Liberal Student Invites Conservative Speaker to Campus, College President Overrules Him

Free speech under threat at Williams College.

|

Wood
Zach Wood

Williams College—a private, liberal arts college in Massachusetts—overrode  a student group's decision to bring a controversial conservative speaker, John Derbyshire, to campus. Williams President Adam Falk made the contemptible move to violate his institution's commitment to free speech because "[Derbyshire's] expressions clearly constitute hate speech, and we will not promote such speech on this campus or in our community." 

Derbyshire was invited to participate in the college's "Uncomfortable Learning" series, which is run by a group of students who bring provocative lecturers to campus. Reason readers will recall that the group previously invited Suzanne Venker—a conservative critic of feminism—to give a talk, but the backlash from other students was so intense that the invitation was rescinded. 

During that episode, Falk wisely maintained that the decision to invite or disinvite Venker was in the students' hands. It's unfortunate that the president has reversed himself in Derbyshire's case. Here was his statement: 

Today I am taking the extraordinary step of canceling a speech by John Derbyshire, who was to have presented his views here on Monday night. The college didn't invite Derbyshire, but I have made it clear to the students who did that the college will not provide a platform for him. 

Free speech is a value I hold in extremely high regard. The college has a very long history of encouraging the expression of a range of viewpoints and giving voice to widely differing opinions. We have said we wouldn't cancel speakers or prevent the expression of views except in the most extreme circumstances. In other words: There's a line somewhere, but in our history of hosting events and speeches of all kinds, we hadn't yet found it. 

We've found the line. Derbyshire, in my opinion, is on the other side of it. Many of his expressions clearly constitute hate speech, and we will not promote such speech on this campus or in our community. 

We respect—and expect—our students' exploration of ideas, including ones that are very challenging, and we encourage individual choice and decision-making by students. But at times it's our role as educators and administrators to step in and make decisions that are in the best interest of students and our community. This is one of those times. 

Derbyshire's views are certainly contemptible. As The Washington Post's Jonathan Adler notes

He has written some contemptible things, and I supported National Review's decision to cut him loose over his intemperate writings. I would not have invited him to give a speak and (frankly) I question the judgment of the students who did.  Nonetheless, Falk's decision to cancel the event — to, in effect, prohibit someone with Derbyshire's views from speaking on campus — was awful, and represents a betrayal of the ideals of a liberal arts education. 

Zach Wood, a student organizer of the Uncomfortable Learning series, explained his decision to invite Derbyshire in a blog post for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Wood, according to The College Fix, is a Hillary Clinton-supporting Democrat and person of color. He doesn't agree with Venker or Derbyshire, but he believes it's important to confront people whose ideas one finds reprehensible. In an email to Reason, he wrote: 

"I think that President Falk is an analytic and deliberative leader and I respect his decision; however, I sharply disagree with his decision and if I could challenge it, I certainly would. I think his decision to cancel the speaker not only does a disservice to the intellectual character of our institution, but is antithetical to the principles of free speech and intellectual freedom that he has previously claimed to endorse. This decision is evidence of the fact that President Falk has failed to show support for student efforts to instill and promote political tolerance at Williams. I radically disagree with John Derybshire. And he has said offensive, even hateful things about minorities, things that I have a problem with. That is precisely why I was looking forward to taking him to task. If every student does not desire that kind of intellectual challenge, that is perfectly okay. But for President Falk to deny Williams students that opportunity, I believe, is not merely injudicious, but undemocratic and irresponsible."   

Wood's dedication to the principles of free inquiry is as admirable as Falk's censorship is cowardly. 

NEXT: Watch Kennedy and Matt Welch Defend Apple from the Surveillance State (and its Enablers) Tonight at 8 p.m. ET on FBN!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Free speech is a value I hold in high regard”

    … unless I really don’t like it.

    1. You’ve forgotten the “hate speech exception” to the First Amendment.

      1. That’s true. The Founders were clearly against anything of the sort.

        1. In our modern life various Today TechSpot and many technologies we are used, which helps to improve our life and easy going. Use of technology has a kind of the gift, which we can see in our society as well as our life also …
          http://todaytechspot.com/

      2. Seriously, though, where is the line? What if they invited a child molester to talk about how to seduce teenage boys? Would you all feel outraged if such a speaker were disinvited?

        Also, this is a private college, so the 1st Amendment does not apply.

        1. There is no line. “Congress shall make no law” is not a complicated phrase.

          Also, fundamentally acting in a way that is antithesis to the First Amendment should be exposed as such, even if the person acting in this way is doing so legally. People continually saying, “Well, it’s *not reeaallyy* against free speech are missing the point.

          Case in point: I incur a monetary penalty at my work if I don’t take part outside of work hours in a health program to lose weight and exercise. I personally find such manipulation of employee behavior reprehensible, and while I acknowledge my work’s legal ability to do so, I can still speak out against it as being fucking stupid (within reason).

          I don’t say, “Welp, they can legally do it, so they don’t deserve ridicule. You win this time!”

          1. Congress did not make any laws, so there was no violation of the 1st Amendment. I think you are confusing government restrictions with a private property owner’s decision of what kind of speech is acceptable on his property. It is not a question about legal restrictions, but about decorum.

        2. There is no line. Literally no line. Especially on a college campus. Being a private institution is no excuse either.

          If they were doing, say, a workshop on sexual predators or the moral implications of consent and pedophilia laws, I would say that it would be absolutely appropriate and constructive for them to invite a pedophile to speak. And I would fully expect that person to be thoroughly and critically examined by the audience and other speakers — not barred from the event because his views are offensive. Because thats how the exchange of ideas in a liberal society works, and a college campus should be the vanguard of that exchange.

          It’s a very sad state of affairs when colleges ban speakers for any reason. If Adolf Hitler were alive, I’d love to hear him engaged at a university seminar. That’s why we have fucking universities.

          1. That’s a well reasoned response, Chip. Thanks.

        3. One doesn’t leave one’s first amendment rights at the gates of a private college or university. These sorts of rationales, and attempts to redefine terms to justify violating the rights of others makes it all to clear libertarians are just as fascistic as their leftist fellow travelers.

        4. These students are *supposed* to be adults. This puts the lie to that. College kids are still kids. They just don’t wear diapers…much.

    2. Exactly this. IOW, he doesn’t do anything of the sort.

    3. “I’m for free speech but…”

      The cry of the censor.

  2. LOL – just had a 15 question Republican phone survey that ended on question #2 when I said I was a libertarian.

    “Because you are a libertarian we are ending the survey short. Thank you for your time.”

    1. I tend to enjoy messing with data on those. I’m a 54 year old overweight conservative from Beckley, WV. I support Trump, think we should ban Muslims from this country, and think we should ban guns because the 2nd amendment only allows militias to own guns.

      1. What no super duper pro abortion position to make the pollsters head asplode?

        Rookie!

        1. That wasn’t a question. First question was which of the R candidates I liked the most. I went with “undecided.” Then came the libertarian answered question.

    2. Heh.

    3. And it was one of the answers to question #2:
      Are you (1) very conservative (2) somewhat conservative (3) not conservative at all or (4) a libertarian.

      1. I at least give them credit that they seem to know what a libertarian is, and did not have a list such as:

        (1) conservative
        (2) very conservative
        (3) extreme right wing
        (4) libertarian

        1. He did say a Republican survey and not a Democratic one.

        2. Because you’re not a libertarian, let me explain.

          To the unthinking, 1,2,and 4 are all 3.

          To the incredibly moronic, libertarianism is compatible with liberalism and thus the odd construction of Chumby’s purported survey seems likely, even real.

          The thinking understand that libertarians don’t act in or support ‘socially liberal’ policies. Libertarians support libertarian policies–policies based in individual liberty and individual responsibility. They may bear a superficial resemblance to ‘socially liberal’ in rhetoric, but not in practice as ‘social liberty’ is simply yet another euphemism for ‘state control’.

          1. Lmao… I arrived at my opinion of libertarianism after watching libertarians rationalize the same agenda that Marxists have, here is a clue, a plantation slavery state and taxpayer subsidized cheap for you foreign labor isn’t the free market, sh*t4brains. It’s not liberty to deprive others of liberty. No go stomp off to your room and whine the way you always do when mommy and daddy tell you they told you so.

    4. In all fairness, if they wanted to know what Republicans thought, there would be no point in continuing the survey. For instance, if you wanted to know what recent Puerto Rican immigrants thought about our policy in that country, you’d probably stop the survey short if the guy said, “I’m Irish”.

      1. I believe I received the call because I am still registered as a Republican (I became one to attend my state’s convention four years ago where I helped elect the Ron Paul ticket and never bothered switching back to unenrolled or to the LP).

      2. you’d probably stop the survey short if the guy said, “I’m Irish”.

        [insert Irish is racist joke here]

        1. Done
          “What’s Irish foreplay?”
          “Brace yourself Maggie!”

          Oh, I guess I misread the command line….

    5. Was this a survey done by a human or a bot?

      1. Human. Or Nexus 6. I did not conduct a VK test.

        1. Well, I have a Nexus 5 and they must have really made light years of progress with the 6 because I never mistake my phone for a human.

        2. Let me go get my equipment.

    6. Just to be clear, you’re having difficulty understanding why a self-identified libertarian wasn’t included in a poll of republican voters?

      You do understand how party based polls work, right?

      Don’t despair, maybe they will include you in a poll of democratic voters if you ask real nice.

  3. Free speech is a value I hold in extremely high regard

    Not really…

      1. The Time Person of the Year is the biggest newsmaker of the year. It’s not an ethical value judgment or endorsement.

        1. *looks at PapayaSF for a really long time*

          *pfft* is this thing on?

          Maybe the President of the College has made the same ethical and value judgement on the first amendment that Time Magazine makes on Man Person of the Year.

      2. I will take Ayatollahs that fall out of coffins for $200 Alex.

  4. The fuck is up with all the fucking click bait between the article and the comments.

    1. Most of it is heinous and gag-inducing.

      1. Do you know what else is heinous and gag-inducing?

        1. Do I have to dial to find out?

          *begins sweating profusely*

          1. The answer was Epi’s mom, you fool!

            1. Epi’s Mom = HAWT

              1. She said to tell you thanks.

        2. Hillary? Too easy?

        3. Hitler’s abnormal schlong!?

    2. Welcome to the web for the past two years now.

    3. Every so often there’s a spectacular underboob.

      1. That statement works for any context.

      2. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix…..985181.jpg

        because you asked.

    4. I have no idea what you are talking about.

      1. Dittoes. And they get my money in other ways, don’t worry. But there is no way I will stand for unusable websites.

  5. We’ve found the line. Derbyshire, in my opinion, is on the other side of it. Many of his expressions clearly constitute hate speech, and we will not promote such speech on this campus or in our community.

    I wonder what his views were when he was in college.

    1. He was a particle physicist in a previous life. Particle physicists are a lot like rock stars. They think recognition in their specialized field must mean they’re Renaissance Men qualified to pontificate on any and all matters under the sun. And they do, and they do, and they do…

      1. That’s been my experience with the HEP guys too. Are they just overcompensating for the fact that they can’t writer a paper with fewer than 500 authors?

  6. It’s always amusing to read critiques of Derbyshire. They’re always long on words like “contemptible”, and short on arguments rebutting his facts or his reasoning. Point and splutter journalism at it’s finest!

    1. I miss Derbyshire posting at NRO.

      I often disagreed with him on things, but he was thoughtful and I never found any of his opinions Plainly Beyond The Pale.

      (It’s been so long that I don’t recall the specifics, but his “racially insensitive” remarks didn’t strike me as actually bigoted, more “awkward to address without resorting to namecalling”. To the extent I had a problem with them, it was that they were not as well-phrased to maximally deflect that as is wise in current discourse.

      If I’d thought he was a bigot, I’d never have cared what he thought; not only is that unwholesome, it’s boring.)

      1. Click through to the webzine article that got him fired. The first page starts out ok, but he goes off the deep end on page two.

        He talks about getting an “intelligent well socialized black friend” and calling ahead before visiting an amusement park to be sure that no black crowds are expected. If suddenly aware of an increase in the concentration of black people, he suggests you leave immediately.

        1. Lol, if that’s what qualifies as racism these days, the war against racism is over. The anti-racists won.

        2. What about an increase in the concentration of really tan people in the public spaces of say, ..Cologne on New Years Eve?

        3. Today my local news had a story about people fleeing the local downtown shopping area because over the weekend there were mobs of black youths harassing people.

          Similarly, the reason that the local light rail doesn’t go out further into the suburbs from the city is because the malls in the places that the light rails have gone to have been driven out of business by the same thing. Large groups of black kids.

          But we refuse to admit it’s a problem, so we just sweep it under the table, while white people move further and further away.

          1. Occasionally they move back, but that’s a really bad thing too, or so I’ve been told.

          2. The White Robe crowd shows up to H&R.

            1. Just keep sweeping.

      2. I enjoyed Derb the most when I disagreed with him. Which was not infrequent. but it made you think.

      3. “I miss Derbyshire posting at NRO.”

        No need to miss him at all. He’s on Vdare at least twice a week, including Radio Derb.

    2. Derbyshire’s comments strike me as no more racist or contemptible than those of, say, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and Coates doesn’t seem to get regularly disinvited from colleges.

      1. Read the webzine article. It’s pretty nuts.

        1. So are Coates’s comments, yet for some reason people like him get a free pass. Coates and Derbyshire are both contemptible racists.

          1. The correct answer is to ignore Coates.

            1. But we shouldn’t ignore that Coates is afforded opportunities to spread his lunacy while others are not.

        2. Context.

          The article that got him fired was in direct response to the series of articles going around at the time about the ‘talk’ that black mother(parents) must give their sons.

          Derbyshire was pointing out that the stance of those articles was easily matched by the ‘talk’ that white people get.

          But everyone ignored the comparisons in favor of screeching and flinging poo.

          Hell, Coates’ big book IS a version of that ‘talk’. A long racist diatribe against white people.

    3. There’s really no facts or reasoning to rebut. Kind of like your posts.

  7. “I think that President Falk is an analytic and deliberative leader and I respect his decision; however, I sharply disagree with his decision and if I could challenge it, I certainly would

    I suppose challenging the decision might require speech.

    1. When your school President has shown he believes speech should be shut down if he disagrees with it, what do you think he’d do to you for disagreeing with him?

    2. How can he respect the decision yet disagree and want to challenge it at the same time? Does he mean that he respects the administrator’s *ability* to make the decision?

      1. I couldn’t figure that out either.

      2. I dunno, this just might be a really nice kid. That’s what I’m honestly thinking.

      3. I was confused too. Maybe “I respect Dean Douchecanoe as a man but he is completely wrong on this one.”

      4. In this context, respecting a decision seems to mean abiding by it.

      5. I think he means he won’t fight the decision.

  8. Derbyshire’s views are certainly contemptible.

    What kind of weak denunciation is that Robbie? No cocktail parties for you!

    You can now add “racist-sympathizer” to your rape-apologist resume.

  9. Sounds to me as though Mr. Zach Wood actually understands the point of free expression and the marketplace of ideas — concepts he’s mastered despite attending a college where such values are ignored whenever inconvenient.

    1. Zach cancelled the anti-feminist speaker as he was upset with the intolerant shrill harpies and trans-women equating the lecture with actual physical violence. He’s a pussy.

  10. In an email to Reason, he wrote:

    He actually responded to Reason? Seems like most of the time I read an article like this, neither party involved in the dispute bothers to answer. As a bonus, the kid actually seems to have some intellectual consistency. Not bad.

    1. Yes. Good luck getting hired at Gawker or HuffPo with that attitude, fella!

  11. We would probably disagree about a lot of things, but I would happily buy this kid a beer anytime. Good on him.

    1. And the first thing I would say to him is, “Take Derbyshire to task??!! Kid, that’s like shooting fish in a barrel. This ain’t high school; you need to up your game.” And then we would clink our glasses and drink. Mazel tov!

  12. I don’t get it. If a person holds views you find wholly contemptible, why not invite that person to come speak so everyone can see just how contemptible he really is?

    1. Becuz de wiiddel snowfwakes might get their feewings hurt. **hugs teddy-bear**

      1. Or because The Foolish People might believe his contemptible horrors!

        Or the Evil People might take his utterances as support!

        The other must be suppressed, you know.

        1. right. of course I, personally, can handle this kind of thing, but what about everyone else who’s dumber than me?
          that attitude kinda pisses me off

    2. Shouldn’t that should be the point of “Uncomfortable Learning”? Learning about the people who you disagree with and how they justify their beliefs seems like a pretty important thing if you want to combat racism or other social evils.

      1. I think uncomfortable learning refers to things the president of the school is uncomfortable learning about.

    3. Seems pretty clear to me that the pres is looking to avoid another shit-show.

      1. Then he’s a coward who can’t stand up to crybullies.

  13. I would want to ask Derbyshire about three things: number theory, Bruce Lee, and why he seemingly went off the rails about 5 years ago. I still read him regularly, and it’s an odd experience to be thinking, “OK, this is logical, this is logical, this is interesting, this is… wait, what???”

    1. Lol. That was exactly my experience reading the article that got him fired. It went from bell curve to stormfront pretty quickly.

      1. “That was exactly my experience reading the article that got him fired.”

        That article is so crazy that it almost reads like a parody of racism.

        “In that pool of forty million, there are nonetheless many intelligent and well-socialized blacks. (I’ll use IWSB as an ad hoc abbreviation.) You should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice.”

        And if there’s anything Derbyshire knows, it’s how to inoculate yourself against career destroying accusations of prejudice…

        1. From what I recall the article was a parody of “The talk” article about white people. At least I took it as pointing out how saying such things about blacks was “shocking” even though the praised auricle talked about whites the same way.

          Kind of like when people say there’s too many white people who are republicans, libertarians, Abercrombie employees etc. and nobody bats an eye. But say there’s too many black people who are democrats, basketball players, Taco Bell employees and people will react like your Hitler incarnate.

          Not that I care about the amount of either but I think the point was a parody of the double standard.

      2. That was exactly my experience reading the article that got him fired.

        Mine, too. I went from “hmm, what’s so controversial” to “oh shit.”

    2. Ha, ha! Same here. When I first began reading NRO he was interesting and then…w.t.f?

  14. Here’s Williams’ policy on using college buildings and facilities:

    “The use of College buildings for such purposes as lectures, plays, musical performances, dances, etc., must be approved by the appropriate College authorities. College buildings and facilities may not be used for the purpose of participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.”

    And from their nondiscrimination policy:

    “Actions of bias, discrimination or harassment are contrary to the mission stated in President Schapiro’s induction address [quote omitted]…Williams is steadfast in its pursuit to promote respect and appreciation for diversity, human rights, and differences of opinions and lifestyles throughout the entire campus community. The College is determined to maintain clear and open lines of communication. As a community of learning, we value freedom of expression and know that it does not protect abusive or harassing behavior.”

    Now, reading these two policies together, so as to harmonize with each other, I suppose you could say that the college won’t let its facilities used for “abusive or harassing behavior” – but I’m not so sure that “differences of opinions” constitute abuse or harassment, even if the person has strongly offensive views.

    1. But if they’re going to ban people because they might utter “hate speech” during a lecture, then what are we to make of
      Williams’ allowing Angela Davis to speak on campus?

      “Davis discussed the extent to which racism continues to negatively permeate our society. “The racisms in this country are so complicated,” she said, and they continue to “build on the others and complicate the others.”…

      “…Davis tied together the theoretical underpinnings of a collectivist framework with the realities of current struggles such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and prison abolition movement.”

      1. To clarify what she meant by prison abolition, here’s an interview she gave:

        “those of us who identify as prison abolitionists, as opposed to prison reformers, make the point that oftentimes reforms create situations where mass incarceration becomes even more entrenched; and so, therefore, we have to think about what in the long run will produce decarceration, fewer people behind bars, and hopefully, eventually, in the future, the possibility of imagining a landscape without prisons….

        “Well, of course, in 1977, when the Attica rebellion took place, that was a really important moment in the history of mass incarceration, the history of the prison in this country. The prisoners who were the spokespeople for the uprising indicated that they were struggling for a world without prisons.”

        Yet it doesn’t seem to occur to Williams administrators that calling people racists can be considered hate speech, or that to someone who was the victim of a burglary or rape, or the relative of a homicide victim, someone calling for a world where the perps are allowed to walk sounds a lot like hate speech.

        1. calling people racists can be considered hate speech, or that to someone who was the victim of a burglary or rape, or the relative of a homicide victim, someone calling for a world where the perps are allowed to walk sounds a lot like hate speech.

          Calling people racists erroneously could be hateful. The latter seems like quite a stretch. I can’t imagine that prison abolitionists are motivated by any kind of animus toward crime victims.

          1. Many racists deny that they are motivated by hatred.

            From a 1903 speech by governor Charles Brantley Aycock of North Carolina

            “I am proud of my State? because there we have solved the negro problem.? We have taken him out of politics and have thereby secured good government under any party and laid foundations for the future development of both races. We have secured peace, and rendered prosperity a certainty….

            “These things are not said in enmity to the negro but in regard for him. He constitutes one third of the population of my State: he has always been my personal friend; as a lawyer I have often defended him, and as Governor I have frequently protected him. But there flows in my veins the blood of the dominant race; that race that has conquered the earth and seeks out the mysteries of the heights and depths. If manifest destiny leads to the seizure of Panama, it is certain that it likewise leads to the dominance of the Caucasian. When the negro recognizes this fact we shall have peace and good will between the races.

            1. “But I would not have the white people forget their duty to the negro. We must seek the truth and pursue it. We owe an obligation to “the man in black”; we brought him here; he served us well; he is patient and teachable. We owe him gratitude; above all we owe him justice. We cannot forget his fidelity and we ought not to magnify his faults; we cannot change his color, neither can we ignore his service. No individual ever “rose on stepping stones of dead” others “to higher things,” and no people can. We must rise by ourselves, we must execute judgment in righteousness; we must educate not only ourselves but see to it that the negro has an opportunity for education.

              “As a white man I am afraid of but one thing for my race and that is that we shall become afraid to give the negro a fair chance….”

              1. Oh, and Name That Party – Aycock was a Democrat.

              2. +1 White Man’s Burden…

  15. ‘person of color’.

    Is this the new ‘proper’ way to say black?

    My wife just said, ‘is it bad we don’t do enough for black history month’?

    Me: I wouldn’t even have one. History is history. It’s a form of intellectual segregation and I’ve no patience for it.

    Her: But the kids didn’t know who Rosa Parks was?

    Me (White Goodman impression): And? Kids don’t know plenty of historical figures of all race, creed and color. It’s called ignorance or retardation. What’s your point? Parks isn’t the beginning or ending of history.

    Unbelievable when you contextualize how fast things make sense to people.

    1. It’s not just black. It’s anyone who isn’t white. Which is why I think it is a particularly awful and offensive term. It takes many diverse and unrelated minority groups and defines them all entirely based on their non-Europeanness. I’ve known several black people who have said the same thing. But it amazes me how many people use it to identify themselves.

      1. Yeah, it is an inherently racist label. As in “for-real racial superiority” style racism. Whites are set apart from non-white in their world. They are inherently different by nature of their race.

        Pretty much the exact opposite of “I have a dream”.

    2. If that was a real conversation with your wife (as sing she’s a real person of the female gender) I would like to buy you a drink, sir.

      1. It was.

        And I must say. She’s Mensa IQ territory. Also of sound, logical mind. It’s just that she’s apolitical and sometimes gets, erm, tripped up.

        1. Intelligence is not correlated to good politics. The smartest friend I have (~180 IQ) is a wannabe hippy who is a true believer in “government is us.”

          I attack ideas, I don’t attack people – and some very good people have some very bad ideas

          – Justice Scalia

    3. He is a black dude, and a pretty cool one at that.

      I am hopeful that as he ages and adds wisdom to his obvious intelligence he will abandon leftism and come over into the light.

      1. come over into the light

        Whitey normative!

    4. ‘person of color’.

      Is this the new ‘proper’ way to say black?

      No, it’s the way of marginalizing White’s as The Other.

    5. Rosa Parks rode the bus in Canada too?

      1. Once she got that front seat, she never got off the bus.

  16. Derbyshire’s views are certainly contemptible.

    Citation needed.

    1. Read his weekly column. Each one has at least one, and usually more, bits that would make an intelligent and open-minded person wince.

      In your case, perhaps not.

      1. Which is exactly why it shouldnt be hard to cite an example.

        1. It’s not. Seriously, read any of his weekly columns from the post-NR era. Every single one.

          1. Yes. It is not out of the realm of possibility for Robby, or anyone else, to find Derbyshire contemptible. In fact, it seems like Derbyshire frequently goes out of his way to seem contemptible.

            1. Yes, it’s odd to have that much wackiness tied to a considerable intelligence. It really would have been valuable to have him talk to the students and deal with their questions. They would experience, for the first time in their snowflake lives, someone whom they KNOW is wrong shredding their arguments. A very valuable lesson on the difference between being right and being able to argue better.

              1. True. I am sure that Derbyshire has given this more critical thought than have the snowflakes.

            2. “. It is not out of the realm of possibility for Robby, or anyone else, to find Derbyshire contemptible.’

              Of course not. And i don’t like the guy’s race-obsessed steez any more than Robby, most likely.

              But making those sorts of pronouncements about other writers without even so much as a link to “and here’s what i mean by that” is a cop out.

              Its on par with the way Marcotte will refer to other writers as ‘rape apologists’ without ever actually citing an example justifying the claim. If you’re going to throw out judgements like that, have the nuts to back it up.

              1. Read up above. It’s quoted.

                1. And down below!

              2. “I am a homophobe, though a mild and tolerant one, and a racist, though an even more mild and tolerant one, and those things are going to be illegal pretty soon, the way we are going.
                John Derbyshire

                (10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.

                (10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.

                (10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).

                (10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.

                (10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.

                (10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.

                (10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.

                (10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.

                (10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.”

                10f could be arguably non-racist, just an observation about places like Detroit, if taken out of context. The rest … wow. Not something my black girlfriend would much care for.

      2. Your responding to a guy who thinks VDARE is a swell organization.

    2. This is the column that got him fired from national review, I think, or at least it is similar to the one that got him fired.

      1. (10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.

        (10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving

        1. The only people who think that’s bad advice for your kids are people who’ve never lived in or near a poor black neighborhood.

          1. I have zero desire to discuss the merits of Derbyshire’s column(s), however, a person could easily find that column, and plenty of others, contemptible.

            1. Any more contemptible than people who say that anybody with light skin color descends from a race of evil oppressors, is a beneficiary of white privilege, and should be forced to pay reparations?

                1. The question why one kind of racism is tolerated on college campuses while the other one is banned is not a tu quoque.

          2. Whatever, bro. Have you ever even been subpoenaed?

            1. Indeed I have, as you probably know. For violations related to woodchippers.

          3. i avoid all poor people. Not just black ones.

        2. (10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.

          This is actually some very good advice, racist or not. I live in Baltimore, I know. And if you are ever here, I HIGHLY advise you take that advice if you value your life.

          1. Better advice: stay away from Leakin Park.

            1. It would be easier, with Baltimore, just to list the places to not stay out of.

              1. List of navigable places in Baltimore:

                1. Roland Park
                  Hampden
                  Charles Village
                  Little Italy
                  Inner Harbor
                  Mt. Washington
                  Radnor

          2. And as Chris Rock advised avoid any street in a big city named after Martin Luther King Jr.

            1. Austin, TX is a giant exception to that otherwise sage rule.

              1. Austin is a giant exception to all sorts of rules. A blue city core surrounded by deep red suburbs, and a red state, makes for a fair amount of weirdness.

            2. I’ve been to a lot of cities with an MLK Jr. boulevard. In fact, it is almost impossible to find a city of much over 50K people without that street. And, I never felt physically insecure in any of those places.

              Maybe if I was walking alone at 3 am in a poorly lit section … but that’s ANY part of a big city.

              1. I think these things vary by city. I feel much more secure in NYC than Buffalo, for example. Two cities I have a lot of experience with.

              2. Come to Houston, to MLK south of MacGregor Park. Hell, add MacGregor Park too. It’s a shithole. Yes, it’s near UH, and I went to school there. It’s still a shithole. I wouldn’t go to large chunks of it in the daylight, especially south of 610.

                Dallas’s looks unpleasant too. I wouldn’t know, because I’m not dumb enough to drive around in South Dallas, SW of Fair Park. (Craft and Growler, OTOH, which is near Fair Park, is awesome and worth your time. But it’s not on MLK.)

                If you don’t believe me, just cross-reference MLK Blvd with something like Judgmental Maps.

                Austin, OTOH, isn’t. That it runs right next to UT, and some obscenely wealthy neighborhoods as you get close to Shoal Creek, helps.

                1. Malcolm X Blvd, ironically, is a much more peaceful street in Dallas than MLK Blvd.

                  I was just in that neighborhood looking at houses (specifically, Park Row and South Blvd. The mansions near the old synagogue)

                  1. I’m considering an apt. near Malcolm X Blvd in Bed-Stuy. The neighborhood is a curious mix of genteel buildings and drive-by shootings. My friend whose family owns the house swears it’s fine but… I’m dubious.

                  2. Looking at Zillow, the neighborhood you mention, looks like it’s gentrifying like a mutha’. 117k, 115k, 110k, 620k, 220k.

                    I wish you good hunting and a successful real estate play. It’s very close to downtown Dallas.

        3. The answer in the Street is always, “No.” Can I ask you something? No. Do you have a cigarette? No. Can you tell me what time it is? No. The answer is always “No”. Don’t be nice. Stop the encounter as soon as it starts.

          From here. Which doesn’t differentiate between black, white, Hispanic, or any other race: just robbers (and those that you think might be—which is where the trouble lies, I think) and normal people.

          I thought The Talk was incredibly non-P.C., and I disagreed with a bit of it, but I didn’t find it to be the next installment of The Turner Diaries. Opinions vary, and I’m not a student of his work.

          I can see why NRO dumped him, and perhaps he worded the article in such a way as to force their hand.

          1. Good grief. That is pretty awful…and stupid.

            When I run into a stranger I look to see how they are dressed and groomed and listen to them speak to gauge them. I don’t recall ever taking their skin color into account.

            1. I’m sexist and ageist, not racist.

              My wife and I have stopped to pick up women who need a ride. Never once do we intend to do that for a man of any color.

              I also avoid eye contact with large groups of young men of any race. Honestly, I would choose to walk next to an older black gentleman than a group of young white punks any day, easily.

              1. Yeah usually people tell you how they want you to perceive them. Dress is one way they do that and it’s not racist if you’re basing your judgement on something they control.

      2. Are you sure that’s the column?

      3. Holy fuck, if he wrote that shit I can certainly see why he got fired! Good god, man, put a trigger warning on that link!

        1. ^^^Dammit – I was referring to the sf’ed link to some hellhole called “Reason comments”.

          1. Derbyshire is one thing, Reason comments will cause snowflakes to hurl themselves from a bridge.

            1. They’ll melt right on the spot.

  17. The series is called “Uncomfortable Learning”. Seems to me the whole point should be to get people with views that might upset some of the audience.

    And what the hell is “hate speech” anyway? I find it to be a ridiculous term. It seems to assume that saying certain things or holding certain beliefs is somehow inherently hateful. Seems to me that it is quite possible to hold offensive, stupid beliefs, like racism for example, but not be motivated by hatred. I’m not sure what Derbyshire writes that is so terrible. Maybe he is a hateful person. Even if he is, what is the Williams president afraid of? Does he not trust his students to make thoughtful judgments about what they hear? The idea that you make bad ideas go away by silencing them is stupid.

    1. “The idea that you make bad ideas go away by silencing them is stupid.”

      Controlling the dialogue is about power and the left excels at it. Basically they are just bullshit artists and they don’t want people calling them out on their bullshit.

      1. Yep, the last thing they want is students learning how to tear apart weak, offensive, or discriminatory ideas.

    2. And what the hell is “hate speech” anyway?

      Speech that is hated.

    3. And what the hell is “hate speech” anyway?

      It’s a way to silence people without actually confronting them or responding to what they have to say.

      As for Derbyshire, I am an occasional fan. Is he a racist and a homophobe? I think he is, but on certain topics he is excellent. I have a pretty thick skin, though.

  18. Fear is the mindkiller.

    1. Fear is the law
      duty is pain
      Shame is necessary
      to grind the edges from our minds
      our minds
      She’s hurtin’ now
      she let the smooth taste fool her
      now when she opens up her eyes
      her head’s on fire

  19. We Are Doomed

    (It was a pretty great book)

  20. How hard was it for Zach Wood not to call for some sort of protest against the administration for its racist and patronizing implication that a young black “boy” wasn’t mentally equipped to handle the rigors of being exposed to the likes of Derbyshire? Would they have stopped a white man from freely engaging in controversial debate? What about a white woman? A gay person? Does the administration really feel like it’s doing such a piss-poor job of educating young adults that they can’t be trusted to even think for themselves? Or is it just the non-white male ones it thinks can’t be trusted to think for themselves?

    1. Would they have stopped a white man from freely engaging in controversial debate? What about a white woman? A gay person?

      Yeah, I expect they would.

      A private liberal arts college thinks that about all of their students.

    2. From what I can tell Wood has too much integrity to stoop to their level.

  21. Derbyshire’s views are certainly contemptible.

    All of them? I have been reading Derb’s punditry for 10 years and find some of his views suspect and a few wrong.

    Derbyshire wrote an epic novel in the 1990s about modern China that no one published and few, including me, have read.

    http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Books/Fire/page.html

    Derb is notoriously anti-gay. But from what I understand, the novel’s protagonist is gay.

    And how do we know he wasn’t going to talk about prime number theory? Another of his peculiar obsessions. He wrote a book about that too.

    1. That’s the thing. You can’t know and must stay unknow lest you learn and forced to rethink your position.

      It’s The Closening.

    2. Yes – all of Derbyshire’s views are contemptible because they are tainted with derbyshireness. Just as we must tear down statues of Thomas Jefferson because he owned slaves and protest children’s hospitals because they are built with Koch money, we must praise gay-stoning Muslims because they are an oppressed minority and marvel at Bruce Jenner’s beauty because he is a courageous woman. There’s no place in this world for gray – there is only black and white.

      1. Well if you don’t say that Derbyshire is contempible, then you can’t be one of the cool kids. So what’s it gonna be?

    3. His China stuff is some of the best writing on the topic anywhere. He can deliver a withering barb, that’s for sure.

  22. Medieval universities would train the minds of their students by holding disputations

    “Little was neglected in the effort to get to the truth. Disputation could occur before a scholarly audience, with one student arguing against a preannounced thesis, another dissecting his criticisms, and an instructor summing up the proceedings. It could be a private exercise between an instructor and his students. Or it could be conducted before the public, with the debaters taking on subjects de quolibet (“about anything at all”).”

    Our universities need to get more medieval if they want to be more open-minded.

    1. Ironic, eh?

      1. Modern academia resembles nothing so much as the French Catholic Church immediately prior to the French Revolution.

    2. No safe spaces with blankies and crayons for those guys.

    3. Does that involve getting medieval on people’s asses? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6zqu_9Sb7w

  23. John Derbyshire, where have I heard that name before? Is this the same John Derbyshire that is a contributor at Takimag? Holy cow, that guy would give these snowflakes a fucking heart attack, no wonder they overturned the decision.

    1. He’s been at VDare for over year now.

    2. He was a National Review writer until he wrote an…um…unfortunate article for Taki Mag where he argued that you should stay away from black people except for one or two educated black friends you cultivate to give yourself plausible deniability when people call you a racist.

      Unsurprisingly, NR let him go shortly thereafter.

      1. Yeah, your love for the black man is well documented.

        1. Yeah. I should learn to stop saying bigoted things like “in America, crime rates among African Americans are higher than crime rates among Caucasians, therefore more African Americans getting in trouble with the law is not proof that the cops are racist.”

          Basic statistical facts make people sad. 🙁

            1. Literally my whole point was that African Americans getting in trouble more frequently could be caused by something other than cop racism, such as African Americans breaking traffic laws more frequently. As evidence of this, I pointed out that African Americans commit crimes at greater rates than Caucasians, but you would never say that black people getting arrested more frequently for murder is due to racism, since, in fact, African Americans statistically commit more murders.

              And if anyone failed statistical analysis it was people like Nicole who seriously argued that African Americans don’t commit more crimes because we can’t trust government statistics…as if all the homicides in inner city Chicago just kind of randomly happen and we can’t prove who’s doing it.

              And you continue to fail to actually refute this point. Your argument in that post was laughable since in no way did my argument pre-suppose the system to be ‘perfect,’ since all I argued was that it isn’t proof the cops are racist.

              Which is a basic fact. And you haven’t bothered arguing with that actual fact yet.

              1. There was a black guy walking down my street today. IN A GATED COMMUNITY.

                I wish you were here to call the cops. What’s the point of gates if they can just sneak right in, amirite???

              2. such as African Americans breaking traffic laws more frequently

                Says who? The cops?

                1. Don’t take him seriously right now. He needs to be taken down a peg. He was arguing with Tulpa, which he completely missed.

                  Also, what a surprise that Tulpa would show up to argue about race. You know how he hates asians.

                2. Because certain groups are more likely to do what the state tells them to do. There are groups of people who obey laws just because they’re ‘law abiding’ and there are people who don’t obey laws with the same frequency.

                  How awful that the author of this choice nugget finds me laughable. On the plus side, at least I’m appropriately pale/law-abiding, so there is yet balm in Gilead.

                3. such as African Americans breaking traffic laws more frequently

                  Says who? The cops?

                  Cameras. Random cameras set by the side of the road. No punishments, no cops, just black people speeding at rates greater than their percentage in the general population.

              3. And you continue to fail to actually refute this point.

                And you, sir, have continued to fail to actually acknowledge that the premises of your argument rely on an illicit use of statistical syllogism through fallacious equivocation of malum prohibitum crimes with malum in se crimes. I took the fact that you failed to acknowledge this a month ago as evidence you conceded my point. It seems I was mistaken.

                1. I’m not getting your point, HM. (Which means I’ve probably missed something.)

                  The FBI’s own stats—which are quite imperfect, but it’s the only thing we have, so we’ll try to find our keys under their light—show that for malum in se crimes, African-Americans commit them at rates exceeding those of whites or Hispanics. Let’s look at Murder for 2014. (Mainly because I can find it, and don’t feel like slogging through their stats to find exact stats for other crimes)
                  In 2014, there were 13,897 murders that made the FBI’s tables. 5173 were committed by blacks, 4367 by whites, 225 by ‘everyone else’, and 4132 were unknown. This translates into whites (including Hispanics) committing 31.4% of the murders, blacks 37.2, EE 1.6, and ?? 29.7.

                  Racial breakdown in the States, as of 2010 Census are: Whites (includes Hispanics) 72.4, Blacks 12.6. I’m not sure how the Census’s EE maps to the FBI’s EE.

                  Blacks commit crime way out of proportion to their numbers in the U.S. AIUI, that’s all Irish was saying in that incredibly convoluted set of threads awhile ago.

                  1. Blacks commit crime way out of proportion to their numbers in the U.S. AIUI, that’s all Irish was saying in that incredibly convoluted set of threads awhile ago.

                    That is correct, and if that were all Irish was saying, we would have no quarrel. Irish presented the argument that it is probable that Blacks have a higher incidence of speeding because Blacks commit other crimes in higher proportions. I stated that his inductive reasoning was neither valid nor sound due to the flaws I mentioned earlier. I honestly thought the reason he didn’t reply to my criticism was it being his way of saying “yep, you’re right”.

                    1. I see where he might think that. OTOH—and you all may have already hashed this out ad nauseum—I think it’s a case of: Cops are lazy. They want to maximize their haul with each contact. IOW, why pull over someone for speeding only, if you think you can also pop them for various paperwork violations, or, even better, if you can get them for controlled substance/DWI/felon in possession. All of which are going to be more likely when pulling over a car with (preferably) multiple young African Amercans, than it will when pulling over a car with one young white woman. And, I’d argue, more likely with a car of African-Americans than non-African Americans. Not because they’ve a criminality gene, but because of cultural differences.

                      Bonus, as African-Americans skew poorer, they’re less likely to be able to afford counsel that will ruin your bust.

                      But as to the relative speeding rates amongst the races, I haven’t noticed personally any correlation. As distinct from correlations to age or gender. Young Males’s auto insurance rates are shitty for a reason.

                      Then again, I’m not a cop, not a attorney who practices criminal law. (Or an attorney at all, for that matter) Maybe they’ve noticed a relationship?

                    2. As distinct from correlations to age or gender. Young Males’s auto insurance rates are shitty for a reason. Then again, I’m not a cop, not a attorney who practices criminal law. (Or an attorney at all, for that matter) Maybe they’ve noticed a relationship?

                      In the thread, FS pointed to a study that claimed a correlation to race. I replied something to the effect of “disaggreate the data by age cohort and then get back to me.” Anyway, just by face validity alone, I would think that everyone would admit the motivation to do something that is illegal only due to the fact that some bureaucrat pulled a number out of his ass is qualitatively different than the motivation to commit homicide; one has no predictive power in relation to the other.

                    3. I think it’s a stretch to in effect say: “Sure, there’s a strong correlation between race and serious violent crimes, but not for infractions!” Seriously, do you think it’s unreasonable to think that small crimes correlate with big ones? Are murderers and robbers more likely to obey traffic laws, or less likely? Common sense answers that question. I think the burden of proof is on you here.

                    4. Black men as 6x more likely to murder, but they drive the speed limit?

                    5. Nobody drives the speed limit, uses their turn signals, or comes to complete stops at every stop sign. also the vast majority go left of center every time they make a left turn and will run “pink” lights. It’s not 3 felonies a day, for traffic infractions its 300 a day, if the po-po want to hassle you they will find a reason.

      2. Sounds like a progressive, he just needs to learn to call other people racist

      3. Ref this: http://gawker.com/what-black-p…..1624412625

        to see what Derbyshire was parodying/mocking/race-switching. It’s “the talk” that black parents ‘have’ to have with their kids about how to deal with a racist society of white assholes. It’s meant to be “the unvarnished truth”, no holds barred version.

        Derbyshre’s is the equivalent: practical advice about co-existing, not so much with “all people of African ancestry” (race), but with “black urban populations in the USA” (reality). The point being, I’m sure, to demonstrate how insensitive, full of stereotyping and casual assumptions of racism the black version is, and how shocking a race-reversed version would be.

        Courageous and/or stupid, and proved his point, in a “Leonidas’ last words at Thermopylae being “Guess we showed you Persian fuckers.”” way.

  24. I was looking forward to taking him to task

    So, he wasn’t really interested in listening to and trying to understand where Derbyshire is coming from and what his positions truly are, he was just interested in, what, calling him out to his face? Telling him what miserable POS he is? I’m not exactly sure what he means by “taking him to task” but I seriously doubt it had anything to do with promoting “political tolerance.”

    Like most leftists I suspect his idea of dialogue means sitting down and shutting up while they tell you how wrong you are and what a piece of shit you are for disagreeing with them.

    *disclaimer: I’m not that familiar with Derbyshire’s writings, so maybe he really is a racist POS, but you’ll forgive me for not just taking their word for it that he’s some kind of KKK Grand Wizard or something.

    1. So what would you do if your organization invited Robert Reich to give a talk? Not attend? Or attend and try to take him to task?

      He meant “take him to task” as in “strenuously challenge his arguments.” You know that’s what he meant. It’s kind of hard to tell an invited lecturer to sit down and shut up.

      1. Interestingly, the email he sent to Robby is mostly copied from his post on FIRE’s website, but in that post he says in this place, “That is precisely why I was looking forward to exposing the flaws in his arguments.”

      2. He was inviting Derbyshire to criticize and interrogate him. Which is entirely appropriate, as long as he made that clear to Derbyshire, and lets him respond to the criticism.

        1. Maybe that’s why they stopped it, to keep these kids from making fools of themselves.

          1. Or to prevent them from engaging with the purveyors of off-narrative messages in a non-approved manner. i.e.: the ‘old school’ or phallologocentric manner. You know, that agreed-upon standards of evidence, arguments rooted in verifiable facts and explanatory hypotheses that are falsifiable way. Can’t have your students engage in that kind of racism-concealing crap.

            They prefer their students stick with the venerable, SJW-approved, Red Guard style of ‘self-criticism sessions’ we’ve seen at Yale, Occidental and elsewhere when engaging with ‘incorrect thinkers’. Or to not engage at all, as at Williams; which option, shameful and gutless as it is, might still be less embarrassing for them.

  25. “Derbyshire’s views are certainly contemptible. As The Washington Post’s Jonathan Adler notes: __________

    What follows is a repetition by Adler that Derbyshire is officially “Not Okay” – not actually any actual examination of anything Derbs said and/or argument why that example is supposed to be contemptible.

    *To be clear – i’m not a fan of his. I’ve read maybe three pieces by him in Takis mag over the last 4 years, none of which i can remember.

    But i’m also not a fan of this “pretending to care about free speech” while simultaneously refusing to actually point to examples of any speech you find ‘contemptible’ …. never mind the lame ‘appeal to authority’ (as though the Washington Post itself doesn’t regularly play both sides of the fence – pretending to care about speech when convenient, while also pumping P.C. scoldnarratives)

    If you’re going to take the view that *others* should “confront people whose ideas one finds reprehensible” – physician, heal thyself.

    1. Yeah, I’d like an example of his contempibleness myself. I’ve read several articles of his myself and I don’t remember anything particularly contemptible. In fact, I was thinking he’s rather mild mannered if you compare him to say Gavin McInnes. I guess I’m just really hard to offend.

    2. What follows is a repetition by Adler that Derbyshire is officially “Not Okay” – not actually any actual examination of anything Derbs said and/or argument why that example is supposed to be contemptible.

      Because that’s not the point of the blog post. He also doesn’t justify calling Louis Farrakhan’s views contemptible later in the post.

      1. Robby seemed to want to quote Adler as “proof” of Derb’s contempableness.

        But its nothing but “someone else” repeating the same claim. As though repeating something twice is a magic trick to make things “true”.

        I’ve read enough of derb’s race-obsessed writing to have an inkling about what gets up people’s butt, but he’s obviously not so widely known to the general public (unlike Louis Farrakhan, whose reputation precedes him) that Robby can simply allude to his contemptable-awfulness and expect it to be taken for granted.

        1. Robby’s comment and the ensuing quotation was a bit awkward for that reason IMO, but I don’t think any of the other people getting butthurt about him calling Derbyshire “contemptible” would have had the same reaction to any left-wing figure getting called that. And I don’t think most of them would have reacted differently if Soave did quote something from Derbyshire to prove his point.

          1. ” I don’t think any of the other people getting butthurt about him calling Derbyshire “contemptible” would have had the same reaction to any left-wing figure getting called that. And I don’t think most of them would have reacted differently if Soave did quote something from Derbyshire to prove his point.”

            I see. The people complaining are bad people, and likely hypocrites themselves, so it doesn’t matter if Robby fails to “confront ideas he finds reprehensible” while recommending that course for others. Got it.

            1. Uh I didn’t say that but thanks for putting words in my mouth. Take them smugness down a notch or two. I was just pointing out that the outcry in the comments here isn’t very sincere. I think Robby would have been better off using a more substantive quote, but I don’t think it’s a huge deal that he didn’t give specific examples. If he had, all these people in the comments would go one step further and ask “well why is that contemptible?” and that’s all besides the point of the article.

              1. “I was just pointing out that the outcry in the comments here isn’t very sincere”

                I know. You demonstrated amazing mind-reading abilities.

                1. It’s a judgment based off a pattern not just this article. These kind of comments are almost never found when anyone, whether a writer or commenter, criticized a left-leaning person, and many of the people attaching Robby for using that word to describe Derbyshire know exactly what he is referring to.

                  1. “It’s a judgment based off a pattern not just this article”

                    Its you projecting what you want on other people to justify hypocrisy

                    When you describe other people as “insincere” i presume you’re accusing me of that as well? Because you’re not responding to any point i made so much as simply handwaving and pretending that “No one cares when they’re hypocritical about *other* things!”

                    There’s nothing partisan at all about my point and stop pretending that’s what it is.

                    1. I actually wasn’t talking about you. I interpreted your comment more as a critique of Robby’s writing (which I agreed with in part on) rather than a defense of Derbyshire.

                    2. I’m getting a Tulpa vibe here.
                      Crusty to the white courtesy phone ….

                    3. When you describe other people as “insincere” i presume you’re accusing me of that as well?

                      Probably not, because Cali did say “other people.” You have a valid criticism (now that I understand your point, I agree; the way Robby framed the quote from Adler is stupid), but others who are complaining do not. Don’t play coy. We all know why Papaya and NR&X are whining, and Robby producing a checklist of offenses would not stop them.

                  2. These kind of comments are almost never found when anyone, whether a writer or commenter, criticized a left-leaning person

                    Robby usually puts a few sympathetic sentences in those articles.

                    /just stirring shit

                    1. Cali is right Gilmore is being a twat. That’s his weakness.

          2. What are the odds that Reason would call, say, Ezra Klein’s, Ta-Nehisi Coates’s, Anita Sarkeesian’s or Paul Krugman’s views “contemptible”?

            1. Well, you see PZ – if they did? No one here would even notice! and they’d just ignore it.

              So i’ve just been told by Cali, he-who-knows-the-hearts-of-all

              1. This entire article is a criticism of contemtible views on free speech held by leftists but apparently that went unnoticed.

                1. “This entire article is a criticism of contemtible views on free speech held by leftists but apparently that went unnoticed.”

                  Well, they actually provided examples and quotes of those contemptible views held by leftists rather than just saying SO CONTEMPTIBLE and moving on without further explanation…so, in that regard, I kind of see the point people are making.

                  1. “Well, they actually provided examples and quotes of those contemptible views held by leftists rather than just saying SO CONTEMPTIBLE and moving on without further explanation…so, in that regard, I kind of see the point people are making.”

                    The article isn’t about Derbyshire or whether or not his views are contemptible or not. That isn’t relevant to the point Robby is making. The contemptible line isn’t his thesis or argument at all, his argument is about free speech. I think elaborating would have helped him make a principled argument in favor of free speech (e.g. “Even though he said X, he should still have the right to be invited because Y”), but I don’t think it’s unfair to Derbyshire because the article isn’t about him.

            2. Also – i think the point isn’t really that they’d never throw stones in certain directions… because they certainly sometimes do, and certainly have.

              its that they wouldn’t do it without even making a case *why*

            3. Is it “contemptible” that’s the problem, Pan Zagloba? (If I write PZ, I think of PZ Myers, which is a failing on my part, but still, I don’t want to slur you that way.)

              Because I think that Reason would definitely call out the views of 3 of the 4 as being wrong at the least, and batshit insane in Welch’s funnier moments. (I miss Cavanaugh for that sort of thing.)

              Have they called out Coates too recently? I hadn’t checked. If so, make it 4 for 4.

          3. “but I don’t think any of the other people getting butthurt about him calling Derbyshire “contemptible””

            I absolutely would have, although Robby tends to the ‘socially liberal’ side of the scale, so I can’t imagine him declaring a random progressive ‘contemptible’ with the same blase attitude that he labels Derbyshire.

            I think many of Derbyshires ideas are outright bigoted. I can provide examples of same, such as various parts of his “The Talk – Nonblack version.”

            My problem isn’t even with Robby labeling Derbyshire contemptible though, my problem is with Adler arguing that the student made an ‘error in judgment’ even inviting him. So you care so much about free speech and the exchange of ideas that you don’t think someone you dislike should even be invited to debates? Why is it an error in judgment to want to debate someone whose views you despise?

            That’s my complaint and it’s regarding Adler, not Robby.

            1. “my problem is with Adler arguing that the student made an ‘error in judgment’ even inviting him”

              There’s also the fact that Robby used that exact quote as an example “fortifying his own view”

              My own gripe was more just the general irony of writing an article chastising Williams College for its unwillingness to confront ideas they disagree with….

              …. while simultaneously being unwilling to so much as even provide a link to the views he describes as ‘contemptible’.

              its a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too sort of thing that seems very common these days. Not only is it hypocritical… but boy is it *lazy*. Anyone who doesn’t know who Derbs is would still be completely in the dark about what all the fuss is supposed to be about.

            2. “I absolutely would have, although Robby tends to the ‘socially liberal’ side of the scale, so I can’t imagine him declaring a random progressive ‘contemptible’ with the same blase attitude that he labels Derbyshire.”

              Well he does call Falk’s actions “cowardly” and quoted someone else who called his decision “awful.”

              I agree with your point about Adler, but I think Robby just quoted it for the critique of the school’s violation of free speech included in it. Robby goes on to praise Wood, so I don’t think he had a problem with Derbyshire getting invited. And while I don’t share Adler’s questioning of the judgment of the students who invited him, I do give him props for unequivocally condemning the school’s actions even for somebody he would have never invited to speak.

  26. President Adam Falk made the contemptible move to violate his institution’s commitment to free speech

    What commitment to free speech?

    Do you have any evidence of such a supposed commitment?

    1. Robby’s just on this thing today where he wants to use the word contemptible a lot, and there’s already been several Trump articles.

  27. How do these young people get the cool BattleField 3 style selfies for their social networking site?

    1. Umm,sorry that’s not a selfie.

      1. HOW MANY MORE DISAPPOINTMENTS MUST I SUFFER THIS DAY?

        1. You really want that to be a selfie? Those are GUNS in that picture! Guns are bad! Mmkay?

    2. The guy on the left, wasn’t he a member of The Villiage People? He doesnt look like he has aged a day.

  28. Zach Woods’ words are a breath of fresh air.

  29. “Derbyshire’s views are certainly contemptible.”<?i

    Bullshit, Soave.

    Derbyshire commits the crime of noticing and being willing to have that “national dialog on race” that everyone thinks is such a great idea until someone says something that makes them uncomfortable.

    Derb has posted the speech he would have given. You’ll be shocked (Shocked!) at the vile hate speech contained therein!

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/…..st-century

    1. Here then, for connoisseurs of “hate speech,” is the address I would have given at Williams.]

      I knew I liked this guy.

    2. VDARE.com mainly concerns itself with what we call the National Question, which we approach from a conservative position.

      You know who else asked a Question?

      1. Socrates. Duh. I mean, it was his method.

    3. ” Suppose I were to trek up into the highlands of Ethiopia, get myself invited into the hut of some illiterate Amhara goatherd, and explain our founding documents to him; and suppose he were to respond with enthusiastic agreement. Did he thereby instantly become an American?”

      (The Ethiopian Students Association at this point rises and begins smearing goat blood on their faces while ululating their collective outrage)

    4. Is IQ correlated with ability to close tags?

      1. What a hilariously lame reply, and with no edit button, it’s there forever.

      2. I think so. An attention to details will give you a higher score on an IQ test than thinking about what would happen if you flew away from a big clock at the speed of light. Feynman complained that he didn’t score well on IQ tests.

        And I haven’t either!

    5. This un-conservative approach says: We, Americans, are a proposition nation. That is to say, we are a nation by virtue of our agreement on a set of propositions about the place of individuals in society, the relationship of the individual to government, and the proper scope of governmental powers.

      By his definition of conservative, the American Revolution was entirely unconservative, instituted as a revolutionary proposition nation, and those who wish to be true to that Revolution are still unconservatives of a revolutionary proposition nation.

      In the United States, immigration had been premised on a proposition nation. Come to America, and become American.

      Where we went into the crapper, was the move in the 60s was *away* from a revolutionary universalist proposition nation to an imperial collectivist enthnosubnationalism, as the divide and conquer mode of an Empire.

      The Progressives aimed to import people who *did not share* the propositions of the American revolutionary proposition nation, and then keep them divided by racial animosity as ethnosubmationalities to better rule them.

      Derbyshire provides the usual false dichotomy – his racist conservative ethnonationalism or the progressive Imperial racist ethnosubnationalism. The third way that he would hide is the UnConservative revolutionary proposition nation, which was rolling along pretty well until the Progressives overthrew it.

    6. “Derbyshire commits the crime of noticing and being willing to have that “national dialog on race” that everyone thinks is such a great idea until someone says something that makes them uncomfortable.”

      Wow that is some grade A bullshit artistry right there.

  30. Does Derbyshire tutor? I always wanted to be contemptible but have never been able to really do it well.

    1. Connoisseurs of Hate Speech 101! Perfect class for all Reasonoids!

      1. I’m pretty sure I can test out of it.

  31. Williams College?a private, liberal arts cult in Massachusetts…

  32. Williams College?a private, liberal arts college…

    skip

  33. “He has written some contemptible things, and I supported National Review’s decision to cut him loose over his intemperate writings. I would not have invited him to give a speak and (frankly) I question the judgment of the students who did.”

    I hate how even the people supposedly pro-free speech are such whinging dipshits. You’re questioning the judgment of someone who wants to hear opposing views? Oh no! Not intellectual curiosity! There’s no place for that on college campuses!

    1. Question: If someone in a Sci. Fi. or fantasy club had invited noted commie China Mieville, would Jonathan Alder have rent his panties over the fact that students invited an adherent of that piece of shit, blood soaked economic philosophy?

      Or is racism the only ideology that renders you an Unperson such that a non-violent bigot is deemed to be infinitely more evil than people who support a philosophy that’s killed tens of millions of people?

      1. I can guarantee you that they would have no problem with any ‘person of color’ being as blatantly racist as they want to be.

        Take for instance this Ta-Nehisi Coates guy, who is clearly a racist.

        Does this sound racist to you?

        “When people who are not black are interested in what I do, frankly, I’m always surprised,” Coates said. “I don’t know if it’s my low expectations for white people or what.”

        1. Microaggression 101:

          “My, isn’t he well-spoken?”

      2. I was gonna say something along the lines of “Objectivist, or an Austrian economist or a Thatcher fan would get the same treatment” but then I realized that those are all racist beliefs, too.
        In fact, it’s racists all the way down. Whereas Marxists murder with no concern for race*.

        *this is a falsehood, but some kind of perfect Marxists executes merely based on class membership.

        1. OR, look to the fine example of Comrade Che, who, before he went into the t-shirt-and-poster business, killed on the bases of ideology, personal loyalty or if he wanted a guys’ watch, or girlfriend.

          But NOT RACE!!

      3. You don’t see a distinction between not inviting a SF/fantasy author to an SF/fantasy event because of his political writings… and not inviting a political writer to a political event because of his political writings?

        Is “has intelligent things to say about politics” really an unreasonable criterion for inviting a political speaker to an event?

        1. Derbyshire does have intelligent things to say about politics. No one who has read him can claim he’s stupid.

          And Derbyshire once fought Bruce Lee in a movie. If you tried to invite Derbyshire to talk about his experience fighting Bruce Lee and the dean found out about his political beliefs, you’d best believe they’d do the same thing.

          To your point, if China Mieville came to a school *explicitly to talk about politics* no one would bat an eye either, so my point stands regardless.

    2. The left have no interest in open debate and they don’t intend to have any. And if it takes partially or even fully shutting down free speech to achieve that goal, then they have no problem whatsoever doing so.

      1. Karl Popper once said that one of the valuable things about debate is that very rarely does one person convince the other to adopt their position, but it often occurs that both people learn new things and are therefore able to refine their beliefs and ideas.

        For example, let’s say I really disagree with many of Derbyshire’s racial beliefs, but while arguing with him he provides me with new information that I didn’t previously have. I am now smarter and more knowledgeable about the subject due to my confrontation with someone I really don’t agree with.

        The fact that Adler doesn’t seem to understand that it’s possible to learn from people you dislike (which is one of the main goals of debate) shows that he believes a lot of the same fucked up ideas that these activists believe, he just isn’t willing to take those irrational and fucked up beliefs to the point of official censorship. He prefers de facto censorship where people like Derbyshire are never debated because society has agreed that Such Things Just Are Not Done.

        It’s a Gentleman’s Blacklist, if you will.

        1. Or Index Librorum Prohibitorum

        2. Popper taught at the London School of Economics for most of his academic career (It was Friedrich Hayek that helped get him get out of Austria via New Zealand and established there).

          Although Popper described himself as a softie in his autobiography others that knew him well termed him one of the most argumentative and dogmatic individuals they’d ever encountered. Students that tried to argue with him during his lectures were sometimes ordered out the lecture hall.

          1. So he was a dick and a hypocrite. The point isn’t invalidated just because he was too much of a prick to abide by it himself.

            1. No I agree, just that sometimes people are blind to their own shortcomings.

          2. Poppers “Open Society and Its Enemies” books 1 and 2 are libertarian classics that should be read by everyone.

            1. They are classics of political philosophy and probably his best and most important work. I think his star as a philospher of science has faded somewhat since his death.

              You heard of philosopher David Stove?

              Check-out

              http://www.amazon.com/Scientif…..avid+stove

              for a critque of Popper. Also his The Plato Cult, the first chapter is on Popper.

              Stove was a Hume scholar and has probably the sharpest BS detector of any philosopher I’ve encountered, also the sharpest most biting wit that he uses to dissect other famous philosophers that he regards as peddling nonsense. Highly recommended.

              1. Cool. Thanks. I’ll check it out!

                1. You will not be disappointed, I guarantee it.

                  For just a glimpse of the man and his work his Wiki entry is good:

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stove

                  “About Immanuel Kant he had this to say:
                  “Kant’s questions are so strange and arresting that no one who has once heard them ever forgets them. It is just the reverse with his answers to them: no one can ever remember what these are! And there is a simple reason for this: the questions never get answered at all. Once they have served as an excuse for the darkening of sufficient area of wood-pulp, they just get lost”.

                  “After a brief flirtation with Marxism, Stove abandoned the left. His views were summed-up well in his paper, “Why You Should be A Conservative” (reprinted in part as “The Columbus Argument”).[13] His main argument in this paper was that just as there are many more ways to make a television set worse than those which will make it better, so there are many more ways to make society worse than to make it better. If we think otherwise that is only because we have been fed “a one-sided diet of examples”, such as Christopher Columbus, Nicolaus Copernicus and Abraham Lincoln rather than Pol Pot, Maximilien Robespierre, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin”

                  One of the finest essayists ever and the sharpest most devastating wit.

    3. “I hate how even the people supposedly pro-free speech are such whinging dipshits”

      join the club.

    4. I hate how even the people supposedly pro-free speech are such whinging dipshits.

      I like that an incident of free speech is being redirected toward an evaluation of the speaker’s views.

      I think Adler is being hyperbolic and bitchy here, but I see his point. If the students want to engage conservative ideas, there might be people better than Derbyshire. If the point is a productive exchange, someone without the baggage of Derbyshire is probably preferable. Of course you can also engage that baggage directly, but c’mon – that’s not gonna happen in the space of a 2 hour college lecture. Still, I wouldn’t denigrate students who do want to engage that baggage; whether or not the students are genuinely interested in a fair dialogue, it’s certainly more commendable than the majority of students who don’t care, won’t listen, or want Derbyshire banned.

      1. Irish and Gilmore et alia certainly doth protest too much.

        1. Dead thread-fucking….are you a Tony sock?

  34. I would love to be a donating alumnus of this college so I could write them a sternly-worded letter explaining why they’re not getting another dime from me.

  35. Zach Wood has a bright future. Hopefully someday as President of Williams College.

    1. He’s not going to have a bright future if he keeps supporting people like Hillary. There’s not going to be any bright future to have.

  36. My main criticism of Derbyshire, from what i’ve read…. which, admittedly, isn’t very much, and spaced over a long period of time….

    … is that he’s *boring*.

    And i don’t just mean boring in terms of ‘style’ – because he’s a good prose writer, and often seems to start his pieces off with some kind of interesting hook….

    …but boring in terms of the actual substance of his ideas.

    he’s a smart guy, but is obsessed with a fairly stupid and one-dimensional aspect of life (“Race”). And never shuts up about it. And tries to tie everything to it.

    He’d probably spend 2000 words writing how my “being bored” is simply evidence that our contemporary social-mores repress our ability to confront this vital subject…. or something.

    And when he’s not obsessing about race, he’s obsessing about how unfair and horrible it is to be someone as smart and race-conscious as he is because his view is so repressed and treated unfairly.

    I personally consider this more-damning than calling someone ‘contemptible’

    (*which isn’t really a word i’d probably use much anyway – it almost suggests that “someone’s thoughts don’t deserve printing”….)

    Because the worst reaction to someone’s writing isn’t “OMG HOW AWFUL”…. its, “So What?”.

    If its really something “offensive”, then its worth rebutting. But i don’t think “he’s even wrong

    1. I used to read his monthly round-up quite regularly and it was full of all kinds of interesting stuff. The uncomfortable “genetics” stuff is largely confined to Vdare, which I also tire of.

      1. I was going to add that my criticism may not be actually 100% of Derb personally… but that the same comment applies to anyone/anything i’ve ever seen associated with Vdare.com

        Like Steve Sailer. I’ve read maybe (between the 2 of them) maybe a dozen things over the years. and the impression is almost identical = Smart people, decent prose writers, usually pretty insightful “opening argument”…. which eventually descends into some repetition of their same fucking racist boogeyman point that is their stock in trade.

        1. Smart people, decent prose writers, usually pretty insightful “opening argument”…. which eventually descends into some repetition of their same fucking racist boogeyman point that is their stock in trade.

          Derbyshire, Dalrymple (Daniels), and Brimelow are all bloody Poms. And Poms whinge. That’s what they do.

          1. What’s a Pom?

              1. I’ve never heard that one either.

              2. Never heard that term.

                Mark Steyn is also a Pom and his articles have been really fucking tiresome and kind of whingy for a while now. If he’s not giving Trump and his supporters a kid-glove approach then he’s having one of his “Moorish control of Europe” fever dreams. I stopped visiting his website eons ago.

                1. As I said, whinging is what Poms do.

                2. Steyn is a canuck, dipshit , not a Pom. Evidently you didn’t read HM’s link.

            1. Prisoner Of Mother England.

  37. So, Um, what exactly has Derbyshire said?
    This is conspicuously missing from the article.
    It doesn’t necessarily matter in principle, but it seems like a relevant part of the story.

    1. ” what exactly has Derbyshire said?
      This is conspicuously missing from the article.”

      YOUR DEMANDS ARE INSINCERE!! YOU WOULD NEVER ASK THIS IF ROBBY SAID THIS ABOUT TA-NEHI COATS! YOU PROBABLY KNOW ALREADY WHICH IS THE ONLY REASON YOU’RE COMPLAINING

      hehe, sorry, your same point has been made a bunch of times above.

      Don’t worry, all you need to know is that Derbs is Racially Uncool

      plenty of examples can be found if you dig, but no one will enact that labor for you here.

      1. Yeah, just read it.
        Struck me as mostly trolling. Although the statements about how stupid black people are definitely cross the line into racist territory.

    2. Summed up as “blacks are intellectually inferior due to genetics” and “I don’t want to live around blacks”.

      1. That’s about as accurate a summary as saying that Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech was one in which he revealed that he had slept recently.

        1. No it isn’t. Sorry, you seem to be confused. This is not StormFront.

    3. /* sarcasm on */ Falk doesn’t like him, and that is all you need to know, children. /* sarcasm off */

  38. What this country really needs is a serious conversation about race? Who are they proposing to have this conversation with? How do conversations work?

    1. How about this – you do something vaguely racist, and then you and I can have a beer and talk about it?

      1. “do something vaguely racist”

        I refused to watch the Superbowl Halftime show.

        1. Man, that was a case study of race in America 2016.

      2. That sounds good. I’ll bring the fried chicken and watermelon. Do we have to talk about racism though?

    2. They want to have that serious conversation about race in exactly the same way they want to have that conversation about gun ownership ? which is to say “You bitter clingers shut the fcuk up while your betters tell you how we’re going to do this from now on.”

    3. They’re a mystery.

      Like fuckin’ magnets.

  39. OT: This will be the saddest thing you read today, though for once the state didn’t act atrociously.

    1. Trigger warning: The article’s comments are mostly shit.

      1. I just assume any comment section is a wretched hive of scum and villainy unless otherwise forewarned, so I pass.

        1. The most aggravating comments are the ones that try to blame someone, whether it’s the mother, the relatives, or the “lack of mental healthcare in this country.” People can never accept that not every tragedy is preventable.

          1. Hence, the “something must be done” after every misfortune. No nothing needs to be done. People around her probably should have helped her out more but they didn’t. It’s done.

    2. Throw in a sterilization, and I’d be a little more comfortable with the situation.

    3. Jesus Christ. Poor thing. Poorer kid too, but still. And, agreeing with Playa, she needs to not have anymore kids.

      Thanks for sharing, CW. I think.

  40. OT: God destroys jeep and puts man in hospital. Spares inexpensive, easily replaceable Bible.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016…..tcmp=hpbt3

    1. Derb would call this flapdoodle while praising the great contributions of Christianity to European culture….

      1. Yeah, he sounds like a total tool.

  41. Okay, I know it’s late in the thread, but I followed the link to his speech, and from there followed the link to Armenian Jokes.

    Holy shit these are funny:

    “3.41 Question: Will the police still exist when communism is built?

    Answer: Of course, not. By that time, all citizens will have learned how to arrest themselves.”

    “3.39 Question: Is it true that every Soviet soldier dreams of becoming a general?

    Answer: No, our soldiers are not that stupid. They know that generals may become MIA even in the time of peace. ”

    “3.9 Question: Is it possible to make ends meet on salary alone?

    Answer: We don’t know, we never tried.”

    There’s tons of ’em there. A gold mine.

    1. “3.53 Question: Why the man who shot at a government limousine on the Red Square, missed the target?

      Answer: Because citizens who happened to be next to him tried to wrest the gun from him and shouted, ‘Let me shoot!””

    2. 3.106 Question: Is it possible to build socialism in one stand-alone country?

      Answer: It’s possible, but better to live in another country.

      1. 3.47 Question: Is it possible to build socialism in Switzerland?

        Answer: It’s possible, but why? Did Switzerland really do something wrong to you?

    3. 3.120 Question: Can a woman serve as a diplomat?

      Answer: No, because a woman and a diplomat use differently the words Yes and No. If a diplomat says Yes, it means Maybe. If a diplomat says Maybe, it means No. If a diplomat says No, what kind of diplomat is he? On the other hand, if a woman says No, it means Maybe. If a woman says Maybe, it means Yes. If a woman says Yes, well, what kind of woman is she?

      Rape culture, yo?

      1. Don’t forget homophobia!:

        3.87 Question: Why did our scientists photograph the backside of the moon?

        Answer: At the request of the gay community.

    4. The gift that keeps on giving:

      3.98 Question: Why policemen always walk the streets in teams of three?

      Answer: The partners in the police team are always chosen in such a way that one of them knows how to read, the other how to write, and the third one, naturally, has to keep watch over those two intellectuals.

    5. It is possible to build a socialist country where the citizens join in the task of becoming more eco-friendly and sexually diverse? A place where a 6-year-old can safely take public transportation to school.

      Yes Alex, that would be Japan. Derbyshire mentions this anomaly from time-to-time. Sweden is the wrong answer.

      1. It was also amusing that he hinted strongly that the US extension of legal rights to blacks was simply a reaction to the Cold War; competing with the USSR.
        I didn’t at the time and still don’t support much of the CRA, but I never saw it as a sop to idjits who would prefer to live under a tin-pot dictator.

  42. Apparently, the man was once an actual working physicist. Haven’t heard of any notable accomplishments from him, and because of this incident, if he is remembered at all, it will be as a useless SJW coward.

    -jcr

  43. OT: Country artist Sonny James dies at 87

    http://nbc4i.com/2016/02/22/co…..ies-at-87/

  44. (10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.

    It would have been awesome if they allowed Derbyshire to speak — and shortly after he took the stage, have a large number of well-dressed, polite black students suddenly show up and chant this quote out loud.

  45. Taki Mag is a disgusting shit pile. It’s bad even by the wretched standards of the conservative blogosphere.

    1. Jim Goad’s regular column at Takimag, “The Week that Perished”, offers a consistently humorous take on the Religion of Political Correctness.

      1. “Political Correctness” is a pinata. An easy target for bashing that too many are partaking in for any particular column to be of much value. PC is also losing meaning as a term. It’s diffusing into things it should not mean. But I digress.

        1. And what is the delicious candy inside the pinata?

          1. That’s the thing-there’s too many people bashing the pinata and eating the candy. Now there’s none left!

            1. I see

              So you’re saying we need bigger pi?atas

              1. I like the way you think when you’re not being douchey or stupid.

                1. It would be nice to say the same of you, given the opportunity, someday,

                2. It would be nice to say the same of you, given the opportunity, someday,

        2. PC is also losing meaning as a term.

          That’s because the cultural marxists are successfully making their philosophy mainstream. They are very patient, to their credit.

          1. No it’s not. It’s because online conservative pundits, in their laziness, often attack ideas they don’t like as ‘PC’.

  46. Peripheral, but related:

    “California considers banning anorexic models”
    […]
    ” Under the legislation, models would need a physician’s certificate attesting that they don’t suffer from an eating disorder, which agencies would be required to keep on file or face a fine.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/politics…..847927.php

    Don’t get too skinny around me, sweety!

    1. Just a few more laws and they’ll achieve utopia!

      1. “Just a few more laws and they’ll achieve utopia!”
        As I understand it, John will be pleased!

  47. “Derbyshire’s views are certainly contemptible.”

    Neither you nor the article you cite provides any proof of this assertion.

    Frankly, your views of John Derbyshire are contemptible.

    1. Read the comments and the linked article, which are clearly contemptible.

      Where did this fucking alt right creeps come from?

      1. Where did this fucking alt right creeps come from?

        My first girlfriend would lie in the bed next to me reading 1000 page Medieval history books like I would read a Mad Magazine movie spoof.

        Long after the blogger Mencius Moldbug reminded me of her.

  48. Totally OT:

    “Seas are rising at fastest rate in past 28 centuries”
    […]
    “The scientists confirmed previous estimates, but with a larger data set, that if global emissions continue at a high rate over the next few decades, the ocean could rise as much as 3 or 4 feet by 2100, as ocean water expands and the great ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica begin to collapse.
    Experts say the situation will grow far worse in the 22nd century and beyond, likely requiring the abandonment of many of the world’s coastal cities.”

    Let’s ignore the abysmal record of correct predictions by the catastrophists and take this as gospel (pun intended).
    So sometime beyond the beginning of the 22nd century, some coastal cities might have to be abandoned, assuming it’s preferable to abandon them compared to, oh moving up the hill/building dikes, etc.
    Well my goodness! In 150 years some people will have to MOVE:
    SF population, 1860: 50,802 , which was prolly pretty close to the total Bay Area population.
    SF bay area current population: 8.5m
    (fucking character limits)

    1. the ocean could rise as much as 3 or 4 feet by 2100

      Or not. Who the hell knows.

      1. The criteria for acceptable climatological studies has deteriorated to “Can the contents, by any stretch of an innumerate, pro-Gaia, hysteria-prone headline writer, be reduced to something that sounds terrifying, threatening, dangerous and/or completely unacceptable?”

        If ‘yes’, you can count on widespread* MSM dissemination.

        *-sexual connotation taken from “50 Shades of Green”.

    2. (fucking character limits)
      first link:
      Second link:
      third link:
      FUCKING CHARACTER LIMITS!
      So, in 150 years, some 8.4M people managed to get here without the ‘assistance’ of a government agency, and before moonbeam’s choo-choo, could speed their arrival, but now we need both to get ’em out of here?
      BTW, unless the gov’t really screws things, the guy who times the rise well is the guy who ends up with a lot of waterfront property for cheap.

    3. Yeah, they are making a big deal about the arctic ice melting – even though that is ice floating on an ocean so it would have a negligible effect on the world’s ocean level.

      And the antarctic ice is actually getting thicker and larger – it isn’t melting and the temperatures there are getting colder, not warmer, as best they can tell.

  49. OT: Why Donald Trump has no path to the White House

    “There is simply no way a candidate can win a presidential election now by losing the biggest turnout group by ten or more points, as polls consistently show Trump doing. College graduates cannot stand Trump, and this surely is no small factor in him having the highest negative rating of any presidential candidate Gallup has ever tested. Sixty percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of Trump. That kind of radioactivity usually requires a Geiger counter to measure.”

    People with education vote more than those that don’t have one, and they LOATHE the Trump

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/…..qus_thread

    If the GOP nominates Trump, they may put themselves out of the WH for a generation.

    1. Star comment:

      Elena0412 ? 13 minutes ago

      Again, not an Obama fan by a long shot, but you don’t choose your parents. If we did many of you Trumpkins would have been spared fetal alcohol syndrome, but you DO choose your wife and Trump has done abysmally. All. Three. Times.

      1. Elena0412 ? 3 minutes ago

        Trump is right about one thing: if you’re going to live here, you should learn English. Trump could get the ball rolling by learning it himself.

    2. But Trump does have people who DO like him, as opposed to the rest of the nondescript rabble they’ve put forth, among whom the most, if not ONLY, positive trait I can find is “I’m Not Hilary”.

      Desirable as this trait undeniably is, I’m not sure that, by itself, it constitutes an adequate CV for the post of POTUS.

  50. ‘Cause I luv beating on Gaia-bleevers:
    “Ship that sank more than 60 years ago still causing marine chaos”
    […]
    “the 469-foot freighter is still posing an environmental hazard from its ocean grave, leaking hundreds of thousands of gallons of bunker oil that has left birds coated in the gunk, officials said Monday….”
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/…..847905.php
    —————————————-
    OK, now:
    “Natural Oil Seeps”
    […]
    “As much as one half of the oil that enters the coastal environment comes from natural seeps of oil and natural gas. These geologic features are known to occur in clusters around the world, such as off the southern coast of California and in the Gulf of Mexico, but are still relatively unstudied….”
    http://www.whoi.edu/oilinocean/page.do?pid=51880

    1. This was widely known, and inspired a famous English song.

  51. Williams President Adam Falk celebrates diversity as long as he agrees with you.

  52. “Free Speech, as long as I agree with it”
    Falk has aptly demonstrated why the interjection of personal views into student affairs renders him incompatible with the concept of ‘higher learning’.
    Is Falk going to dog his students around for the rest of their days ‘guiding’ them through life’s journey?

  53. Derbyshire’s views are certainly contemptible.

    Nice social signaling. That’s very important to SJWs.

    Derb is a far better analyst than anyone at Reason.

  54. Disinviting the speaker is rude, no doubt.

    But an attack on Free Speech? Sorry, but the dude isn’t entitled to give any speech, isn’t entitled to any platform. It’s no more of an attack on Free Speech to dis-invite him then it would be if he were never invited to begin with.

    So rude? Very. An attack on Free Speech? Sorry, but no one is entitled to a platform, and people that own platforms (be them schools, magazines, or websites) are entirely within *their* rights of Free Speech and Free Association to not give equal access to those platforms.

  55. A movement that can’t handle opposing views is a movement on the edge of collapse.

  56. We can hope, and optimism has great utility for preserving an undepressed state from day to day. Then again, if my unicorn shit gold instead of soft-serve rainbows, I’d be rich, if I had a unicorn.

  57. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.workpost30.com

  58. Somebody buy Robby a dictionary. Liberalism stands for the elimination of laws, institutions and beliefs which restrict human development, and for the form of government and policy most favorable to individual liberty. After Herbert Hoover Republicanism and draconian enforcement of prohibition were defeated in the election of 1932–when the American Liberal Party platform stood stoutly for repeal–religious conservatives in America began to spit the work “liberal” after the fashion of German religious conservatives, who transformed “liberal” and “jewish” into interchangeable expletives devoid of actual meaning but heavily charged with histrionics and opprobrium. There is no record of “liberal” meaning communist, socialist, looter or pickpocket prior to 1932. Surely Reason can do better than hire Hitlerjugend ideologues to mangle the English Language.

  59. before I saw the paycheck that said $8517 , I didn’t believe that my mother in law woz like realy bringing in money in their spare time from their computer. . there uncles cousin started doing this 4 only ten months and as of now cleard the mortgage on there villa and bourt a gorgeous Saab 99 Turbo . learn this here now…

    Click This Link inYour Browser…

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~[] http://www.Mom80.Com

  60. The Fit Finally programs and guides are based on over 600 research studies conducted by some of the biggest Universities and research teams of the world.
    We take pride in the fact that our passion for better health and fitness is 100% backed by science and helps 100’s (if not 1000’s) of people every year since 2010. Just try it:

    http://03615gbnxbyy5y42r9r8o80…..kbank.net/

  61. thanks for the information is very interesting and very useful Cara Pemesanan Ace Maxs, Obat Untuk Diabetes

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.