Free Speech

The First Amendment Is Dying

Congress shall make no law, but...

|

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Unless we're talking about a white chocolate-paneled cake for a gay wedding or perpetual funding for "women's health" clinics because it's the "right thing to do."

"or abridging the freedom of speech;"

Unless that speech is used by boorish climate change denialists to peddle dirty fossil fuels and run capitalist death machines that wreck the Earth, by anyone engaging in upsetting hate speech or other forms of "aggression," by a wealthy person supporting candidates who undermine "progress," by a pro-life protester who makes people feel uncomfortable about their life decisions, by a cisnormative white male who displays insufficient appreciation for the "systematic oppression" that minorities experience in places of higher learning or by anyone who has a desire to undermine the state-protected union monopolies that help fund political parties.

"or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,"

Unless the press invades safe spaces designated by mobs or writes about incorrect topics at incorrect times.

"and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Unless someone is a member of a predesignated special interest group, he should report to the IRS before doing so.

That's pretty much the state of the First Amendment today. Climate change, abortion, gay marriage, race, taxes, what have you, even in mainstream political debate, these interests outweigh your piddling concerns about the First Amendment. So the notion that a bunch of students and leftist professors would agitate to shut down free expression in a public space in Missouri because they feel their special issue trumps your antiquated list of rules is not particularly surprising.

Now, we shouldn't overstate the problem. Most of us are able to freely engage in arguments and express ourselves without worrying about the state's interfering. This will not end tomorrow. But it is difficult to ignore how creeping illiberalism has infected our discourse and how not many people seem to care.

The thousands of other University of Missouri students, for example, could have held a counter-protest against dimwitted fascists cloistered in safe spaces. Where are those student groups? Why was there no pushback from those kids—and really, there was none as far as I can tell, at either Missouri or Yale—against the bullies who want administrators fired for thought crimes? It can mean that students are too intimidated, too uninterested or not very idealistic about these freedoms. None of those things bodes well for the future.

And where is the faculty, those brave souls who value the freedom to debate and champion sometimes-controversial ideas when mobs of students are making wild accusations against their school without any real evidence? Where are they when students shut down conservative, libertarian or not-progressive-enough Democrats from speaking at their schools?

In fact, the campus police—not the hissy-fitting communications professor or the would-be authoritarian student—asked students to call authorities and report "incidents of hateful and/or hurtful speech" in detail. A school, the place where young people supposedly ponder challenging ideas, now has students reporting any instances of unsavory speech. What does "hurtful speech" entail anyway? Is it enough for someone to challenge your priggish worldview? Is it enough for someone to hurt your brittle feelings? And what is the consequence?

You may also remember when Chris Cuomo of CNN, a lawyer, tweeted (since deleted) that "hate speech is excluded from protection" under the First Amendment. He wasn't alone.

Not long ago, 51 percent of Democrats in a YouGov poll claimed to support criminalizing "hate speech." (A third of Republicans did so, as well.) Another study, by the First Amendment Center a few years back, found that nearly 40 percent of Americans said the First Amendment "goes too far" guaranteeing rights—a record high.

People are scared. They're scared to be accused of bigotry or racism, an ugly accusation that is easy to level but impossible to disprove. It's a lazy but effective method of intimidation.

So we can laugh at the confused millennial J-school major, but he is not alone. When the mayors of Chicago and Boston used their positions of power to keep Chick-fil-A out of their cities because of the CEO's thoughts on same-sex marriage, they were working under the same notion as kids who want to be in safe spaces where their worldviews remain unchallenged. (Using the state to punish a person or company for its beliefs is even worse.) When Bill Nye argues that climate change skeptics are nuts who hate science and should be ignored by any right-thinking person, he is attempting to convince you of something. When Nye contends that America needs to drum climate change skeptics completely "out of our discourse," he's no longer a liberal.

Because what's happening on college campuses hasn't happened in a vacuum.

COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM

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.

73 responses to “The First Amendment Is Dying

  1. Well now wait a minute. There has been rather severe backlash against these incidents.
    Yeah, the Missouri president lost his job allegedly because he failed to get rid of every racist on campus (though if you look at the student’s complaints, they are much more broad than that, so this may be more the straw that broke the camel’s back (question, why do we always pick on the poor camels?)), but the professor who assaulted the journalist was forced to apologize, lost her position with the journalism school, and I wouldn’t be surprised if she soon losses her job.
    Yes a group of students were caught on video insisting that their right to not be offended is more important than the University being a place for intellectual growth. But they were so ridiculed for that position the student newspaper retracted an op ed on it out of shame.
    And as for Mr. Cuomo’s tweet, did you see the responses to it pointing out he is an idiot?
    There are those out there who want to decimate the 1st ammendment, sure. But there are way more who will protect it to the death. Don’t make the same mistake fear mongers of things like “rape culture” or child predators make and assume a few monsters are a representative population of humanity.

    1. Stop responding to a Harsanyi piece with facts.

      1. You mean well established facts like these: “There are those out there who want to decimate the 1st ammendment, sure. But there are way more who will protect it to the death.” Care to bet on that?

        1. Yes I would. http://www.newseuminstitute.or…..report.pdf
          Support for the first ammendment has actually increased over the past year.
          Now how much were we betting?

          1. I’m looking at your link, and the more specific the question, the less support for liberty:

            – 55% support cake baker coercion.
            – 73% oppose corporate campaign spending.

            The few things in that poll that actually correspond to real laws (rather than high minded principles), people’s true colors show up.

            Doesn’t mean the 1st amendment will die. The supreme court is still pretty damn solid on 1st amendment cases. The longer term outlook is still one of ever increasing exceptions and encroachments.

            1. People often have different opinions on various things around first ammendment rights (such as whether it applies to organizations such as corporations or other businesses) which sometimes lead them astray. But they do certainly support the first ammendment in principle.

              1. No Nick, they don’t. General declarations of support for anything, equality, free speech, peace, are worthless; only the particular positions matter.

                Many a racist has said “I support equality for blacks, but I wouldn’t let one marry my daughter,” or man-hating feminist said “I support equality between the sexes…. except when it comes to alimony, conscription, criminal courts, or any area where inequality benefits women.”

                Someone saying “I support the first amendment” means nothing.Just like “I support equality”, “I support peace”, etc., mean nothing. All that matters is where they stand on actual particular matters. Who cares if someone supports your rights ‘in the abstract’, but when it comes down to tangible violations of your rights, they’ve suddenly decided there’s room for exception when it comes to you?

                1. So if someone says they support equal rights for minorities but don’t think private businesses should be forced by law to accommodate blacks if they are owned by racists (as Barry goldwater and Rand Paul have said) they must really be racist and just lying when they say otherwise? Or what if they think universities shouldn’t be dictating to students what costumes should be avoided because they may offend minorities, are they racists as well (as the Yale students seem to be arguing)?
                  Or are you just unable to conceive that when different values collide, different people may take different sides even when they agree the underlying values are important?

              2. One thing that I am sure everyone will grant, is that faculty officials should be forced out in any college where triggering speech is tolerated. The value of such “speech” has been made very clear by prosecutors in New York. See the documentation of America’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

                http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

    2. “… and I wouldn’t be surprised if she soon losses her job…”

      Not a chance. That her position and privilege remain secure, while the demands of the students continue to receive excessive credence, put paid your notions of a ‘severe’ backlash.

    3. I agree. This site shows the worst of the worst stories – which are not representative of the majority.

    4. The Missouri president lost his job, Yale caved to the shrieking children and a growing and unprecedented percentage of Americans want the first amendment rolled back. Sure its not 90% yet but the trends are both strong and very negative.

      1. Actually no.
        http://www.newseuminstitute.or…..report.pdf
        Less than a quarter want it scaled back, which is less than the number last year and half the number from the low point right after 9-11

        1. Actually yes according to this

          http://www.firstamendmentcente…..-24-14.pdf

          Yes dueling surveys can yield different results but I think in light of the shrieking toddlers and increasingly bold declarations by public figures denouncing the first amendment I think my interpretation of trends is a lot more accurate than your pollyannaish interpretation of reality.

          1. Uh that’s the same survey from last year. In 2015 the number of people who claim it goes to far fell back down. Hence my point that the current state of affairs is an improving belief in the importance of the first ammendment.
            Don’t let a few whiny college students and mentally retarded politicians fool you into believing they are more representative of the population than they really are.

            1. Right out of my link

              “In 2013, 34% stated that the First Amendment does go too far and 64% said it
              does not go too far in protecting rights. In the current survey, 38% say the First
              Amendment goes too far while 57% say it does not. After a 10 year decline (from
              2002 to 2012) in the number of Americans saying that the First Amendment does
              not go too far in protecting rights,”

              Can you explain to me how greater than is actually less than?

              1. actually I misread your comment. You are correct that is a more recent copy of the survey although one I don’t see on their website.

            2. And how much has the percentage of mothers who think they’re virgins changed since last year? Come on, surveys are practically meaningless. Do you realize how many avid supporters of gun control would say they support the 2nd amendment? How many people will say that they oppose the death penalty, but support the death penalty in some particular case (such as for terrorists or child rapists or something)? A person’s stated position on an abstract principle like ‘free speech’ is pretty meaningless; all it says is what it’s fashionable to say, not what those people actually believe regarding the application of those principles.

              I find it perfectly believable that people could simultaneously increasingly “support” free speech as a general principle while also increasingly supporting the outlawing of ‘hate speech.’ All that would illustrate is that ‘educators’ had done a splendid job of defiling the definition of ‘free speech.’

              1. Given a plurality of Americans support laws against hate speech this is certainly true. Nick is right about this specific survey this year but wrong about the trend. The voices against free speech are getting louder and they are getting huge swaths of approval.

                1. There is a difference between the voices getting louder and their quantity increasing.

  2. I think we are witnessing the beginning of the end of an era, and I do not mean that in a good way.

    Over several centuries, starting from the dawn of the age of Reason, Western civilisation has been steadily advancing all areas of human development, human rights, and overall human wellness — in spite of intermittent bouts of horrific bloodshed and warfare.

    In the process, Western civilisation has been laboriously dragging the rest of humanity behind it, pulling it out of its natural tendency (as humanity in general, not as non-Western humanity) towards apathy, antirationality, ignorance, and sloth.

    Show’s up.

    It was a good effort, but it’s already being erased from the “history” books which they “teach” with in government schools.

    1. *Show’s over*

    2. That has been the constant refrain about change for thousands of years. Each generation says that the following generation just doesn’t “Get it.”

      Have we developed social problems? Oh, hell yes. Should we just lay down and die because people are complaining and the “Era is ending”? No.

      All of our sub-cultures within the Western Civilization sphere are under going significant change. It’s the result of technological and political stress compiled from those arenas’ rapid, but uneven, change over the last 40 years colliding head-long into social standards that take a generation or more to change.

      The American Revolution was a very messy, very bloody affair. But it sparked an historic change at the time – countries all over overthrew their oppressive governments and established ones in their place that were more voter oriented. By contrast, the current technological revolution we are sitting in is thankfully fairly bloodless (so far) but it is still very messy. People’s conceptions, and even their very way of thinking, are being challenged constantly both by raw information as well as biased or leading political information.

      The turmoil will settle down (and has started to, in a few circles) as people slowly find themselves amidst the new madness. Sure, some will be hold outs to their old ways (especially those financially tied to those ways), but the majority will slowly come around as more and more can delineate “information” from “political information.”

      1. I wonder if elder Romans in 400 AD thought that the next generation just didn’t “get it.”

        1. I think most Cassandras are just being hysterical, but you are correct to note that it is important to remember that every once in a while, the shit actually does hit the fan.

  3. Free speech is fine as long as everyone is saying the right things.

    1. That’s right – celebrate diversity with disclaimers.

    2. That sort of aggressive use of rhetoric simply cannot be tolerated in this safe space.

    3. “Freedom of speech. Just watch what you say.”

      Prophetic words from one Tracy Marrow back in 1989.

  4. It’s dying?

    “You will always have people selling doom. It’s lucrative and it makes you sound serious. But they will be proved wrong.”

    -Ronald Bailey

    1. Global warming comes to mind.

      1. Oops I meant “human induced climate change caused by evil capitalists who should be in prison for both their wrong think and wrong do”

        Stupid autocorrect.

      2. +1 investigation of Climate Deniers

    2. RICO20 and Exxon and Lois Lerner. Yeah, it’s great.

  5. I must give the trolls on a reason an F-. You guys really need to step up your game please.

  6. The Ponytail Guy form the 92 debate had kids and their all on school now.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8rp-tlgqa4

  7. It’s laughable all the shrieking coming from bro-cons like Harsanyi over this event.

    Did the university respond to a minority of voices? Nope. I’m not all that sure it was a minority like Harsanyi contends, but let’s assume his guess is correct. Is that what the university responded to? Not at all. Those voices were complaining for quite awhile and no response. What happened?

    Oh that’s right. A new group of about 50 students joined in, and the university panicked. Who were these students with such powerful speech? The football team. With a forfeit of the next game looming, and maybe more, the university was going to lose millions. With maybe the basketball team next.

    The admin didn’t respond to a minority of voices, it responded to the speech behind a large number of dollars, just like a marketplace always does.

    What’s your problem? You love dollars equalling speech. You just don’t like it when it’s someone else’s dollars.

    Stop yer whinin’.

    1. Did the university respond to a minority of voices?

      I’ll take logical fallacies for 100 Alex.

    2. And your side loves to equate press with dollars to give it rationale to suppress press it does not like.

      That a person can exercise their power in the service of an evil cause does make it right to outlaw them exercising their power. Principles over principals is the preferred formulation.

    3. In-kind contribution.

      *drops microphone*

  8. People are scared. They’re scared to be accused of bigotry or racism, an ugly accusation that is easy to level but impossible to disprove. It’s a lazy but effective method of intimidation.

    That’s not a First Amendment violation. Libertarianism isn’t meant to give you a platform where you can say whatever you like free of repercussions or fears, it’s simply meant to let you say things without having the government stick you in jail over it. And being called names for non-conformism is hardly new. In the past, you might be vilified and ostracized for being an atheist or a socialist.

    When Bill Nye argues that climate change skeptics are nuts who hate science and should be ignored by any right-thinking person, he is attempting to convince you of something. When Nye contends that America needs to drum climate change skeptics completely “out of our discourse,” he’s no longer a liberal.

    Much as I despise Bill Nye, there is no contradiction between advocating free speech and calling on your fellow citizens to privately ostracize people whose views you don’t agree with. To the contrary, the whole idea behind libertarianism is that bad ideas, like bad companies, are weeded out in the marketplace of public opinion through the aggregate choices of individuals.

    1. It isn’t a first amendment violation, but how long can the first amendment survive when a critical mass of people reject it and embrace totalitarianism? The best we can hope for is that the attack is so successful that there is no need to remove it from the books, so it can be restored by fiat at a later time.

      1. So it’s acceptable for a butcher, baker or candle-stick maker to throw me out of my ear, and that’s all right.

        But if I then decide I’m not going to try and go back in, and my family and friends decide they’re not going in either, I’m embracing totalitarianism and attacking the First Amendment?

        Yeah, that sounds fair.

        1. Apples and oranges:

          You’re boycotting your butcher or baker because he treated you unfairly, as is his right to do and your right to boycott.

          These students ran their president out of his job because someone *allegedly* made a poop swastika on a bathroom floor and someone else *allegedly* shouted racial slurs out of a moving vehicle, neither of which are things he could do anything about short of organizing a campus-wide race-crime Gestapo to go around policing speech (and feces) on every corner and in every bathroom – which apparently is what the university is now going to do with the campus police.

          I’d say the latter is pretty totalitarian. And mind you, this is a public university paid for by taxpayers, not a privately owned baker.

          1. And you’re being overly generous in your reading of the article, if you think the line in question,

            “People are scared. They’re scared to be accused of bigotry or racism, an ugly accusation that is easy to level but impossible to disprove. It’s a lazy but effective method of intimidation.”

            was limited to the university cases.

      2. It isn’t a first amendment violation, but how long can the first amendment survive when a critical mass of people reject it and embrace totalitarianism?

        Bill Nye telling people to ostracize climate change skeptics, he isn’t “embracing totalitarianism”.

        The only people I currently see calling for serious legal restrictions on free speech are a few nutty feminists and neo-Marxists, and a few nutty Christian conservatives. That’s going nowhere.

        There is possibly a minor conflict when publicly funded universities restrict free speech; but the free speech issue there is simply a symptom of a deeper problem, namely the public funding.

  9. Umm… double check what Freedom of the Press means. Then rewrite that example to any of a million examples of how the government craps on Freedom of the Press.

  10. The thousands of other University of Missouri students, for example, could have held a counter-protest against dimwitted fascists cloistered in safe spaces. Where are those student groups? … It can mean that students are too intimidated, too uninterested or not very idealistic about these freedoms. None of those things bodes well for the future.

    It could also be that a lot of them are too busy actually studying and trying to learn so that they can get a good paying job after they graduate. I doubt you’d find very many STEM majors amongst the perpetually aggrieved mob. If you were to poll them, they’re probably mostly Sociology, Victim Studies, or other equally worthless majors. Get rid of those bullshit degrees and a lot of this shit goes away once they no longer have time to be perpetually aggrieved and have to actually open a book or two.

    Another study, by the First Amendment Center a few years back, found that nearly 40 percent of Americans said the First Amendment “goes too far” guaranteeing rights?a record high.

    That is truly frightening.

    Also, FUCK THAT FASCIST PRICK BILL NYE.

    1. Man, you pretty much had the same thought as me when you read that paragraph…freaky. You must be some kind of genius. See how I patted us both on the back there? STEM FTW!

  11. If I’m understanding Mr. Harsanyi correctly, he isn’t arguing against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?. He’s just arguing against non-discrimination laws including gay people, and pointing to Freedom of Religion/Speech/Association to support his argument.

    Well, okay… but that’s the status quo if over half the states. And that status quo means any given butcher, baker or candle-stick maker can kick me out because of their religion, but if they follow me into my (hypothetical) comic book shop, I can’t kick them out because of their religion.

    Where’s my Freedom of Association?

    Further, he also has clearly argued that they’re allowed to call me diseased, perverted, child molestor, intrinscily disordered and so-on as they throw me out on my ear. But it’s unreasonable intimidation if I call them “asshole bigot” while selling them the most recent issue of Uncanny X-Men?

    Where’s my Freedom of Speech?
    ________
    ?I did a search for relevant articles by Mr. Harsanyi. Lots to say (negatively) about gay people and non-discrimination laws. Didn’t find a peep on blacks, women, muslims, elderly, disabled and non-discrimination laws. So I feel confident in assuming that even if he doesn’t *support* the CRA (1964), he’s accepting of the status quo.

    1. I think the guy’s position is that anyone should be able to kick anyone out of their store for any reason, and that simply adding categories to the list of reasons why you can’t kick someone out of your store is going in the wrong direction.

      For example, if you’re fine with laws that prohibit race-based or gender-based discrimination but not with those that prohibit religious discrimination you would also be a bit of a hypocrite.

      Another problem with ‘anti-discrimination” laws is that they are generally only applied to one group. For example, in practice, gender discrimination is only illegal when it’s against women, racial discrimination only when against an ethnic minority; so these laws aren’t even passed or enforced in good faith.

      1. Mr. Harsanyi has spilled a rather large amount of ink on the topic of non-discrimination laws including sexual orientation.

        He has spilled none that I could find on any other non-discrimination law.

        Since there are hundreds of non-discrimination law suits a year, but only a half dozen over the last *decade* the deal with sexual orientation, if he equally opposes all of them he has a very odd way of showing it.

  12. The participation trophy generation demands that no one be offended. Giving in to them does result in a loss of freedom of speech. Especially when the offense bar is set so low. Microagressions anyone. Wearing a sombrero and poncho on halloween is grounds for dismissal from a university position, etc. Yes, our freedom of speech is under attack.

    1. If I wear a sombrero and drink a German beer does that make me a Nazi racist?

      1. Yes. But if you drink an African bear it’s cultural appropriation. Rascally, you’re a nazi racist no matter what. But if you give money to our cause and vote for Hillary, you’re a little less of a nazi racist.

  13. “When Nye contends that America needs to drum climate change skeptics completely “out of our discourse,” he’s no longer a liberal.”

    The climate change “skeptic” side is almost completely funded by the fossil fuels industry, they are not legitimate, and I’ll not shed a single goddamned tear at their being “drummed out of the discourse”.

    1. I consider myself a climate-change “skeptic” and nobody gives me a dime for it. Maybe I should call Exxon and see if I can get on board.

      Or maybe you should pull your head out….

      1. Just tweet at them publicly and ask for your check: There’s precedent

        1. Apparently I fail at hrefs: Again

    2. What difference does it make who funds them?

      Anyway, I guess it’s a difference of attitudes here. I don’t even think creationsists should be ‘drummed out’ of the discourse on evolution. I think that it is actually an asset of a society that embraces free speech that ideas are perpetually subjected to challenge, even if those who challenge them are idiots. Ideas should be perpetually challenged; how they fair in the face of such challenge is how we know how good they are.

      Some people on the other hand seem to think the goal is to settle on some ‘truth’ and then immediately enshrine it like an exhibit at a museum and bar anyone from touching it. No, if it’s a solid idea, no one will be able to break it no matter how hard they try.

      If you’re convinced of the rightness of your opinion, you should embrace that perpetual conflict of ideas, not try to banish it.

    3. That is such a tired bromide, this notion that the nefarious oil industry is paying people to tear this phony theory to shreds (it really doesn’t cost much). No, in this as in many, many other subjects, the leftoid doth protest too much–back here in reality, it is the government who is paying their favorite little lapdogs (leftwing intellectuals) to give us a doomsday story that ostensibly justifies whatever the state wants to do. In the old days, it was all about sacrificing for some grumpy god; since that one doesn’t really fly anymore, now you must reject your lying eyes and invent scientific evidence that the world is going to end if we don’t surrender our freedom and property to the state (while pretending that the state could solve this problem even if it actually existed).

  14. Im making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do,

    ———- http://www.onlinejobs100.com

  15. Mr. Harsanyi’s take on reality is, as usual, disturbingly delusional. From an objective point of view, impacts of same-sex marriage on religion in both the religious and commercial contexts are far milder than he insinuates ( http://ivn.us/2015/11/12/right…..c-freedom/ ). The First Amendment is nowhere near to sick, much less dying. If he doesn’t believe that, he should spend a little time in North Korea to get some perspective.

    However, when one hears perceptions of reality from hard core ideologues like Mr. Harsanyi, massive disconnects between reality and perceive reality are to be expected. The capacity of rigid ideology to distort fact and logic is well-known to social science – http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com…../abstract. Unfortunately the concept is unknown to hard cores like this author.

    Mr. Harsanyi’s plea has no persuasive weight.

    1. The fact that you actually managed to say nothing at all with all those words is actually kind of impressive.

      1. The mask slipped off when the leftoid compared America to North Korea as a means to somehow make you forget what is happening here.

  16. I see no mention of Amherst.

    The students there have demanded

    “Among the pleas for “safe spaces” is a request that college president Biddy Martin issue a statement that Amherst does “not tolerate the actions of student(s) who posted the ‘All Lives Matter’ posters, and the ‘Free Speech’ posters.”

    They want the All lives Matter people to have to go to “retraining.”

    No. I am not joking.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..-else.html

  17. ” “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

    Unless we’re talking about a white chocolate-paneled cake for a gay wedding or perpetual funding for “women’s health” clinics because it’s the “right thing to do.” ”

    –Oh that damnable Civil Rights Act. Bigotry is so cute when libertarians justify it.

    1. How is any of that bigoted? You are deranged.

  18. I had a lot of problems with this article until I caught on to the sarcasm. Then I agreed with it completely. Well done.

  19. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..04922.html

    i’ve thought of this cartoon on and off for the last year as it relates to free speech, immigration, and racial issues. i didn’t find anything at all wrong with it, with or without the mustache, but obviously there was an issue.

    i’d say the first amendment is on a downward trajectory, much like the experiment that is the united states, but i wouldn’t use the word “dying”, which implies we need to find a cure that isn’t otherwise available rather than simply minding our diet. i worry though, because people hate exercise and love junk food, so we could wind up dying before too many people realize we were even sick if not careful.

  20. The thousands of other University of Missouri students, for example, could have held a counter-protest against dimwitted fascists cloistered in safe spaces. Where are those student groups? Why was there no pushback from those kids?and really, there was none as far as I can tell, at either Missouri or Yale?against the bullies who want administrators fired for thought crimes?

    Because most people who try to affect change by doing street protests are poorly informed, ineffectual idiots who aren’t intelligent enough to know how to fix the problems they’re unhappy about and don’t have the interpersonal skills to work with others to change things via the law. So they sit in the streets, whining for attention (which they usually get).

    Most of the students who aren’t idiots realize that street protests rarely accomplish anything substantive, and they’re in college for an education so they focus on school and careers. That’s the weakness of the silent majority, as Nixon used to call them.

  21. Im making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do,

    ———- http://www.onlinejobs100.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.