Feminism

British Students Ban Feminist Writer Julie Bindel From Panel on Feminism's Free Speech Problem

Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos also banned; both said to violate "safe space" policy.

|

modified from @bindelj/Twitter

LOL LOL LOL is about all there is to say on this story: The University of Manchester has banned feminist activist Julie Bindel from speaking at a panel on feminism's free-speech problem.

The Manchester Students' Union (SU) flagged Bindel's appearance at the event—titled "From Liberation to Censorship: Does Modern Feminism Have a Problem with Free Speech?"—as a potential breach of the school's "safe space" policy. "After reviewing the request in more detail, the Students' Union has decided to deny this request based on Bindel's views and comments towards trans people, which we believe could incite hatred towards and exclusion of our trans students," SU said in a statement.

I'm not as familiar with Bindel's repertoire on trans issues as I am with her views of sex work, which are of the second-wave, prostitution-is-inherently-abusive variety. Bindel regularly campaigns against sex-worker rights and prostitution decriminalization. And both in articles for The Guardian and on social media, Bindel comes across to me like an awfully unpleasant and misguided human being. 

That being said: Bindel's views on prostitution and trans issues are certainly active schools of thought in some modern feminist circles (generally referred to as "rad-fems"). They might not be en vogue with the kids today, but it's not as if Bindel is advocating violence or harassment against trans people and sex workers. So call me a free speech nut, but I'd prefer those who disagree with her shtick debate her on the merits of her ideas rather than seek to silence her—this is not the first time U.K. student groups have "no platformed" Julie Bindel.

University of Manchester student Leonardo Carella (who looks to be a budding libertarian, awww) has started a petition to let Bindel speak at his school. It points out that the school allowed Bindel to speak at a 2013 event hosted by the Manchester Debating Union (though she "dropped out because of threats") and states that "the position on trans issues of Julie Bindel are of no interest in these circumstances, as the debate is not intended to touch upon trans issues."

And therein may lie the crux of the problem "modern feminism," or modern liberalism more generally, has with free speech. Those who don't buy the whole package (whatever it is that week) are written off as bad and that's that—one can't possibly be an "ally" on some issues while disagreeing on others. And the best way to deal with disagreements? Mock, discredit, and silence the "unsafe" speaker! The modern liberal orthodoxy sees things in terms every bit as black-and-white as the so-cons and religious right about which they once complained. 

In this case, I would see nothing wrong with the SU asking Bindel to avoid trans issues at this talk, since that's not its intended subject. Yet these students (and others who have no-platformed her) seek to punish Bindel for holding "incorrect" views in this one area by prohibiting her from speaking about anything.

Banning her from the panel "is clearly in breach of with the University of Manchester's Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech," Carella's petition states. "Speakers far more controversial and 'offensive' than Julie have been permitted and even suggested by the SU on previous occasions. Yet they have decided to apply the principles of the safe space policy now and on us. We feel that the manner in which it has been done is at best sloppy on their part, and at worst inconsistent to the point that it suggests an abuse of power."

"The freedom to express a controversial or challenging opinion is held equally and by all," the petition continues. "Without this freedom we are robbed of the ability to refute or confirm the views that we have formed, and are thus diminished as people and as students."

On Tuesday, the Students' Union rejected an appeal of its decision about Bindel. On Wednesday, it decided to ban Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking at the University of Manchester campus as well (he was scheduled to debate Bindel).

"We have been made aware of various comments lambasting rape survivors and trans* people, and as such we are concerned for the safety of our students on the topic of this event," said an SU statement (random asterisk their's) about Yiannopoulos. "He is a rape apologist and has repeatedly used derogatory and debasing ableist language when describing members of the trans* community….As we believe it is probable these views would be aired in this discussion should he be allowed to speak on campus, we have no choice but to ban him." 

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.

197 responses to “British Students Ban Feminist Writer Julie Bindel From Panel on Feminism's Free Speech Problem

  1. “University of Manchester student Leonardo Carella (who looks to be a budding libertarian, awww) ”

    They’re so cute when they’re little. Then they grow up to look like, um:

    http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset…..40×360.jpg

    1. Sorry. Even though Sean Haugh is the libertarian candidate for Senate in NC, I did discover that he smokes the evil weed, which is most likely what turned him into a hideous monster:

      http://www.wral.com/haugh-i-ac…../14120672/

  2. ESB, you are a M.S. Paint sorceress. Brilliant.

    1. Damn it. ENB. Damn.

      1. What do you use for alt-text?

        1. Your mom.

          1. SugarFree used Invisible Link?, which I think is a related product.

          2. “(random asterisk their’s)”

            …But was the random apostrophe your%s?

            (Sorry; I’m totally not that guy; for all I know I spelled “apostrophe” wrong. But this was too cool to pass up. Great piece as always btw.)

  3. So inviting her will create a zone of danger?

      1. +1 buzz the tower

        1. Negative, ghostrider – the SJW pattern is full.

          1. I love you guys.

      2. Good one! Remember when we used to send F-14’s into those?!?

    1. It will build a highway to it which will leave you all alone in it.

      1. Did you go to Wesleyan?

    2. If it’s unsafe to sit in an overheated auditorium and fall asleep to a bias, bloviating lecturer you don’t like, then every college is the new Syria.

    3. If you needed any reason to NOT take feminists seriously… this is it.

      Feminists are a joke. Women are not equal to men – and feminists are too stupid to know it.

  4. repeatedly used derogatory and debasing ableist language

    Wait…. what?

    1. Forget it, Cyto, it’s Progtown.

      1. If progtown existed, I would go there carrying a board with a nail through it and rule them like they crave.

        1. Forget it, Florida Man; it’s Progtown.

          1. But I really want to hit someone in the forehead with a nail board!
            /stamps foot

            1. Until Floridian gets added to the list of official victims, tough shit.

              1. We are an endangered species. That ought to buy us something.

                1. I don’t think it counts if the Floridians are the ones responsible for their own endangered status.

                  1. You’re the kind of person that would blame the scream-a-piller for its own demise.

                    1. I too am sexually attracted to fire, but I learned to cope.

                  2. Individual members of the Florida Man species are endangered through their own actions. The species as a whole, though, is thriving.

          2. Forget it Riven, It’s Florida Man…Town.

              1. They say there is no hunting like the hunting of a man…

                1. And there is no hunting of a man like the hunting of a Florida Man.

                  1. Careful. I’ll draw you into the swamps and drown you like a raccoon drowns a hound.

                    1. From Wikipedia: “Homo semierectus floridianii, also known as ‘Florida Man’ or, in its breeding musk, the ‘skunk ape,’ is renowned by cryptohominid hunters as a wily, difficult, and dangerous quarry.”

                    2. [citation needed]

                2. You’re playing a most dangerous game.

        2. Would you? That board with a nail in it may defeat them, but you won’t stop there. You’ll make bigger boards and bigger nails, and soon, you will make a board with a nail so big, it will destroy you!

            1. Man, I haven’t had Monkey Paw since college….

              *draws bonghit of Thai Stick, old skool style*

        3. God, Bethesda should put Progtown into Fallout 4 DLC.

    2. Ableism or ablism (/?e?bl?z?m/) is a form of discrimination or social prejudice against people with disabilities. It may also be referred to as disability discrimination, ablecentrism, physicalism, handicapism, and disability oppression.

      Huh…. So… let’s see. The Student Union issued a statement that trans people are disabled. That’s got to violate some sort of hate speech code, doesn’t it?

      1. That all depends on who’s enforcing the code.

      2. Forget it

        ABLEIST!!!! What if he can’t forget?

        1. #PeopleWithIdeticMemoriesLivesMatter

          But wait, are such people even allowed to go to Europe? Wouldn’t their very presence violate the ‘right to be forgotten’ of everyone they interact with?

    3. I’m sure these people use nothing but kind words logical, relevant arguments against hose they disagree with, always.

      1. “hoes they disagree with” I’m sure you meant to say.

    4. Hate speech for disabled people, supposedly. Ends up even worse as it turns a way to signal you’re more moral than your opponents who call you crazy.

  5. She is intolerant, so in the name of tolerance her presence shall not be tolerated.

    1. This seems to be the heart of the matter, yes.

  6. This is well beyond parody. As in, even further beyond parody than many of the things these people have already said and done.

    1. From the comments: if she had tweeted #woodchipperallwhitemen she would never get out of jail

    2. “I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender.”

      From Merriam Webster dictionary:

      Full Definition of RACISM
      1
      : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
      2
      : racial prejudice or discrimination

      Racism is not a structure of privilege, it is instead an action of discrimination, either collective or individual.

      Words matter, but not apparently to professional victims.

      1. The rule of political and economic terms: Any political or economic term can have one of only two possible meanings, namely, “whatever I like” and “whatever I don’t like.”

      2. “I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist “”

        A Wizardess! she has the shield of intersectionality.

        1. “I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist ” *

          * unless I vote Republican

        2. It grants +10HP

      3. because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender.

        A smelly homeless white guy yelling at rats in the alley has more privilege than Obama’s daughters

        1. I think the point is how you are situated on average because of your race. That Obama became president didn’t make white privilege disappear forever.

          1. That’s a good reason why the point is stupid. Fun fact: The average person has approximately one testicle and one ovary.

            1. Put another way: racism exists structurally because a white person and a black person born in the same circumstances will nevertheless have different opportunities available, which has been statistically demonstrated over and over.

              1. I can’t understand what you are saying with that sock over your mouth. You are too muffled.

              2. Did you hear about the statistician who drowned crossing a river? He’d determined that the water was 3 feet deep, on average.

                1. that water was racist

                2. If you don’t even want to understand something, why do you think you are entitled to mock it?

              3. What about Jew and Asian privilege? Can we talk about that now?

              4. What do you mean by same circumstances? Like exact? No one is born under the exact same circumstances. Your post could also apply to two white folks because everyone is different and encounters different things.

              5. “exists structurally”
                Um no. The word “structurally”, like the word “systemic” does not make your point for you.

                Btw, statistically, a given black person is aroud 4 times as likely to commit murder as a white person. By this idiot woman’s logic (perhaps yours, since you seeem to be defending her idiocy), I, as a white person, cannot commit murder, since “structurally, and, like, statistically and and systemically” it’s mainly a thing ethnic minorities do.

                I guess the point you’re getting to though it: “it’s bad when they’re racist but it’s ok when we are.”

              6. Perhaps there is a probability that what you say is true, but it will happen for SOME people, not for ALL. In order to know which people it did happen to, we need to look at their individual circumstances and history. We can’t assume it just by looking at them, because that would be prejudiced and racist.

                Get it? Looking at people only as members of groups leads to bad results. You fix things by looking at people as individuals. Racists, and everyone on the left, looks at people as members of groups.

              7. This completely explains why I, an ethnic majority female descended from America’s Founding Fathers, has three levels of bosses, all of whom are black. Got it. Oh, and one of them wasn’t even born here. He came to America from Zimbabwe, because he says, “America is the land of opportunity.”

          2. YOU ARE TEH SMARTEREST AND MOST INSIGHTFUL PERSON ON THIS INTERNET TONY THANK YOU SOOOOOO MUCH FOR YOUR CONTIRBUTION!!!!!

            1. Two timer. You told AmSock the same thing on another thread.

          3. “I think the point is how you are situated on average because of your race. ”

            You mean the point is to generalize about everyone of a certain race because of some perceived trends? No, of course that’s not racist.

            1. It’s never racist when a goodthinkful prog does it, because intentions! And feelings!

            2. Well, the choice is to recognize the trend and come up with ideas to fix the problem, or do nothing and let structural injustices continue forever. Since you guys prefer the latter, you don’t get to lecture anyone on the virtues of meritocratic capitalism.

              1. Why is that the choice?

                Why not just encourage EVERYONE to not be dicks?

              2. Which shouldn’t involve redefining the term racist.

                1. Why do you prefer talking about the clinical and meaningless definition instead of the one that is actually pertinent to the conversation?

                  1. Why is the definition meaningless? Does it now mean whatever you feel?

                  2. Why do you prefer talking about the clinical and meaningless definition instead of the one that is actually pertinent to the conversation?

                    So language is just like a game of calvinball?

              3. OK Tony you go away for the rest of the week and come up with some ideas. I want a 5,000 page report on my desk by monday, and at least 75% of it has to be an impenetrable fog of SJW buzzwords.

              4. So you are cool with stereotyping huh?

              5. When all the ideas you come up with are bad ones that turn out counterproductive, doing nothing is a virtue.

                http://www.amazon.com/Please-S…..helping+us

          4. ‘I think the point is how you are situated on average because of your race.’

            So when I interact with someone, its based not upon that particular person’s content of their character, but upon an average of said person’s race. You realize the irony of your statement just caused God to kill a kitten.

            1. Basically, what Tony is saying is that it’s justified for white people to be afraid of black people and avoid them because somewhere there’s a statistics which says they’re more likely to mug you.

              Oh wait. Maybe the “because argument” and the “general trend” arguments only apply when you’re trying to bribe targeted demographic audiences for votes.

              1. That was “because poorly interpreted statistic argument” not “because argument”, but when I type the arrow things everything inside disappears 🙁

      4. So the person quoted believes she is incapable of the sins of racism and sexism due to her race and sex. How delightfully twisted!

      5. “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean ? neither more nor less.’

        ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

        ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master ? that’s all.”

        ? Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

    3. Hoisted on her own retard. I hope they throw the book at her. And that the book was written by a white guy.

      1. Also:

        She also accused the media of embarking on a ‘witch hunt and shameful character assassination’.

        Witch-shaming religious bigot? Add that to the charges.

    4. If you let pigs into your house pretty soon you will be stomping around in pig shit. The English are up to their eyeballs in it.

    5. She’s an idiot, but that’s not a crime. The UK’s ridiculous speech laws are no less intolerable because they’re being used on an idiot we don’t like.

      1. Thank you for pointing this out.

      2. Unfortunately, progs over there will simple ‘fix’ the law by making it not apply to designated victim classes who are bigoted against designated perpetrator classes.

    6. How do you have an officer of “a student union”?

      When I went to school, the student union was a building where we went to eat and play pool and stuff. So today, if you want to go do stuff at college, you have to clear it with a diversity officer? WTF is going on? And get off my lawn.

    7. “First, you censorious Guardians of Feels on the Left: if you thought that the norms you created wouldn’t be used against your “own side,” you’re fools. It is apparently your theory that the law is sexist, racist, and every other -ist, driven by privilege and wealth, and that free speech norms serve to protect rich white guys ? yet somehow exceptions to free speech norm will be imposed in an egalitarian, progressive way. That is almost indescribably moronic. Go sit in the corner and think about what you have done.”

      I love the subtle, low-key way Ken White writes!

  7. Feminists have made themselves a joke for a variety of reasons. This is just one of the more obvious.

  8. As we believe it is probable these views would be aired in this discussion should he be allowed to speak on campus, we have no choice but to ban him.”

    From the Students Union a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: “To a gas chamber ? go!

    1. That Che T-shirt is not merely provocative, though we sense a sophomoric intent to raise the pious hair on susceptible heads.

  9. I wonder what the panel will come up with. Seems like they already solved the feminism free speech problem.

  10. When these emotionally stunted “feminists” finally move on from their oral phase to the anal phase, I’ll be standing right behind them.

    1. ” the anal phase…. I’ll be standing right behind them.

      um.

    2. Behind every anal-phase radfem bloviator stands a grunty, cishet-shitlord libertarian.

      Behind every libertarian stands Warty, though, so be careful.

      1. I’ll be making jizzy, eh I mean jazzy hands.

        1. +1 up-tinkles…I mean twinkles.

      2. Goddammit. You guys can’t talk about anal this early in the morning.

        1. It’s lunch time … wait I don’t mean …
          /turns red

          1. turns red? go see a doctor,

          2. Too late. You said it. Everyone saw it.

        2. Just remember that it’s always early morning somewhere.

        3. There is no wrong time to discuss Freudian psychology!

          1. There is when I have a whole workday stretching out in front of me!

            1. That’s what you get for not living further east.

  11. My tail is delicious! [/the goodthinkful left]

  12. ” “He is a rape apologist””

    A Witch?

    “[he] has repeatedly used derogatory and debasing ableist language when describing members of the trans* community

    A Witch who uses magic words of power.

    1. “It is probable these views would be aired in this discussion'”

      Well, you can’t have a proper discussion if people are just going to have opinions, willy-nilly, without any rules.

  13. The worst part of this is that it’s making me defend Julie Bindel and Milo Yiannopoulos, who are both worse than Nikki, but not worse than Trump.

    1. On the other hand, at least I can’t already hate Manchester more than I already do.

    2. It’s sad that a school as good as UoM is crippled by also hosting such a lair of scum and villainy.

  14. I found a picture of the Manchester Student’s Union.

      1. Comrade, maybe this?

    1. Ouroboros, Social Justice is thy name.

  15. They have gotten to the point that they’re no longer even worth mocking.

    1. Whether they’re worth it or not, it’s practically impossible.

  16. ENB doesn’t scroll down, right?
    *Ashamed look at shoelaces*

  17. And therein may lie the crux of the problem “modern feminism,” or and modern liberalism more generally, are defined. has with free speech. Those who don’t buy the whole package (whatever it is that week) are written off as bad and that’s that.

    what this should say.

  18. I try very hard to understand where this speech policing stuff comes from, and wonder if I’m not simply an old-fashioned type of liberal stuck on his free-speech-maximalist ways. But it’s just not clicking. Is it not obvious that if an administrator is entitled to determine what is offensive for everyone, some day it might be a different administrator with a very different idea of what’s offensive?

    Nor am I the least bit sold on the premise that shielding people from words is good for them. I read barely literate racist homophobic rightwing bile every day with lunch. I’m hardly in the fetal position in a corner barely able to hang on. Is this what happens when the offspring of helicopter parents go to college?

    1. Someday you’ll be in the same camps as us, Tony. How does that make you feel?

      1. Someday you’ll be in the same camps as us, Tony. How does that make you feel?

        Would that be the same camps that Bindel wants to put all males in?

        http://preview.tinyurl.com/qjox7k9

        1. Good god, will Elizabeth Nolan Brown EVER do basic research?

        2. Because lets face it, we know we are right ? we are learning all the time, and we change our minds on all kinds of strategic issue, but radical feminism is common sense. On the one hand you have got utter idiots like Laurie Penny who are simply coming out with the stuff that she does because she knows that the groups she is supporting, that are pro-trans, pro-sex work, and pro- other anti-women nonsense, are run by very high profile, powerful libertarian men.

          From one woman to another Julie; while I don’t agree with you being removed from the speaking schedule, you are one miserable cunt.

    2. “…to understand where this speech policing stuff comes from,…”

      If you don’t have a sound argument then your only strategy is to silence your opponents. Or lie your ass off.

    3. Oh Tony. You’re so close to getting it, sometimes.

      1. Is the “it” I’m supposed to get that so-and-so are jackbooted totalitarian harpies who want to enslave us all?

        1. If history has proven anything, it’s that most people are jackbooted totalitarian harpies who want to enslave us all. Why you consistently pine for policies that would help them achieve that aim is beyond me.

          1. I think it more likely that most people have little interest in controlling others, but coercive government gives people two choices: let someone else control the government and thus you, or you try to control the government at least as much.

            IOW, this rampant panty wetting and control freakery is a result of coercive government, not the cause.

            Sure, some people are control freaks from the day of conception on. But without a coercive government, they would have to get their victims by persuasion, not be being elected or bribing the elected.

          2. I’m for strong checks and balances on powerful institutions in order to prevent too much accumulation in one place. You guys, at the behest of powerful institutions, want to hobble the one thing big enough to check them. Or is it that everyone is a wannabe totalitarian except those good and pure oil companies and their brethren?

            1. Tony thinks the government acts as a check on evil corporations rather that a game rigger for favored corporations.

              1. It can act as a check if it’s powerful enough. Laws and regulations can work if properly enforced. It wasn’t big-government progressives who gave the keys to K Street.

                1. Keep telling yourself that the politicians that you elect based on their progressive bonafides are going to use the powerful checks you demand for the government in the saintly manner that you expect. Even if you believe that it will happen, what do you think that an evil conservative will do with the same power? If nothing else, this should convince you that the government shouldn’t have these powers.

                  1. Evil conservatives will be evil and hand over society to private cartels, it’s what they do. I’ve never claimed that whom you vote for is inconsequential. In fact it’s everything.

            2. That ‘one thing big enough to check them’ is exactly the same entity which empowered their growth, ring-fenced competition out and colluded with their executives to ensure that checks and balances were toothless.

              1. Powerful corporations will always have outsize influence on government. That’s what power means. But your entire philosophy is about making it easier for them. You’re talking in self-justifying circles when the point is really quite obvious.

                1. My philosophy is to ensure that the government has little ability to legislate in “big business” favor.

                  Or for it to legislate in anyone’s “favor” at the expense of someone else.

                  1. So a constitution that forbids legislating on anything but nightwatchman-state concerns? Would this not have to apply to all communities, lest we end up with the State of Arizona, Brought to You by Wal-Mart, or the Tyson Fresh Meats South Dakota Experience? Where is the logic in saying that reducing the power of one competitor also reduces the power of the other?

                    1. To the extent that you are *minimally* correct, we are in a situation where the individual is currently suffering from living in an world formed primarily as the result of a symbiotic relationship between the government, and a relatively small group of businesses who collude together to suppress competition.

                      The problem is your utter unwillingness to recognize that one of those parties is *incapable* of forcing you to buy a certain product – hey – let’s come up with an example. Health Insurance!. But by a remarkable coincidence, the other party has both the means and the willingness to compel you to buy the product, using coercive measures up to – and including – killing you.

                      And you simply want to find “nicer”, “wiser” people who will write laws that change this situation, by banishing rent-seekers? This is the problem, Tony. Your “philosophy” – such as it is, is predicated upon philosopher kings and the perfectability of humans, along with what would be an amusing belief that society can be improved by us all “pulling together”.

                      It’s 2015, Tony. The whole 20th centrury was an experiment that demonstrated that what you believe (and Plato, for that matter) are utter bunk.

                      I’m not sure why I typed all that, because you’ve been told this so many times before, it’s a perfect demonstration that humans are flawed and will remain so forevermore.

                2. What corporations might those be?

                3. What corporations might those be?

            3. Wait, you think libertarians want to hobble government in order to make Big Corporations bigger?

              You do realize that this is nonsense, right?

              Big government creates big business, always. Always.

              Large companies always benefit from big government, and small business suffer. It is a faulty assumption that free markets create big evil corporations. Rather, nearly always, the biggest companies are the ones taking advantage of government, not the other way around.

              1. But government isn’t going anywhere, despite the imaginations of anarcho-capitalists. Government by itself has no incentive to increase the profits for a private entity; the private entity, quite rationally, is going to pull all the levers of influence it can get its hands on. Say a factory really wants to cut costs by dumping a much of mercury into a neighboring town’s water supply. Are you saying it’s easier for them to do this by lobbying and bribing politicians that it would be for them to simply do it without having to bother?

                1. This is the proof of your howling, inchoate idiocy.

                  You empower a group of individuals with power and the ability to collude with businesses, who you go on to say are acting rationally, in seeking to pull levers of influence, buy “bribing” the politicians.

                  When things don’t go the way you expect, you increase the powers of the politicians, giving businesses a greater incentive to pay greater bribes. Why would the politicians seek to constrain those businesses whose profitability allows the bribery to grow?

                  It’s like logic is a foreign language to you, isn’t it Tony?

                  1. Anyway, I’m done. It’s like trying to teach German grammar to an elephant.

                2. No no no. You are allowing yourself to be blind, and building foolish strong men. C’mon, Tony, you are better than this.

                  Sam is an unelected official capable of interpreting the law that says “Widget Alpha should be safe, honest, local, and environmentally friendly” in a certain area, for which there is a steady market. Assumptions: WA is safe, easy to use, and is beneficial, but not necessary, for life, and with a relatively thin profit margin.

                  There are five companies who are capable of making WA, and all of them want a portion of the market. They are A, B, C, D, and E. Well, WA needs truthful packaging, and E doesn’t have enough compliance people with the right designations that they buy/earn from the government, so it can’t sell them. WA needs to meet certain safety standards, even though there have been no issues in the past, and D is a small company that can’t afford to go through that process. Company C(hina) sells WA, but makes them overseas. Sam decides that the certification process for “non-local” goods should be much stricter, because [Insert abusive nativist/protectionist rhetoric here]. So it is no longer profitable for C. B got a good deal on its transports from VW, and, well, now we know that VW are bad for the environment (read: evil) so B’s license is revoked. So who gets the market? A. A gets the whole market, and B-E are boned.

                  1. But this doesn’t answer your question. Why does Sam do this for A? Simple — because he can. Because he believes it is in his best interest to limit the market. Maybe because he is buddies with the CEO of A, maybe the lobyist at A is really fun/wealthy/sexy/whatever. Maybe Sam is promised a 6-figure salary at Company A when he leaves. Maybe Sam (or Sam’s partner, to avoid bribery laws) is given lots of nice gifts and sent on cruises. Maybe Sam just really hates B-E, and FYTW. Maybe Sam really thinks he is doing the right thing and has the power to enforce his opinions.

                    Doesn’t matter.

                    The point is that giving that government DOES have an incentive to increase profits for SOME private entities, because government is PEOPLE. Much like soylent green, being people is the crux of the problem. Sam has an incentive, therefore government has an incentive.

                3. Getting elected and having a cushy job after government is incentive to increase a businesses profits.

                  Why would a company want to harm it’s customers who buy their products? Seems a sure fire way to sink yourself

                  1. There’s a greater incentive for a company to not give a damn if its products harm consumers – if it’s been granted a practical monopoly by those wise and honest politicians who have the power to create it.

                    1. .. and protect it from litigation.

                4. Bob Dylan wrote a song 40 years ago that could be subtitled (Tony’s song). The song is titled “Idiot Wind”.

            4. Any government big enough to protect you is big enough to hurt you, and will do so more often the larger it is, because when it has only one master, it only has a few reasons to hurt you; when it has a million masters, it has a million reasons to hurt you.

              Think of individualism as the ultimate in federalization, decentralization, or whatever you want to call it. When there is no big government setting the goals of everybody according to the whims of a million minorities, then no one can control that non-existent government to enforce their will on everybody else.

            5. No, you’re for checks and balances on all the powerful institutions except 1… which is no checks and balances at all.

              Is a theist any more of an atheist than a polytheist?

        2. I was gonna say “what freedom and responsibility mean,” but never mind – i retract the statement.

    4. “Is it not obvious that if an administrator is entitled to determine what is offensive for everyone, some day it might be a different administrator with a very different idea of what’s offensive?”

      This, Tony my boy, this! Now, do you see why and how some of us libertarians have similar concerns about consolidation of power?

      It is the same thing.

      So-and-so Administrator Jenny finds X offensive, and has powers A, B, and C to deal with it. We all love Admin Jenny and agree with her. So we give her powers D, and E, which are a bit harsh, but she is right, since X is so bad. However, then Administrator Jenny retires, or quits, or gets promoted, or something, and now Admin Shitlord is installed. He thinks X is funny but is offended by Y. We all love Y, of course, but who the fuck cares, and now not only does Admin Shitlord has powers A-E to deal with Y, while ignoring X.

      It doesn’t matter how good the person in power is (In our case, Admin Jenny), what matters is what the predecessor(s) will do with said power. Any powers granted to any authority have to be weighed not by what the current holder will do with them, but what your enemy might do with them.

    5. “I try very hard to understand where this speech policing stuff comes from”

      This is the inevitable result of your persona’s preferred policies. Every time.

      FFS, read a history book. Or at least watch a documentary on the teevee.

  19. And therein may lie the crux of the problem “modern feminism,” or and modern liberalism more generally, are defined. has with free speech. Those who don’t buy the whole package (whatever it is that week) are written off as bad and that’s that.

    That’s always been a problem with feminism and liberalism, modern or otherwise. Eating their own is a very liberal affectation.

    1. Indeed, it’s no ‘modern development.’ Their premises are broken. Why do people still act like it’s a new thing for people to want to control other’s speech? Or like their particular ideology “should” be immune to it?

      This ‘but we’re the good guys’ reasoning, so terrible. No different from the nationalist who refuses to accept that his tribe is just as rotten as all the others.

  20. It’s fun when they eat each other isn’t it? If only there were a way to speed up the process…

    1. Lashings and lashings of sriracha?

    2. I call dibs on a nice plot in England when they’re done. Cornwall + Devon should do nicely.

    3. I wonder how Joe Lieberman tasted?

      1. Sort of bland like gefilte fish, except tough, like shoe leather.

      2. Give John McCain a call. I’m sure he’ll have some feedback.

    4. Dousing them in olive oil and adding a touch of basil might make them a little more appetizing. Just a though.

  21. For crying out loud, Robbie. Learn how to write like an adult already.

    Wait, Elizabeth? Figures this mess would be the work of a woman.

  22. How many second wave feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
    None. They don’t like change.

    1. That is a proscribed question and cannot be asked.

  23. I agree with most of your article – until you single out “liberals” and “feminists”.Liberals are NOT progressives, and one of the issues dividing them is that of free speech. (Also, freedom of speech issues on college campuses, particularly in the U.K. but also in the U.S., are infamous and not necessarily representative.) We have already seen a wave of articles from liberals, and even some progs, decrying the extremism of PC-ness. As for feminists – they are far from monolithic. Read some feminist boards to learn about the pitched fights over freedom of speech, trans issues and more.

    1. And the reason we’re seeing those articles is primarily because those liberals and progs are now seeing their own oxen gored.

      It’s very rare to see argumentam ab principia from those people.

      1. By the time a Kerensky realizes and accepts what a monster his erstwhile ally Lenin is, he (Kerensky) has already been exiled from his country never to return again – if he’s lucky. Just ask what happens to the Stolypins and Trotskys.

    2. Most “liberals” and “feminists” are fucking idiots so I’m not going near their boards unless someone here posts a link that proves it. This happens quite often.

    3. Bolsheviks, Nazis, and 9/11 truthers aren’t monolithic either. I really don’t care to sift through all the shit to find the good ones in those cases to redeem their precious labels.

  24. “The modern liberal orthodoxy sees things in terms every bit as black-and-white as the so-cons and religious right about which they once complained. ”

    One big difference, though. It’s been a long time since any so-cons and religious right were particularly violent (or even very often impolite) in their conduct towards those whom they disagree with …

    Today’s SJW’s tend to Tweet in violent flash mobs and/or SWAT people who engage their ire.

  25. Oh screw “safe spaces.” Wait ’til they get out in the real world. These goody-2-shoes would have fainted through the floor if they’d worked at the trucking company I worked for when I got out of college. Sure, some of those guys were “offensive” but so what? Get over yourself.

  26. Oh screw “safe spaces.” Wait ’til they get out in the real world. These goody-2-shoes would have fainted through the floor if they’d worked at the trucking company I worked for when I got out of college. Sure, some of those guys were “offensive” but so what? Get over yourself.

    1. Maybe now. But eventually companies like that will end up getting sued. Eventually the whole world will be like universities because they have the government on their side…

  27. The Feminist Ouroboros is hungry as fuck these days.

  28. So I guess Kareem Abdul Jabbar is going to blame conservatives for this somehow…

  29. “And therein may lie the crux of the problem “modern feminism,” or modern liberalism more generally, has with free speech. Those who don’t buy the whole package (whatever it is that week) are written off as bad and that’s that?one can’t possibly be an “ally” on some issues while disagreeing on others. And the best way to deal with disagreements? Mock, discredit, and silence the “unsafe” speaker! The modern liberal orthodoxy sees things in terms every bit as black-and-white as the so-cons and religious right about which they once complained. “”

    You do realize this is basically happens on the conservative side as well right? ;)? Only for national security and religious reasons.

  30. Small minded little pukes. Every time something seems “mean” these types bitch and cry. Fuck em’ make them cry even harder.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.