christian males–to the extent that it seems a primary grievance. A proper perspective would treat alleged bigotry against someone with every demographic advantage possible as among the most minor of social ills–since he can’t be actually harmed by such bigotry, being privileged in every possible way.

          1. This has to be a joke, or just straight-up trolling. I mean, nobody could actually be so clueless as to really believe this shit, right?

          2. “Neither do I, but too often people of your political stripe will concern yourself too much, perhaps exclusively, with the supposed indignities suffered by white heterosexual Christian males–to the extent that it seems a primary grievance.”

            You’re a lying sack of shit who defends bigotry against white heterosexual Christian males because they complain about whatever level of bigotry that’s directed against them by the left?

            We already knew that, Tony.

              1. Derpderp Derpbliderp

          3. Tony,
            why don’t you give up this irrational childish belief in equality and fairness. Neither construct exists or ever has existed in the history of the world.
            A person is born with what they get – it is neither fair nor unfair – it is simply reality. Then depending on the effort and attitude put forth determines how high a person rises or falls. Trying to change this fact is as stupid and pointless as trying to sweep back the ocean with a push broom.

          4. Ah, progressives: racist “micro aggressions” are supposedly a huge psychological burden on minorities, but the fact that affirmative action discriminates against whites, the fact that countless schools teach that straight white males are the oppressors, all of that is terribly “minor.”

      5. Define what you think you mean by privilege.

        Every example I’ve ever heard – literally every one – either doesn’t actually exist, or is one of the baseline elements of being a free citizen.

        BTW: Anything that I consider mine by right I will dismiss out of hand.

        1. It means simply by virtue of the color of the skin or the genitals you were born with that you are statistically advantaged over others. Is this difficult or something?

          1. In what specific ways?

            I am asking for specifics because, in my experience, when specifics are provided, the concept disintegrates.

            For example, sometimes people will claim that it’s “privilege” that police officers don’t harass me on the street for no reason.

            I reject that example because I consider that a case of something that is mine by right. If police officers routinely harassed me on the street for no reason, I would explore the possibility of armed insurrection with other white guys so treated.

            Another example often bruited about is that I have an advantage seeking employment because I “look and sound” like what employers want.

            I reject that example because my employment persona is an artifice I’ve constructed in order to seek employment. It’s not my “authentic self” in the Rousseauian sense. If I can force myself to look like and act like what employers want in order to get a job, fuck you, so can you.

            And so forth.

            All the specific examples I’ve ever heard end up being reducible in these ways, or closely related ways.

            1. *crickets*

          2. you are statistically advantaged over others

            How do you know that the statistics reflect *purely* effects due to the color of your skin? If whites tend to be on average more successful later in life, how do you know that that difference is solely due to racial discrimination, and not some other factors?

            1. Racism is the cause of all racial disparities, don’t you know.

              The term “statistically advantaged” proves that Tony only thinks in terms of group identity and outcomes. Individual actions and liberty have no part in his thinking.

              1. The problem is, If you prove that racial discrimination exists by showing there are statistical differences in outcomes, then you won’t know when you’ve acheived equal opportunity until there are no statistical differences in outcomes.
                But if there is some other underlying cause of the unequal outcomes, that means you have to jury rig the system to bias things to overcome the effects of those other factors. You can’t know what is “equal opportunity” until you get the outcome you want. It’s not a recipe for justice, it’s a recipe for forced equality.

            2. +1 Observational Equivalence. There are a myriad of possibilities and to simply attribute “privilege” (define as you will) to one causal factor is…lazy thinking, to put it politely.

          3. nope just pointless as are all of your arguments. Statistics don’t matter – what matters to each individual is his individual situation. What is happening to a black man or black men 1000 miles away have absolutely nothing to do with the poverty of a black man.

            The world is made up of individuals not groups and what matters to each individual is their own circumstances. In a country where minorities and women have consistently achieved all positions in society – including millionaires, presidents. celebrities business owners CEOs etc….. is obvious that this county provides more opportunities for success than any other so ….you don’t have much of an argument for ingrained structural inequities.

            Furthermore, if a child is born in this country to poor conditions, doesn’t it make more sense to blame the parents of that child for doing such a poor job of providing a good environment than to blame society at large for their negligence or lack of industry.

        2. I’ve supported myself since I left home at 14 and worked my way through a private boarding school.

          I worked my way up from an entry level receptionist position at a commercial real estate investment company into being the number cruncher for the portfolio manager and eventually worked my way into an analyst position.

          I left with the acquisitions manager to start my own commercial real estate development company.

          I’m supposed to apologize for my accomplishments because I’m white.

          That’s what he means by “privilege”.

          1. I’m supposed to apologize for my accomplishments because I’m white.

            That’s what he means by “privilege”.

            Partially right. He’s also saying your accomplishments aren’t really accomplishments of your own, because they were somehow handed to you by your ‘privilege’. In other words, “you didn’t earn that”.

            1. ^^^THIS^^^

              Idiots like Tony want to make the argument you had an unfair advantage because nature equipped you with beneficial traits and conditions others somehow don’t have access to. If you are born smart, to successful parents that inculcate the appropriate values in you that set you up for success, are thought to work hard or to know/believe that hard work pays off, are not willing to let chance of failure define you, or don’t want to accept whatever stupid box the collectivist assholes want to put you in, you are privilidged. This idiotic argument defies comprehension to me.

          2. Nobody asked you to apologize for anything. But if you’re going to whine about the disadvantages that come with your skin color and gender, and you’re white and male, people are going to make fun of you for that, and rightly so.

            But you still don’t realize that’s what you’re doing. All that is called for is the minutest amount of basic empathy with people who are different from you. Too much to ask for?

            1. “Nobody asked you to apologize for anything. But if you’re going to whine about the disadvantages that come with your skin color and gender”

              I have never whined about the advantages of being white and male, you lying sack of shit.

              I have complained about bigotry.

              All forms of bigotry.

              I’ve complained about bigotry against blacks and women and gays, too–and it isn’t because I’m black or a woman or gay–and I’ve got ten years of comments on Hit & Run to prove it.

              You’re a lying sack of shit.

              1. Ken, your story is worthless to Tony because white.

                1. nope this is a prime opportunity for Tony to spout his socialist “fairness and equality” party line lies and distortions.

              2. “I have never whined about the [disadvantages] of being white and male, you lying sack of shit.”

                Fixed!

                But y’all probably knew that.

            2. All that is called for is the minutest amount of basic empathy with people who are different from you. Too much to ask for?

              If I have to pretend to believe absurdities, and if I have to recite trite catechisms in order to make people “feel safe” – yes. Yes, in fact, it IS too much to ask for.

              Progressives invest an awful lot of time and energy coming up with twee neologisms and asinine shit tests that are just too tedious for me to bear, Tony.

              I am perfectly happy (again for example) with seeing trans people protected from public abuse. If trans people want to use my bathroom, I have no problem with that.

              But if you want to make up fucking stupid new pronouns and try to force me to use them, I’m just not going to. Because my tolerance for twee bullshit is limited.

              And if you want to have one part of the left (left feminists) say that there is no such thing as intrinsic gender, while another part of the left (trans activists) say that intrinsic gender exists and you can be “born in the wrong body”, I am not going to pretend that these two viewpoints aren’t contradictory. Because my tolerance for doublethink is nil.

              1. Logic is an artifact of privilege, cishet white scum shitlord!

                /Tony

              2. Oh the horrors of having to learn a new pronoun! It’s practically slavery all over again.

                It’s obvious that libertarianism is caused by pathological self-absorption.

              3. Heh. I think I’m going to start using “twee shit tests”. Thank you. 🙂

            3. All that is called for is the minutest amount of basic empathy with people who are different from you.

              Nonsense. You aren’t just calling for basic empathy. You’re actively calling for policies to be enacted that are explicitly designed to benefit favored groups and punish disfavored ones. What the hell do you think “affirmative consent” laws do?

              Moreover, people on your side are actively calling for censorship of people their disagree with. they literally are trying to stop certian speakers from speaking and certain films from being shown.

              This is what is known as a “motte and bailey” strategy.

              http://slatestarcodex.com/2014…..rds-words/

              1. Thanks for that link. the referenced paper addresses some of the issues i’ve been collecting about “social justice rhetorical tactics”; although i’m still hunting for terms describing the “As a ______, I believe_______”,-‘replacing argument-with-identitiy”-form, and the “Argument via Shotgun-Burst Rhetorical-Questions

                1. I’m still hunting for terms describing the “As a ______, I believe_______

                  There isn’t yet a name for every logical fallacy. Unfortunately, it seems like as soon as people name them all, some idiots invent more. Maybe it’s a distant cousin of the genetic fallacy:

                  “… a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context.”

                  It seems like that would fit. People who commit that fallacy are saying that since they belong to a certain group, their conclusion cannot be disputed. They think that being black, gay, female, etc. gives their words more value when they speak on the subject.

                  I think it’s the same thing when people disregard information because of who said it. You can observe this in lefties’ reaction to any publication that is connected with the Koch Brothers (“it’s Koch-funded; it’s GOT to be false!”)

                  Both of these arguments are assuming that something is true or false based on whose mouth it comes out of.

                  1. I was watching this week’s episode of “Elementary” with my wife. The character Sherlock Holmes is a noted deductionist.

                    One character accused another of targeting him. The charges were disregarded when the accuser was found to be suffering from mental disease. I said to my wife “But that doesn’t mean he was wrong!”

                    As it turned out, he had been targeted after all.

            4. Nobody asked you to apologize for anything.

              Bullshit. That’s exactly what the whole intellectually inbred concept of “privilege-checkin” means–it means that anything you’ve accomplished in life and any arguments you make are tainted because of the color of your skin. It’s like original sin for lefties.

              “Check your privilege” is the ultimate ad hominem. You know what’s interesting about being Hispanic in this socially dysfunctional bizarro world? When I tell people that I came from a single-parent family that lived at the poverty line and still achieved a stable, middle-class career, I don’t have a bunch of weak, FUCK YOU DAD, SWPL headcases telling me to check my privilege. Instead, I have them kissing my ass and telling me how amazing it is that I was able to overcome those odds.

              If I was white? Well, “check your privilege,” bub, because you only had that chance because of your skin color! Never mind that it’s just as hard for a poor white to build a middle-class life as it is for a poor black or Hispanic person, because the dysfunctions associated with poverty cross all ethnic lines. It’s the kind of stunted thinking that justifies and perpetuates cultural mediocrity.

              1. If you’re white, it depends on your political views. I come from a working class background, and worked my way into a humanities graduate program at a Northern Cal public university. When my colleagues found out I was from a working class background, they got really excited that someone from “my background” made it into grad school, just like they’ve all always said should be able to happen.

                I didn’t start getting over-privileged until I started openly criticizing Marx, which was career suicide. I’m in construction now.

                1. Are you happier now? All of this talk about careers and education doesn’t mean shit if you’re not happy.

          3. he thinks that all white children are little lord Fauntleroy.
            Nor is he willing to assign blame to the parents of children for not providing them with a positive childhood environment, quality education and stable home. As poor as the education blacks receive through the government school system, few blacks take advantage of it, They also choose to take drugs and commit crimes.

            Further Tony never mentions the vast amount of money (in the tens of trillions of dollars) spent by all levels of government on everything from housing food medicine cell phones transportation etc… trying to pull these people out of poverty since the 1950s with absolutely no success whatsoever.
            Want to talk about privilege – how about having nearly all aspects of your life paid for by the government, having preferential admissions in college and preferential hiring quotas and having immunity to criticism no matter how stupid you sound. Heck I venture to say that the entire rap music scene is little more than a affirmative action give away to uncultured no talent “artists’.

            1. Heck I venture to say that the entire rap music scene is little more than a affirmative action give away to uncultured no talent “artists’.

              You should have stopped before that. You were doing well, but that is just fucking stupid.

        3. That’s liberal Newspeak for you. “Privilege” is a broadly-defined term, that means whatever “The Party” wants it to mean.

        4. Never mind that…what do you mean by “check”?

      6. And since you refuse to assess the argument honestly, let me summarize it for you: nobody here (other than you) is kvetching about our being white, heterosexual men. We’re mocking ideologues like Roache with puerile notions of cleansing the philosophical impurities within already homogenous ambits like media and academia, because they has a sad about not everyone tolerating their philosophy of intolerant tolerance. That you can’t even acknowledge how manifestly fascistic she’s being without throwing tantrums of your own demonstrates exactly why it is “white, heterosexual men” are debating the wisdom of giving lefties carte blanche over cultural institutions. We have no choice but to engage with the left: we have no protected, friendly enclaves with safe spaces and speech codes and hate crime tribunals. It’s hilarious that you’d accuse libertarians of myopia given the walled-in redoubts the left hides behind.

      7. See, the whole idea of “White privilege” gets it all backwards. Privilege means that some person or group gets different treatment and is allowed to do different things. The problem isn’t that white people get special treatment. White men get crapped on plenty, just like anyone else. White privilege isn’t the problem. The problem is lack of respect for everyone’s rights.

      8. “… you’re just supposed to check your privileges.”

        No.

      9. Do you ever actually have any, ya know, reasons for any of the things you think? Privilege? Seriously? Make a fucking argument Tony, God, you’re boring us. You’re too fucking easy.

      10. Check your privileges. Lol

        Hey dickhead, how come if a white person shots a black it’s news. How come when a black shots a black it isn’t? You know that happens a hundred times a day in Detroit, Chicago, etc.

        How come if a black votes Republication it’s ok to call him an uncle tom or oreo but that’s not racist?

        You lefties seem to think that the people can’t think for themselves and have to be told what to think and how to live.

    3. Well you pretty much nailed it. The left will argue that speaking out against white males is them standing up to the oppressor and standing up for the little guy. You’re just too privileged to see it, is all.

      Don’t you know that you should listen to those poor downtrodden libs that are experiencing the equivalent of the killing fields (while attending $50K a year universities…..such oppression.)

      I have also seen everything you described and it’s funny to listen to or read them trying to rationalize their hatred by insisting that it’s really you who is full of hate.

      This is why, for those Bo’s, Tony’s, Cyto’s of the world, that I believe more people come down on lefties than conservatives on this board. The cons do it as well but they’re not winning right now and the left is being the most oppressive. So naturally they are attacked more.

      1. the left is attacked more because their arguments are the same old socialist canards that have been disproved decades ago.

    4. On politics, the right thinks the left is wrong. The left thinks the right is wrong…and evil.

      1. the left also knows that the left is wrong – they just don’t care because it is the narrative that they sell. If they admitted that their policies were disastrous where would they go? They also know that people are stupid enough to believe their lies and distortions and will vote for them.

    5. There are numerous times in my life when I have noticed, talked to, and spent time with some women (rather than others) specifically because I found them to be physically attractive.

      Everybody does this – doesn’t matter if they’re gay or straight, Christian or atheist, etc. Denying it is another sign that leftists despise human nature.

      1. Oh no, I’m objectifying women as sex objects, and I should be made to confess at a public struggle meeting.

        If men don’t learn to stop being physically attracted to females, how can we heal as a society?

        1. The correct term is “struggle session” – and you will report to the next one tomorrow.

    6. I was kicked off the Mothering.com discussion board because someone trolled me by asking how I’d feel if I were raped, and I answered honestly that it’d probably be something like a prostate exam, pretty uncomfortable. Someone else on the side said she felt her conservative viewpoints made her unwelcome there. But then, I frequently get kicked off moderated forums; the ones where women predominate seem to be the worst, but I have lots of ways I quite innocently rub moderators wrong. Often it’s because of factual disagreements w, or even just asking Qs of in a challenging manner, participants who are highly valued because of their expertise. Either my skin’s extraordinarily thick, or others’ is thin.

      1. Moderated forums mainly exist to reaffirm the prejudices of the people who belong to them. Exposing them to anything beyond those prejudices is, to them, abuse. Feminist forums are the worst in this respect (and many women-oriented forums unfortunately seem to be moderated from a feminist standpoint); socialist forums tend to be censorship crazy as well, but no one takes them seriously anyway. Revleft is a great place to go for a few laughs.

  11. She points to the Maoist state of too many college campuses, including trigger warnings, “safe spaces,” and drama over speakers and student groups that deviate an inch from the accepted wisdom of the flock?the sort of totalitarian crazy that Reason covers in depth.

    Quibble: this isn’t really Maoism, is it? A Maoist campus would probably have an administrator put a bullet in the brain of anyone opposing “the accepted wisdom of the flock”. And their idea of safe spaces would be to line up people with sensitive feelings and have them watch the bullet enter the brain of a dissenter to ensure those “sensitivities” went away in short order.

    1. See my comment above.

      It’s Maoist in the sense of the Cultural Revolution–where the Red Guards won’t tolerate any dissent, they rely on public humiliation to enforce their codes, and they expect us to publicly eviscerate ourselves for our own “privileges”.

      http://www.we-make-money-not-a…..ililto.jpg

    2. “Quibble: this isn’t really Maoism, is it?”

      Not really. During the Cultural Revolution, campuses were closed. Young people were so opposed to the stultifying conservatism and authoritarianism of these institutions that they closed them down. Many students left for the countryside where they attempted to learn from the peasants as well as instruct them in literacy etc. Authorities were shamed or beaten rather than shot in the brain.

      1. Jesus Christ, is there no bullshit you won’t sling?

        First you come up with “everyone was too equal to care” in the Soviet Union, now the Cultural Revolution was some sort of nonlethal, grassroots movement?

        1. “now the Cultural Revolution was some sort of nonlethal, grassroots movement”

          It was lethal for some, but not for most. Read Wild Swans if you want to get a picture of the events from someone who lived through them.

          Grass roots movement? Like most of the political turmoil in China in the later half of the 20th century, the Cultural Revolution was about the struggle between the conservative and radical wings of the Chinese Communist party. The faculty and administrators of the colleges found themselves up against the students. This was a situation quite different from how the author of the piece describes today’s campuses in the US which are not only open for business but have never been more popular with students.

          I know a fair bit about that period of Chinese history, so if you have any questions, please feel free to ask.

          1. Did you actually read “Wild Swans”?
            ” As Mao’s personality cult grew, life became more difficult and dangerous. Chang’s father became a target for the Red Guards when he mildly but openly criticised Mao due to the suffering caused to Chinese people by the Cultural Revolution. Chang’s parents were labeled as capitalist roaders and made subjects of public struggle meetings and torture. Chang recalls that her father deteriorated physically and mentally, until his eventual death. Her father’s treatment prompted Chang’s previous doubts about Mao to come to the fore. Like thousands of other young people, Chang was sent down to the countryside for education and thought reform by the peasants, a difficult, harsh and pointless experience.”

            Good times in China!

            You are a total fucking moron, and trying to whitewash the Cultural Revolution borders on being intentionally evil.

            Tell about how the Great Leap Famine was so overblown that not many people died – I mean, how could they have had a famine when they were EXPORTING grain?!?!

            You are a total cunt.

            1. “and trying to whitewash the Cultural Revolution borders on being intentionally evil.”

              I’m glad you’ve read Wild Swans and you seem to have understood it, and it’s good to see that you have no arguments with what I’ve written. You surely know that sloopyinTEXAS was wrong in writing that Chinese college administrators ” put a bullet in the brain of anyone opposing “the accepted wisdom of the flock”.” First, campuses were closed during the period and second, even if they were open, administrators were on the defensive. It was the students who were engaging in acts of violence (rarely with firearms) and protest rather than administrators.

              1. Ken said : “It’s Maoist in the sense of the Cultural Revolution–where the Red Guards won’t tolerate any dissent, they rely on public humiliation to enforce their codes, and they expect us to publicly eviscerate ourselves for our own “privileges”.”

                This is exactly right. And, yes, Sloopy got the victim dynamic inverted, but that was where he misunderstood. Nobody is debating that.

                But then you said:
                During the Cultural Revolution, campuses were closed.

                That was correct.

                “Young people were so opposed to the stultifying conservatism and authoritarianism of these institutions that they closed them down. ”

                This is absolute horseshit, as if kangaroo courts and terrorizing anyone who wanted to learn ANYTHING was some sort of liberation. This is exactly what Ken was talking about and he was right.

                1. “Many students left for the countryside where they attempted to learn from the peasants as well as instruct them in literacy etc.”

                  Again, absolute codswallop. The VAST, OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of students were sent to the counrtyside for their re-education by the lunatic cadres of Red Guards under pain of potential death. This was not some fucking field trip of enlightenment as you are trying to paint it out. You are trying to be an apologist for one of the most evil periods in China’s history and you are an asshole for doing that. I understand that you are a communist and would love to exterminate your ideological opponents, as the Communists who run China do, but don’t try to piss down our collective backs and tell us it is raining.

                  1. *slow clap*

                  2. “The VAST, OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of students were sent to the counrtyside for their re-education by the lunatic cadres of Red Guards under pain of potential death.”

                    Something tells me you haven’t actually read Wild Swans. Did you ever stop to consider that these young people going to the countryside voluntarily makes the whole thing even more evil than you portray it to be?

                2. “This is absolute horseshit, as if kangaroo courts and terrorizing anyone who wanted to learn ANYTHING was some sort of liberation.”

                  You misunderstand the Cultural Revolution. It was the authorities of the institutions who were the targets of the students. The liberation, if you want to call it that, was freeing the students from these institutions, ie their closing. This is completely different from the way US colleges today are portrayed. The students attend college in unprecedented numbers, and most of these controversies highlighted in Reason show the administrators and students conniving with each other to some extent, rather than being at each others throats. I think when the author uses the word Maoist, he simply means bad. Beyond that, the analogy doesn’t hold water.

                  1. Alright, you dishonest dipshit, all of you post-deconstructionist horseshit cannot obfuscate that you are seriously disturbed when you try to put a happy face on one of the most brutal periods of recent Chinese history.
                    It is not me that misunderstands the Cultural Revolution – it is you. The way Ken described the term Maoist was absolutely correct.
                    And just so you know – the CR was quite simply a way for Mao to purge his perceived political enemies.
                    You could not possibly be this naive, so I am going to continue to assume you to be intentionally dishonest / evil.

                    1. “when you try to put a happy face on one of the most brutal periods of recent Chinese history.”

                      SloopinTexas claimed that campus administrators were shooting dissidents in the brain. I pointed out that this was incorrect. If that means Sloopyintexas is putting a sad face on the cultural revolution and me a happy one, fine, I won’t argue with you there.

                      Ken’s description of Maoism applies to communism in general. Party discipline, self criticism etc. There’s nothing specifically Maoist about it. Mao is notable for his emphasis on winning over the rural peasantry.

                      “And just so you know – the CR was quite simply a way for Mao to purge his perceived political enemies.”

                      I said as much when I wrote: “Like most of the political turmoil in China in the later half of the 20th century, the Cultural Revolution was about the struggle between the conservative and radical wings of the Chinese Communist party.” You responded to this, so I had assumed you had read and understood it. Maybe you owe yourself another read to make sure.

                    2. to continue with even more interesting stuff:

                      You claimed that those young people who went to the countryside did so overwhelmingly in fear of their lives. Not true, and I don’t know why you wish to make up stories to let them off the hook. They were victims of their own idealistic enthusiasms. Older cadres who were forced to go to the countryside as punishment were paying the price for their association with an outfit such as the communist party. I guess you would see them as victims, but I say reap what you sow.

                      Strangely, you haven’t mentioned the real victims in all this, and there were dozens for each student. They were the peasants who didn’t volunteer and were forced to house and feed the helpless urban students, without any compensation except for the priviledge of being on the receiving end of endless lectures on the mass line and other pearls of maoist wisdom. No, despite what you believe, the students didn’t stay in hotels or eat in restaurants.

                      Like I said, I know a fair bit about Chinese history, recent or otherwise. Don’t be shy with any questions you might have.

                    3. More:
                      mtrueman|5.11.15 @ 10:18PM|#
                      “[…]Like I said, I know a fair bit about Chinese history, recent or otherwise. Don’t be shy with any questions you might have.”

                      No, from what you’ve posted, you know jack-shit.

                    4. Just so you know:
                      mtrueman|5.4.15 @ 12:59AM|#
                      “[?] What you haven’t fathomed is that I’m so morally depraved that my deserved rep here doesn’t bother me or interest me in the least. I post for myself; your feelings about me are of no concern.”

                      Isn’t it strange that someone ‘posting for himself’ has to return to add idiocy after he hopes no one notices!
                      Can we presume infantile egotism? Yes, I think we can!

                    5. OK, shitbag:
                      mtrueman|5.11.15 @ 10:13PM|#
                      “SloopinTexas claimed that campus administrators were shooting dissidents in the brain. I pointed out that this was incorrect. If that means Sloopyintexas is putting a sad face on the cultural revolution and me a happy one, fine, I won’t argue with you there.”
                      You’re a lying POS and anyone who can read knows that.

                      “Ken’s description of Maoism applies to communism in general. Party discipline, self criticism etc. There’s nothing specifically Maoist about it. Mao is notable for his emphasis on winning over the rural peasantry.”
                      Bullshit claim; no cite. Lies

                      “I said as much when I wrote: “Like most of the political turmoil in China in the later half of the 20th century, the Cultural Revolution was about the struggle between the conservative and radical wings of the Chinese Communist party.”
                      Maybe you should be honest once.
                      Oh, and fuck off.

            2. Mao wasn’t such a bad guy. Neither was Stalin. or Hitler, Pol Pot, any of the Kims, Castros, and so on. They meant well, so the bad shit that happened was unfortunate but not terrible. You do after all have to break eggs to make an omelet. So over 100 million people died. Billions got to live in a nice paradise where they all shared equally in the only thing that guarantee marxism can deliver: misery for the proles. All in all this was just and good?.

              /sarc

              1. “Mao wasn’t such a bad guy”

                That’s really the issue when it comes down to it. Was Mao a nice guy or not? Hitler was not a Marxist, by the way.

                1. That’s really the issue when it comes down to it. Was Mao a nice guy or not?

                  You need to ask this question, really? How serious would you take someone that asked you if Charles Manson was a nice guy or not? And the only difference between Manson and Mao was Manson didn’t have as big of a cult following as Mao did, allowing him to only kill a few.

                  Hitler was not a Marxist, by the way.

                  He was a collectivist though, and while proggies want to pretend there is a big difference between one brand of stupid and another, or even lump him with the right, despite his socialistic views and agenda, the disease and solution that follows, remains the same: you murder a lot of people in the name of improving things.

                  1. “He was a collectivist though”

                    Have you come across any leaders of powerful countries during the 20th century who weren’t collectivists? Or did Hitler make it on your list because he, like Stalin, Pol Pot et al weren’t nice guys?

                    You don’t seem to appreciate the argument you yourself are making here. The big difference between Mao and Manson was that Mao was a collectivist and the leadership of the central committee of the communist party was collectivist in nature. That’s one reason why Mao ultimately failed, because he never had the Capitalist Roaders on board. I don’t think Manson was ever a communist or even a collectivist. I might look into Manson’s political inclinations if I thought it was worth my while, but I don’t. You are welcome to correct me.

                    Hitler was a nationalist. That’s what sets him apart from the leftists who are typically internationalists.

                    1. God, you are an intellectual toilet-bug…

                    2. MC,
                      You are wasting your time. If you do ever get to the stage where that lying crap-pile can’t backpedal further, you get:

                      mtrueman|5.4.15 @ 12:59AM|#
                      “[?] What you haven’t fathomed is that I’m so morally depraved that my deserved rep here doesn’t bother me or interest me in the least. I post for myself; your feelings about me are of no concern.”

                    3. “God, you are an intellectual toilet-bug…”

                      I think of myself as more of a holy ghost than a god, but whatever makes you comfortable.

                    4. mtrueman|5.11.15 @ 10:20PM|#
                      “I think of myself as more of a holy ghost than a god, but whatever makes you comfortable.”

                      And the slimebag known liar known as mtrueman returns in the hopes he can leave some stupidity that will be seen as ‘clever’. By his mom.
                      And, just so you know, in spite of the fact he comes back to check the responses to his inane posts:
                      mtrueman|5.4.15 @ 12:59AM|#
                      “[?] What you haven’t fathomed is that I’m so morally depraved that my deserved rep here doesn’t bother me or interest me in the least. I post for myself; your feelings about me are of no concern.”

                      This asshole lies when he lies!

                    5. “This asshole lies when he lies!”

                      You’re doing us both a favour if you stick to quoting me. When you venture to express your own thoughts, such as they are, the results are not so impressive.

                    6. mtrueman|5.12.15 @ 12:05AM|#
                      “You’re doing us both a favour if you stick to quoting me. When you venture to express your own thoughts, such as they are, the results are not so impressive.”

                      Yes, this from someone who makes this claim:
                      mtrueman|5.4.15 @ 12:59AM|#
                      “[?] What you haven’t fathomed is that I’m so morally depraved that my deserved rep here doesn’t bother me or interest me in the least. I post for myself; your feelings about me are of no concern.”

                      It seems you are quite interested in your rep here. You keep returning to post more lies in the hopes that someone buys your stupidity.
                      Now why would someone who doesn’t care what others think do so? Well, that slimebag lies when he lies!

                    7. “It seems you are quite interested in your rep here.”

                      I’m extremely interested in my rep here. Whatever led you to think otherwise?

                    8. mtrueman|5.12.15 @ 1:16AM|#
                      “It seems you are quite interested in your rep here.”
                      I’m extremely interested in my rep here. Whatever led you to think otherwise?

                      Only this:
                      mtrueman|5.4.15 @ 12:59AM|#
                      “[?] What you haven’t fathomed is that I’m so morally depraved that my deserved rep here doesn’t bother me or interest me in the least. I post for myself; your feelings about me are of no concern.

                    9. “Only this:”

                      My advice: don’t believe everything you read. Try to develop a healthy skepticism. Being a stooge is so limiting.

                    10. mtrueman|5.12.15 @ 1:34AM|#
                      “My advice”
                      Advice from a lying ignoramus really isn’t worth much.

                    11. “really isn’t worth much”

                      It’s worth nothing as long as you insist on playing the stooge.

          2. Next we’re going to here about how Naziism is actually a nuanced ideology that is just miunderstood by modern day plebs who oversimplify it and miss its good qualities.

            Seriously, ever hear of the Hundred Flowers? Mao lets “conservative” critics speak freely and criticize regime (btw, you’re a real idiot for calling it ‘conservative’; it’s ‘anyone who isn’t a totalitarian Maoist’ faction, not ‘conservative’ faction). ‘Conservative’ critics end up getting sent to camps despite the supposed ‘opening up.’ There was no clash. There was a massacre.

            You clearly don’t know a thing about Chinese history; the cultural revolution was about as much a clash between ‘conservatives’ and Maoists as the Holocaust was a clash between Nazis and Jews.

            1. “Seriously, ever hear of the Hundred Flowers?”

              Seriously? Yes. Any other questions?

              1. mtrueman|5.12.15 @ 1:42AM|#
                “Seriously? Yes.”
                Seriously, what an ignoramus. Yes.

            2. “You clearly don’t know a thing about Chinese history; the cultural revolution was about as much a clash between ‘conservatives’ and Maoists as the Holocaust was a clash between Nazis and Jews.”

              That’s true, and the problem here is the ignorance of t; s/he refuses to cite any source at all, and the posts suggest that any sources are trivial in the extreme. T finally cites “Wild Swans”? Well, shucks, why not cite, oh, Speer’s “Spandau” as an authoritative history of the Holocaust? The reason is that t is not anything like knowledgeable about most anything t posts about; just ask him/her for evidence that Ukrainians were collaborators; crickets.
              We’re dealing with a low-end intellect here who hopes that some sophistry might gain him/her some relevance on a site where s/he really wants acceptance. T hopes, really hopes,l really, really hopes, that t’s bullshit might fly here. Really, really, really!

      2. mtrueman|5.11.15 @ 12:15PM|#
        “[…]During the Cultural Revolution, campuses were closed. Young people were so opposed to the stultifying conservatism and authoritarianism of these institutions that they closed them down. Many students left for the countryside where they attempted to learn from the peasants as well as instruct them in literacy etc. Authorities were shamed or beaten rather than shot in the brain.”

        Wow!
        I’d missed this, which is only a problem in that it is truly amazing coming from someone who, I presume, has read at least the lefty-biased press in the US, and ignored what information he could get from that.
        But then this is a post by someone who refuses to offer any cite at all, so maybe newspaper articles are too embarrassing to reference.

        1. “I presume, has read at least the lefty-biased press in the US, and ignored what information he could get from that.”

          If the lefty-biased press in the US has led you to believe that prior to the Cultural Revolution, colleges in Maoist China were bastions of enlightment, then I suggest you broaden your reading material. Again, my advice: don’t be so quick to believe what you read.

          1. “If the lefty-biased press in the US has led you to believe that prior to the Cultural Revolution, colleges in Maoist China were bastions of enlightment, then I suggest you broaden your reading material. Again, my advice: don’t be so quick to believe what you read.”

            An ignoramus known as trueman might think that means something. But an ignoramus known as trueman tends to cite some novel.
            Fuck off, ignoramus.

            1. “some novel.”

              Keep it coming. You’re on a roll.

              1. mtrueman|5.12.15 @ 2:00AM|#
                “Keep it coming. You’re on a roll.”

                You’re not.

              2. mtrueman|5.12.15 @ 2:00AM|#
                “some novel.”
                Keep it coming. You’re on a roll.”

                BTW, want to tell us again about how you really don’t care about your rep?
                mtrueman|5.4.15 @ 12:59AM|#
                “[?] What you haven’t fathomed is that I’m so morally depraved that my deserved rep here doesn’t bother me or interest me in the least. I post for myself; your feelings about me are of no concern.”

                1. And just so you can tell your mommy why people here make fun of you:
                  We do have a reputational economy here. I’m sure a fucking ignoramus like you finds that hard to understand, but it means this:
                  You make claims? Support them.
                  You fail. Fuck off.

                  1. “You make claims? Support them.”

                    Some novel.

  12. I wonder if we are finally reaching the point at which progressives shrink into their own isolated enclaves and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.

    Some of them. Certainly not all of them. Had about an hour long discussion with my leftist GF yesterday where we discussed the minimum wage and whether taxation was theft and whether it was possible to have a government without it being premised on using deadly force upon those who dissent too vigorously.

    I don’t think we convinced each other, but it was a respectful exchange where we each listened to vastly differing POVs.

    1. You’re lucky. I had to threaten to divorce my wife because of the Jezebelitis that she is becoming infected with.

      She brought up this case…

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..-published

      and then flipped out because I dared to suggest that the peer review might just possibly be accurate because it was a paper on anti woman bias in the peer review process as opposed to something actually scientific.

      I mean the idea that 2 women could be engaging in confirmation bias is an entirely valid criticism and when I started explaining to her the myriad of ways that while badly worded the reviewer could have absolutely valid criticism’s she shot back that she didn’t need me mansplaining things to her.

      I very seriously told her that if she ever used that term to me again I would divorce her.

      1. Good on you for standing up for yourself. There really are lines where someone has gotten so vitriolic of you that its best to walk away. You can believe in mansplaining or whatever bullshit you want, but the second you start accusing your loved ones of it to their faces you are too far down the rabbit hole.

      2. I very seriously told her that if she ever used that term to me again I would divorce her.

        Might not be a bad idea to keep a close eye on your bank accounts from here on out.

        1. It’s always funny how feminists have no qualms about accepting alimony checks. Apparently fish do need bicycles, but just hate the idea of reciprocity.

  13. (…I’d been denied a job at a now-defunct outfit when the top boss discovered my political views).

    Did you try a horse head in his bed?

  14. On the rare occasions I actually tune in to a certain “popular news network” I am inevitably subjected to a dose of yowling about Teh Terrrrrrists!
    Boring.

    1. A lot of copsucking going on, too.

      1. Obviously you’re a Hippy.

        /O’Reilly

  15. Because their preferred policy prescriptions are supposedly, on their face “as objectionable as expressing racist, sexist, or homophobic views.”

    But is David Cameron literally worse than Hitler? The amazing thing about the collective UK freak-out is how many, based on Twitter, seem to genuinely think Cameron and the Tories are going to kill people through austerity. I see no other way of looking at other than complete and utter psychosis, psychosis strong enough to make thousands of people throw a collective tantrum in London over the weekend because holy and sacred democracy (Peace Be Upon It) did not deliver the results they wanted.

    1. I’m sure we would have seen a similar spectacle if Romney had won in 2012. Some people really convince themselves that the rather moderate conservative opposition is actually a radical party eager to destroy 90% of the government.

      1. It’s like the famous Steinberg New Yorker cover of Manhattan and points West: people can see detailed distinctions close to them, but further away everything blurs together. In 2011 I went on a few dates with a woman who said she’d leave the country if Santorum or Romney were elected. I tried to explain that they had rather different views, but she didn’t buy it. To her, Romney was a right-wing radical.

      2. If only… *sigh*

  16. Wow, all that college hatred. JD sounds like the kind of guy who drives a pickup truck into college professors because he hates books so much.

    /weekendthread

    1. I wanted to see what was going on here this weekend, but was too busy. Sounds like I dodged a bullet.

      1. Warty turns out to be a defender of intellectual superiority that is under attack by evil dumb rednecks.

    1. Fantastic.

      1. Seconded.

        Thanks, Idle.

    2. I love their version of the Oberlin seal and motto.

    3. book marked that

      also noticed seniors, junior, sophomores, and…first-years (no freshman!)

  17. Dear 2 Chilli =

    I have been recently informed that the so-called ‘Orwellian GroupThink’ currently in vogue on college campuses is in fact, ‘not even a thing’, and that complaints about it come exclusively from TEAM RED KULTURWARRIOR MOUTHBREATHERS, who harbor fantasies of ‘jumping in their pickup truck and taking back Real America from these faggy book-lurnin types’, and that ‘humoring the yokels who want to do that is contemptible as well as a little dangerous’, and that ‘and if the idea of liberty becomes wedded to this kind of asinine and vaguely sinister anti-intellectualism, it’s doomed’

    So, everyone double-check which hole you’re breathing out of, and ensure the tire-pressure on your 4×4 is at a civilized level, else you inadvertently doom Libertarianism.

    1. that thread needs to be banished and the servers lit on fire to ensure no one ever reads it.

      1. It will return with dragons and an army of unsullied

    2. “taking back Real America”

      I can’t tell if you are try to say “Ammurca” or “AmeriKKKa,” but either way, you spelled it wrong

    3. WHAT DID YOU FUCKERS DO TO WARTY

    4. Dude. I work at a University. It is distinctly lefty.

      And I resent this tendency of the SJWs to deride people for their sinus problems. Check your ability privilege, SJWs!

  18. The problem is seeing this is a binary debate, and thus having a free and open dialogue means treating rightwing orthodoxy as a necessary participant, being only one of two possible political outlooks. But what’s really going on is liberals and others are having their own robust debates along a spectrum of issues, while rightwingers are in the process of intellectual collapse. Reasonable people can disagree about what a tax rate should be. Reasonable people cannot disagree about whether basic scientific facts are real.

    1. Tony derp de derp. Derp de derpity derpy derp. Until one day, the derpa derpa derpaderp. Derp de derp da teedily dumb. From the creators of Der, and Tum Ta Tittaly Tum Ta Too, Tony is Da Derp Dee Derp Da Teetley Derpee Derpee Dumb. Rated PG-13.

      1. How dare you steal my stock reply to Shriek? I’m cutting you out of the debate!

        1. Sorry, it was too good not to steal.

          1. Shriek is… the Stapler! Rated PG-13.

    2. But what’s really going on is liberals and others are having their own robust debates along a spectrum of issues, while rightwingers are in the process of intellectual collapse

      “Why won’t the right-wingers join our robust intellectual debate about whether spelling Robyn’s name ‘Robin’ is a micro-aggression against womynkind?!”

      1. I AM SO ANGRY RIGHT-WINGERS WON’T ENGAGE IN SERIOUS INTELLECTUAL DISCUSSION ON THE TOPIC OF MANSPREADING

        1. I’d rather talk about womanspreading.

      2. “Why won’t the right-wingers join our robust intellectual debate about whether we are mostly correct or totally correct about everything?”

    3. In which Tony proves he’s an anti-intellectual idiot incapable of rationally arguing so he just dismisses all opposition as proof that the opponent is a vulgar blasphemer engaged in Bad-thought.

      Tony, quick question: When you make arguments like this, do you realize that you’re basically arguing that your political beliefs are a religion to you, rather than something based on rationality?

      1. Forget it. He’s just trying to derail the conversation into one of a few topics where he thinks his talking points are absolutely iron clad.

        1. “a few topics where he thinks his talking points are absolutely iron clad.”

          Because we’re talking about derp?

      2. I’m arguing against the fallacy of false equivalence. I strive not to have political beliefs, or any other beliefs, that are not proportioned to evidence. So no, not like religion.

        1. Tony|5.11.15 @ 3:42PM|#
          “[…]I strive not to have political beliefs, or any other beliefs, that are not proportioned to evidence. So no, not like religion.”

          In which case, you’re an abject failure. Fuck off.

    4. But what’s really going on is liberals and others are having their own robust debates along a spectrum of issues,

      Which is why the liberal party in this country is offering one and only one viable choice for its presidential nomination contest. A choice who also happens to be a walking repudiation of her party’s platform but doesn’t give a shit because she knows liberals will fall in line no matter how abusive she is towards their ostensible principles.

      Quite a robust debate you got going on there, Tony.

    5. Right.

      Tony, you’ve been spewing your pablum here for how many years? so often and with such persistent stupidity, that you’ve become a veritable mascot that everyone recognizes.

      By contrast, i have myself managed to be booted out of “reasonable left wing forums” like Salon, Raw Story, Pando, etc. *after a single comment*…

      …and that was before I really even got my TEAM-RED MOUTHBREATHING on! I actually just asked 1 or 2 reasonable questions, like, “Are there any technical requirements for being called “Rape Denialist?”

      I’d love if you could point to an example of this “robust debate” on the left, Tony.

      Because I peruse the popular progressive press on a daily basis, and i see nothing but a cloistered hive-mind, increasingly fearful and terrified of any deviation from their programmed script, endlessly screeching, “I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?”, and insisting upon total adherence to ideological orthodoxy.

      1. Tony, you’ve been spewing your pablum here for how many years?

        We have to grade Tony’s handler on a curve: this version has only been around for a few months and is an exceptionally stupid variant.

      2. There is no truer testament of superior penchant for tolerance than our engagement of Tony and his ilk never once asking them to be banned or censored.

        1. Ah, but its a double-edged sword.

          Because while we expect to be congratulated on our endless tolerance of the progtarded?

          ….instead we will still be denounced because people like “‘Murkin” (aka ‘Klansman, International Jew, etc’) exist, and comment here.

          We Tolerate the Intolerant! Which means we are passively permitting racism to exist. which is the same as if we were all wearing white sheets and lynching black crippled children.

          For the progs, allowing shitty views to exist is the same thing as endorsing them. So our failure to moderate comments makes us all sexist, racist, extreme socons.

          1. Just like our idols Ron and Rand Paul.

            /Hihn

      3. I’m definitely with you on censorship on message boards. Even restricting the use of vulgarity stifles real debate, and it’s why I like this place. But don’t pat yourself on the back too hard–I have many libertarian-friendly political beliefs, but I happen to believe in a modern welfare state, and that means I am a blasphemer and should go away so you guys can resume agreeing with each other about everything.

        1. Look, Tony, if you think that a choice of who you marry and fuck is a basic human right, why can’t you acknowledge that the choice of what you do for a living is also a basic human right?

          What one does for work is at least as defining as their choice of mate. It’s a choice that consumes the majority of most people’s waking hours. How one runs one’s own business is as intergral to the self as any personal expression printed in a newspaper or on a message board. But your side wants to treat operating a business as if the instant you exchange money for goods, you become an employee of the government, and the government gets to dictate every detail of how you operate your business right down to forcing you to serve cake at gay weddings and pay for your employees contraception.

          If human beings are to be free to live complete and full lives, they must be free to choose the manner in which they earn a living, and that includes having the freedom to run their own private businesses as they see fit.

        2. “but I happen to believe in a modern welfare state”

          if that were your only problem you’d be a lucky man.

    6. Global warming isn’t the type of issue under discussion here, Tony.

      We are talking almost exclusively about issues revolving around race, gender, and class.

      The continued economic failure of some members of minority groups even in a preferences-based system requires explanation. The modern progressive explanation for the failure of many of their pet groups is that the weaklings and cowards who make up those groups don’t “feel safe”.

      Any hint that anyone living opposes progressive orthodoxy, you see, makes cowards and weakling SO AFRAID that it renders them helpless, and unable to perform tasks like take the LSAT or write a term paper or show up for their work study job on time. Therefore, in order to try to make it possible for weaklings and cowards to succeed, we need to completely control their semantic environment.

    7. Re: Tony,

      The problem is seeing this is a binary debate, and thus having a free and open dialogue means treating rightwing orthodoxy as a necessary participant, being only one of two possible political outlooks.

      Thus Tony proves Tucille’s point. A point of view is not to be regarded if the little Marxian calls it “right-wing,” therefore the intellectually lazy doesn’t have to be bothered.

      1. Also, what Tony thinks of as the “right wing” is vast enough to encompass Santorumites and libertarians alike, which is to say such a huge range of beliefs as to be completely meaningless.

        Meanwhile he pats himself on the back for his tolerance of REAL beliefs, held in good faith, from Trotskyism all the way to Leninism.

        That most commenters here think of him in the same category as the more outr? shithead racists and copsuckers, and for the very same reasons, doesn’t register.

        1. Re: Xeones,

          Also, what Tony thinks of as the “right wing” is vast enough to encompass Santorumites and libertarians alike

          I wish it was as nuanced as that. At least it would show a semblance of some sophistication. But no.

          Not Team Blue: Racists, Bigots, Misers, Fascists, Bourgeoisie, Plutocrats, Profit-Seekers, Capitalists, Angry White Men, Uncle Toms, Rapists, Patriarchs, Puppy or Kitten-Killers, etc.

          Team Blue: All-around smart and good people.

    8. DERP!

    9. ” liberals and others are having their own robust debates along a spectrum of issues”

      Tell that to the two gay guys who had dinner with Ted Cruz and were threatened with excommunication.

    10. So, leftists don’t shout down anyone who brings up scientific facts about gender as male chauvinists, rape apologists, etc, at every turn? I had a professor – no joke – teach, as class material, that homeless was caused by Republicans and Republicans and ‘the Right’ were trying to keep women and minorities under their thumb. And by the right, he meant everyone to the right of Liz Warren.

      Tony, I have been accused of being a racist and a sexist precisely for arguing that a tax rate should be lower. Your co-religionists are the ones who reduce everything to binaries. If you’re not part of Progress, you’re defending heteronormative capitalist-patriarcho-racist society against the many oppressed groups, full stop. There is no nuance. The ‘plurality of opinions’ you refer to? Oh yeah, are you a Leninist or Trotskyist? Liz Warren or Bernie Sanders? Intellectual diversity my ass. Four years in a humanities department, I think I know the situation better than you.

    11. I want to say – we are all dumber for reading this.
      Your an idiot

  19. We can develop independent institutions as the article suggests, but we’ll need to be watchful. The progs bitterly hate independent institutions and will seek to use the power of the government and/or mob violence to destroy them on the grounds that they’re “not inclusive”.

  20. OT: From time to time, there will be an article about a fat woman who models in order to prove that everyone is beautiful or something. You know what you never see? Short, fat, and/or bald men posing as models to prove that all men are beautiful.

    I can see the ad campaign now: Bald is beautiful!

    1. Fat women have a right to be seen as attractive by men. Men have no right to be perceived as attractive to any woman, because entitlement.

    2. Allow me to introduce you to dadbod.

      1. I heard about this over the weekend on NPR’s “Wait, Wait Dont’t Tell Me” game show.

        I don’t believe it.

    3. That is because women don’t care about looks in general. All they care about is how big that bulge in a guy’s pants is.

      Yes, the bulge I’m talking about is the dude’s wallet. If the wallet is bulgin they don’t care if his gut is also.

      1. They like guys who keep all of their receipts and have a lot of pictures of their kids?

        1. When a guy’s wallet opens up and that daisy chain of pictures drops out…

          Well, let’s just say that you have to get out the drip bucket because the ladies are so turned on.

      2. Eh, I like shortness and facial hair are generally frowned upon. I don’t think it’s an accident that most men are clean shaven and that men with beards are usually portrayed as old, crazy, or poor.

        The only action movie with a short hero I know of is To Hell and Back, and that’s because Audie Murphy insisted on portraying himself.

        1. What about Willow?

          1. I like how you act like it was voluntary. The academics were put into the fields and peasants into university. Without being asked whether they’d really like to change places. Most of the peasants were okay with it. If you grow up on a farm, any work is easier.

    4. “OT: From time to time, there will be an article about a fat woman who models in order to prove that everyone is beautiful or something. You know what you never see? Short, fat, and/or bald men posing as models to prove that all men are beautiful.

      I can see the ad campaign now: Bald is beautiful!”

      The thing about modeling though, is that #1 Models are dumb and you can’t really believe their stated reasons for “why” they model, because #2 The only reason you can model professionally is if someone pays you.

      Incidentally, short, fat, and bald men can pose as models and they do, in life drawing classes or commercial modeling. If you can sell something you can model. But if short, fat, and bald men can’t sell men’s shoes or shirts, that’s probably not something we can blame fat feminists for.

      1. Also, there are possibly as many, or even more, gay men in the fashion industry as there are straight women. That could have something to do with why you don’t see as many fat male models.

    5. Bald men can be hot, as long as it’s completely shaved. It’s bald spots that are unattractive.

      Fat is never hot, even on girls. I mean, both men and women can be attractive in many ways, but fat is always a negative.
      There are some women whose underlying hotness overcomes the fatness.

      1. Depends, some women only have a god given rack if they are also fat (not obese), so those girls are actually more attractive when fat, but if you could carve off the fat and keep the chest they would be more attractive.

        1. Plenty of men like relatively flat chested women though.
          Boobs are just a matter of taste.

          Of course some men like women a bit well-rounded too. But beyond a certain point, it’s generally a negative. A little bit of chubbiness might make a flat-chested girl more attractive to a guy that likes boobs, though.

      2. Hey, I quite like women that are more plump. I find chubby girls generally more pleasing to the eyes than skinny girls.

  21. Is there anything more passive aggressive than unfriending someone on facebook…and then writing a blog post about it?

    1. Tagging someone in photos to an event that they purposefully weren’t invited to?

    2. s there anything more passive aggressive than unfriending someone on facebook

      Yes!

      A fellow volunteer for a nonprofit, who happens to be their social media coordinator, demanded all non-Democrats to unfriend her on Facebook because she couldn’t’ stand to be associated with people with terrible morals. This was the morning after the last U.S. federal election.

      She wanted *us* to click the button. Needless to say, I refused to do her work for her. It took her 4 months to lose it and unfriend me. The final straw was my splashing down on a fascinating facebook comment thread on her page where every participant was decrying the intentional blurring of a woman’s visage while leaving the men in focus to point out that (a) it was an optical illusion, and (b) the patriarchy had better things to do with its resources than intentionally blur women’s faces in stock photos.

      I think demanding people unfriend you is pretty much the ultimate in passive aggressiveness.

      1. “I refused to do her work for her.”

        You should have posted on her wall that you weren’t going to enact that labor.

        1. I chose not to declare my opposition so openly. I chose to torment her.

          Naturally, she was the last to find out about my engagement. Passive aggressiveness can be a two way street… 😉

      2. I should really periodically post some screamingly libertarian political thing just to clean out my facebook friends list. I really don’t want people on it who are so intolerant they will unfriend anyone with the wrong political views. Besides, I have way too many facebook “friends” that I barely know. Periodically alienating the easily offended sounds like a good way of filtering for people of quality.

  22. Tolerant people do not tolerate intolerance.

    If you disagree with the left then you are intolerant, and in the name of tolerance you shall not be tolerated.

    1. A snake vomiting its own tail?

  23. I should friend her on Derpbook. It would give me enough material for many more chapters of the Derponomicon.

    1. “Derponomicon” really made my day. Thank you for that. Although for some reason I immediately envisioned this as the working title for Paul Krugman’s next book.

      1. Here it is for your reading torment. The last guy who tried to read it clawed his eyes out.

        http://platedlizard.blogspot.c…..art-1.html

        1. *wonders if he could make his sanity roll*

  24. “not a real news outlet”

    Before this past weekend, I wouldn’t have believe this. A friend of mine linked to a Western Journalism article on facebook. Someone commented that WJ is a satire site. Conservative? Yes. Sensational? Probably. Bias? Duh. Satire? Far from it.

    The exchange headed down hill fast. “If that’s satire, then what is Fox?” “Fox reports emotions, not facts.” Then there was a link to some random ass blog with a list of “satire news sites” stated as fact. The obvious ones like Onion and Daily Currant made the list but when I saw LewRockwell.com, that’s when I started laughing. There’s no room for dissenting opinion with these people. If it doesn’t conform to their echo chamber, then it’s objectively and measurably false.

    1. Not only is it false, but it’s full of bad intentions. It’s all about intentions with the left. If you oppose some program that’s intended to [fill in the blank with something emotive like feeding starving children], then you intend for the opposite to happen. That makes you a bad person. Why debate with bad people? There’s no point. They’ve got bad intentions.

      1. There was a debate recently in my home state of WV about school meals. Team Blue introduced the bill. They expected Team Red to vote against it, which would allow Team Blue to claim that Team Red doesn’t care about children. Progs have no interest in the actual pros and cons of the idea. They just want to make their opponents look bad.

      2. I’ve give up debating talking politics with people outside of “my camp.” Not from perspective of “you’re wrong and I’m right,” but because it’s never productive. I always remain cool and calm and they inevitably resort to name calling. And if it’s someone you’ve been friends with for a while, it can hurt.

        I have this friend – a fraternity brother – who is a die hard leftist. Rachel Maddow, NPR, “Coexist”…the works. And he will actually ask me about libertarian ideas in a very civil manner. “Explain to me this.” “Elaborate on that.” He comes to me to talk. I try to avoid discussion but he brings it up and it’s civil. There’s never any name calling and at the end of the day, it’s always “I don’t know if I agree but you make some valid points.” To me, that’s true progress – not social engineering at the threat of a gun.

        1. You’re mirroring what I do now as well. There’s no upside for me to talk about politics or new ideas with anyone who hasn’t explicitly requested it and I know is willing to do without becoming hysterical.

          It usually only ends in huffiness and confusion on the other end and me getting eye sprains from all the rolling.

          1. I have had exactly one polite debate with a prog. He ended by saying something like “you make good arguments for things I think are evil.”

            I’ll take that as a compliment.

        2. Yeah. Most of this stuff is emotional for people, and you can’t rationalize someone out of a position they arrived at by emotion. The feel that they are right, and no amount of logic or reason will change that. I used to be an emotional leftist. I know. My epiphany happened when I was musing about how there are so many shitty parents in this world, and how perhaps there should be a licensing scheme for parenting. It felt right. I mean, that would prevent people who shouldn’t have kids from having kids. Then I thought about how it would be implemented, who would make the decisions, and on what grounds. That got me going on thinking about how all such government decisions were made, and I started down the path to supporting minimalist government.

          1. My theory is that many, many people are strongly driven by the desire for social acceptance and approval. Thus they arrive at positions that are largely determined by what gets them the most approval.
            For some people, whose self-worth isn’t that dependent on approval they can be argued out of it, but for people who are really really afraid of being outcasts, they will react with absolute insanity if confronted with the logical inconsistency or immorality of their position. These are also the same kind of people who are extremely judgemental and likely to react by ostracizing and unfreinding people for wrongthink.
            The problem is that the sheer terror of being one of those outcasts makes them cluster together in like-minded groups.

            1. Matt 10:28

            2. My theory is that many, many people are strongly driven by the desire for social acceptance and approval. Thus they arrive at positions that are largely determined by what gets them the most approval.

              Fuck… I’m clearly immune to that one. Unless there’s an inversion pathology, where people arrive at positions most likely to get them showered with opprobrium. I might have that. :-/

              1. If I have a pathology it’s that I have an allergic reaction to groupthink so I’ll tend to find some sort of way of injecting some dissent, just to break up the monotony.

                1. I feel I’m the same way. I always hate the the group of people I’m with. Usually even with right-wingers there are sticking points like my ambivalence toward Israel or creationism or my desire for legalized prostitution that I subconsciously emphasize that get me treated like a ‘leftist.’ Usually though they just give me a half-dumb look of confusion; it’s the lefties however who get out the holy water and start trying to exorcise me the moment I disagree with the idea of ‘rape culture.’

        3. I always remain cool and calm and they inevitably resort to name calling. And if it’s someone you’ve been friends with for a while, it can hurt.

          Yeah… I really, really dislike that. I gave up talking politics, for the most part, and gave up on FB itself for a while, because of stuff like that. People who have known me for decades, telling me they were really disappointed to find out I was such a horrible, malicious human being, because I dared disagree with their chosen implementation of something.

          It’s just like… “Really? You can’t even imagine that I might disagree with your technique, without being a horrible person who wants horrible things to happen to people? Because I think that your chosen method of implementation of ‘feeding the children’ is suboptimal, that means that I actively want children to starve? And, what, I was just hiding that somehow for the last 20 years you’ve known me?”

          *headshake*

    2. For all the shrieking* the left does about Fox, I note that they almost never cite stories from Conservative or Libertarian news/editorial sites, and actually ever attempt to rebut them in detail.

      By contrast, its almost a weekly feature here = “Here’s something @ Salon/Jezebel/NYT to deconstruct”

      they simply don’t engage opposing views – they demonize them. Which is why they prefer to maintain a focus on a small cast of mythological characters like the Kochs, who never actually *defend themselves*, rather than ever actually participate in a dialogue with less ideologically constrained people.

      1. I’ve noticed this too. In a small defense of Fox, they at least try to deconstruct a viewpoint. Granted, they frequently resort to “Murica” and “what would white Jesus do,” but it’s a shit fucking ton more than anything from the left. It’s all buzzwords, “privilege,” and ad hominem.

        I want them to articulate a logical response beyond “that’s racist/sexist/triggering/etc” but it’s impossible. It’s bumper sticker activism. If the argument can’t fit on a 4×12 sticker, it’s not worth remembering.

      2. Yet more inaccuracies in media – it seems to me anyway – happen on the legacy/mainstream/liberal side.

        I don’t get the hate on Fox at all.

        Even the rabid hatred for Limbaugh. All he does is read AP, Politico or whatever stories and offers and fricken opinion. That’s it. That’s his shtick. Yet they go apeshit on it often misrepresenting what he says. It’s so dumb.

        I see the same thing up here with Don Cherry. People go after the messenger more than the message. Cherry actually makes some valid points. It’s just that they hate him so much they choose not to listen.

        Me? I just listen to the message and work from there.

        1. “Don Cherry”

          Wow, that’s funny,

          I was confused, and thought you meant this guy, when you meant this guy

        2. Ezra Klein is worse than Limbaugh in both the bigoted asshole and stupid categories, without a doubt, but he is even regarded as ‘sophisticated.’ I hate Limbaugh and Coulter, but what lefty in their right mind can possibly think there is an objective standard to which they can appeal by which their champions are one iota better? I mean Paul Krugman, one of the ‘smartest’ one of them by consensus, has been caught lying without a shred of doubt. Whence the sense of intellectual superiority?

      3. What is there to rebut?

        Seriously.

        The left doesn’t debate issues. They debate people. All they have to do is show that Fox or whatever has bad intentions, and then everything they say is null and void.

        Every criticism I see of libertarians is exactly that: criticism of libertarians. Not of our ideas or principles, but of us as people.

        Ad hominems are convincing arguments for the left.

      4. Slightly OT: Why do leftists try to mock Fox News by calling it “Faux News.” Do they really not know how that is pronounced?

        1. Its the same as “Koch-sucker”; its not a phonetic pun, but “homographic” pun.

          However, they’d probably think ‘Homographic’ was a reference to “Tom of Finland”

        2. Only a tea-bagger would ask that.

          *giggle*

      5. Heh. Man. I thought all the stuff about the Kochtopus was like, just an in joke here.

        And then, after running into some people from different organization events on FB, and reading them… I realised that the in joke got started for a reason. Holy fuckballs.

        “Wait. You mean… you really believe that? You realise that people make fun of people who say stuff like that, right? Because it’s complete bullshit? No? You didn’t, hunh. Wow. Bummer.”

  25. the primary conservative impulse–utter myopia–that lefties tend to find ridiculous, and thus ridicule.

    Fucking self-awareness- how does it work?

    1. Does it involve magnets?!

      /Juggalo

      1. ::cough:: ::cough::

        https://reason.com/blog/2015/05…..nt_5291168

        1. Fucking comments, how do they work?

          /Me

  26. Rebecca Roache, a Lecturer in Philosophy at Royal Holloway, University of London

    It’s not her job to educate you, Tuccille.

    God, I can’t even!

    1. Well played. I laughed. 😀

  27. If Communism has taught me anything, it’s taught me to look at issues of sustainability and at the things most likely to demonstrate a robust ability to survive under harsh circumstances. As such, I’ve concluded that the beautiful and unique snowflakiness of the yutes is a trait that is ultimately incompatible with a society cohesive enough to maintain a robust social safety net. They will always run into problems when it comes to who is a member of the in-group (as, they’ll all agree, only members of the in-group deserve the social safety net bennies).

    I do feel somewhat bad that the system is failing them, though. They’ve not gained the necessary social antibodies to help them survive some of the rough environments the real world is going to contain.

  28. Fox News is a biased, emotion-based propaganda outlet unlike…unlike…

    Shit.

  29. There was an article yesterday at RCP on this. The comments were pretty good. The leftists came out in force to attack this woman, but they didn’t last long. I think they were triggered by being laughed off the site, and had to flee to a safe place.

  30. I think demanding people unfriend you is pretty much the ultimate in passive aggressiveness.

    *puts P-38 with single round in magazine on tarran’s desk, looks meaningfully at watch, leaves room*

    1. You forgot the bottle of whisky!

  31. I’ll fully admit to blocking tons of lefty sources on Facebook that friends share, simply because I don’t care and don’t feel like being exposed to the usual gibbering authoritarian idiocy for the umpteenth time. Plus it makes me like them less.

    I have no guilt whatsoever in censoring their posts. Not having to see the latest edition of Control Freaks Unlimited makes my life more pleasant.

    1. But don’t you want to see the meme about how George Bush lost 4.2 Quadrillion e-mails just one more time?

  32. All this is awful.

    What’s to be done?

    1. Is that a Chernyshevsky reference?

  33. “… paralyzed by enveloping clouds of smug.”

    Nice.

    1. Just wait until those smug clouds collide with the smug from George Clooney’s Oscar acceptance speech. It’ll be the perfect storm of self satisfaction…

      1. You did something there, and I saw it.

  34. I really wish all the really hardcore progs/socons would just all move to one place and have their own version of the Free State Project. You think have it all figured out? Fine, go and build your utopia. No one will stop you. If it you make it work, others will follow your lead.

    But of course, they never do. Because at their heart of every utopian vision is the desire to force everyone to participate. Every ism is just a mask for the desire to control other people. Libertarians just want the least amount of control.

    1. It’s called “California”, I think.

    2. I think they should both mate with each other and form the ultimate control freak

    3. The two last attempts at a Utopia were the Bloomberg mayoralty and Cambodia in 1976.

  35. this is the problem with convincing yourself that those who disagree with you are “evil”.

    you cannot argue with evil, you just round up legolas and the dwarf and go slay the orcs.

    the irony is that this is what MAKES you evil: the uncritical assault on all that is not you.

    the progressives have become a modern day dominican order determined to stamp out and silence heresy.

    if they could burn their detractors at the stake, i fear many of them would be happy to.

  36. Progressives, Cthulhu bless ’em, just aren’t very smart. That’s why I’m an optimist.

  37. I completely agree with the thrust of this article.

    Social Justice Warriors only have the power to ostracize you if you want their approval.
    The cultural power of the left exists largely because people give it to them, by ceding the moral high ground, by desiring to be accepted in their circles. The way to combat that is to stop caring what they think, and develop alternative institutions and social circles.
    That is the answer to the Gramscian takeover of institutions – fuck the old institutions, and start new ones. Let them isolate themselves in their own social circles, and thus make them marginalize themselves.

    1. Jack Donovan wrote a pretty good column about this a few months back. The most powerful response to any leftard talking point is “I don’t care.” Their feelings of moral superiority disappear when you’re not willing to prostrate yourself to their lofty, noble ideals.

      1. ‘So what?’ works, as well. They don’t care for that reply.

    2. Who is asking for your approval? I seriously don’t even know what the enemy here is supposed to be. Yes, liberals are currently thinking over, in rather detailed ways, the aspects of privilege imbalances. It is not expected that everyone change their pronouns or behavior at every pronouncement from a Berkeley liberal arts professor. In fact, basic manners deals with just about every social interaction, and those rules and guidelines are quite stable. It is quite possible for a liberal to be rude to a conservative by calling him out on his language. It is rude to call someone rude to his face, even if it’s true. I don’t condone correcting the behavior of adults.

      But there is nevertheless a lot of real outright bigotry in the world, and it’s hardly hiding on white supremacists forums on the Web. It’s everywhere. And I think it’s the bigger problem than those holier-than-thou liberals and their pronouns.

      1. It is not expected that everyone change their pronouns or behavior at every pronouncement from a Berkeley liberal arts professor.

        Really? Then why are people being harrassed on twitter and on progressive message boards for NOT using the latest terminology?

        And why do progressives get to decide what “correct manners” constitutes?

        1. The overarching point is that being “harassed on twitter and on progressive message boards” is, to you, the big problem here. Not, say, the higher suicide rates, lower job prospects, and other actual real problems that LGBT people face. No, the real problem is you having to face a world that’s microscopically different than you once presumed.

      2. Re: Tony,

        Who is asking for your approval? I seriously don’t even know what the enemy here is supposed to be.

        Easy. Marxians.

        But there is nevertheless a lot of real outright bigotry in the world

        And you’re right there looking over the horizon, to call it out. I can almost see your cape flying in the wind…

        1. It’s not that they’re asking for our approval, it’s that they expect us to want theirs.

      3. “But there is nevertheless a lot of real outright bigotry in the world”
        You’re right. Maybe you leftists should do a little introspection, lest you might find some.

  38. My roomate’s sister makes $65 hourly on the laptop . She has been laid off for six months but last month her payment was $16050 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
    check out the post right here ???????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  39. I think it would be a good business plan to open a real university that is all about free speech and different ideas. I’d send my kids there

    1. There is one, it’s Hillsdale College.

      They do not accept any government funding or government scholarships because almost all of those come with requirements to push a leftist agenda in order to get the money.

  40. if I don’t do facebook does that mean I’ve unfriended the world or just that I’m not a teenage girl?

    1. Yes.

  41. Except that this post wasn’t on a personal blog [Rebecca Roache’s, a Lecturer in Philosophy at Royal Holloway, University of London], it was on the University of Oxford’s Practical Ethics blog. You know ? a place to discuss ideas and stuff.

    We are constantly being reminded that places to discuss ideas and stuff are quickly becoming other places besides college and university campuses.

  42. I have taken every “progressive” unfriending as a compliment, and a tacit admission of defeat.

    Anyone who would throw a friendship away — including ones decades-long — over something so petty is someone I’m better off without, anyway.

  43. Professor. Please. Society is never gonna make any progress until we all learn to pretend to like each other. Now, let’s go over there and make these hideous strangers feel welcome.

  44. Yeah…this is bullshit. I’m getting sick of Reason baiting lefties. They’re my friends. Reason is losing me. I find I trust it less than before.

    1. There’s nothing new about this. Lefties aren’t getting more intolerant. I guess that with a (blessed) rise in libertarian currency, they’re reacting. But I don’t see the point to this kind of article. Preaching to the fuckin’ choir.

      1. The majority of my friends are liberals, in the sense of voting for Obama and being in favor of universal health care and higher taxes on the rich. But I think that’s fundamentally different from the batshit insanity that seems to be coming out of the academic left.

        It’s one thing to say that the government should help the poor pay for medical care. As a libertarian, one might disagree, but it’s not an inherently crazy idea. It’s another to say “I’m being oppressed by Greek mythology! Stop teaching it!”

    2. Keep baiting lefties, Reason. Make ’em squirm and resort to using “I” “me” “mine” all the time, poor dears.

  45. Which is fine until they decide that NO ONE can hear dissent and they crush it.

    1. Well, it’s not like people are getting arrested over twitter comments or anything… well,…

  46. i have a cousin who’s increasingly like this. every now and then he comes up with a new issue that becomes part of his process for determining if you’re really worth having as a friend. i get a pass because i’m family, but he’s also disappointed in me because he thinks i’m a libertarian….i can thank ‘reason’ for that i suppose, since i post a fair amount on facebook from here.

    i recall election night 2012 seeing that there was a thread attacking fox news/conservatism for being racist because of something that kirsten powers actually said. i helpfully pointed out that she was a liberal, so maybe it wasn’t as simple as they wanted it to be. i was informed that there was no such thing. if she was on fox news and/or said such a thing -the wording now escapes me- she can’t be a liberal, because they don’t do/think/say that.

    1. Many Leftists will never judge someone as an individual. If they do, then their whole ideology will come crashing down. If you propose ideas that treat people as individuals and not as their; gender, skin color, politics, religion, etc. they will attack you and say that you are doing nothing to right any wrongs. Somehow they think treating everyone the same with no special privileges is bad. I never figured that one out, they’ll just blather about the crusades, slavery, jim crow, and social justice.

  47. But I thought the progressives celebrate diversity?

  48. I’ve been online since April 4th 1996 and in that time the only people who have ever put me on ignore lists, kill filters, unfriended me or anything else to ignore me have been leftists.

    In contrast, I’ve blocked off very few people in all that time. Most recently was about 3 years ago when I unfriended one person on facebook who never posted anything except how great and glorious North Korea and communism are.

    Most people do have things to say that are worth hearing/reading, there’s just that annoying few who have *nothing* to say but insist on saying it anyway, to as many others as they can. They tend to be the sort who will believe absolutely anything – except the truth.

    1. “[…]Most people do have things to say that are worth hearing/reading,[…]”

      The woman who is the subject of this article disagrees. As far as she’s concerned, those who disagree with her are not to be a source of possibly new insights or information, they are merely those to be instructed:
      ” Life is too short, I thought, to hang out with people who hold abhorrent political views, even if it’s just online.
      This marked a change of heart for me. Usually, I try to remain engaged with such people in the hope that I might be able to change their views through debate.”

  49. The thing about old comfortable shoes and favorite sweaters, after a time they get worn. moth-eaten and holy as hell.

  50. If they want to go colonize Walden, Mass and drop out of society in favor of a commune or new age cult, that’s just fine with me. Better than institutionalizing them since inmates eventually take over the asylum.

  51. Hummm, if a Republican really has a good chance in 2016 I may go get a psych degree. Does anyone remember all the therapy needed when Bush won a second time? People were traumatized from him winning.

    I know Tony and Buttplug and a few others will be crying themselves to sleep if that happens.

  52. Really, J.D.?

    Lets just take 2 examples of media outlets and their willingness to air opposing views. Supposed lefty site Daily Beast, who constantly has articles from the right, including those by Ron Christy, David Frum, Liz Mair, Matt Lewis, neo-con Eli Lake….oh, and did I mention Libertarian Nick Gillespie? He has an article over at that liberal gated community just about every week.

    Do let us know when diversity-seeking Reason even has one liberal contributor.

    1. Tony already shit all over this board yesterday, but I guess you can contribute your turd to the heap if you want to.

  53. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.Jobs-Cash.com

  54. My leftie relatives’ actions and behavior have led me to believe they love ‘feeling offended’ because it is a way to control the people around them, their extended families in particular. Their relatives must be led to recognize that they, the lefties, are so much wiser, smarter and know everything so everyone must bow down to their superiority. (smile)

    I have to admit feeling a little shadenfruede because I get so much amusement in showing them how they are wrong using history, science and facts.

    So far, so good. Not that I believe they can be turned away from their unthinking opinion parroting along with their super sized self image. Facts and truth are anathema to them.

  55. This is why the left should no longer be called Liberals. Liberal implies an ideology of openness and tolerance for ideas and opinions contrary to your own. The left today is as far from liberal as they can get. They started calling themselves progressives because liberal had a bad connotation in the political realm, but those on the far left are no longer liberals in any sense of the word. They seek to silence anyone or any organization that expresses thought, opinions and ideas different than their own. The seek to impose censorship on what they decide is offensive, impose restrictions on speech by labeling it hate speech and want the government to intrude and control every aspect of our lives to ensure we all think and act as all good progressives should. Progressives as the greatest threat to this country and will remain unless the course it reversed. They use the media to deny their history and the truth of who and what they are which the rest of us allow.

  56. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.Jobs-Cash.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.