Protesters Bully Pro-Life Students, Grab Their Flyers, Retreat to Safe Space

UC-Davis Women's Center creates safe space for hecklers.

|

UC-Davis
Youtube

Pro-lifers at the University of California at Davis were heckled by pro-choice student-protesters who grabbed their flyers and threw them on the ground—in full view of a campus security officer. 

The counter-protest was organized by the UC-Davis Women's Resources and Research Center, which enlisted students to make "content warning signs"—visual trigger warnings—and even hold umbrellas for pro-choice demonstrators (so they don't get sunburns, I guess?). The center also provided counselors for any pro-choice demonstrators who were traumatized by the event. 

"Mind Spa Peer Counselors will also provide empathetic listening, support, and access to Mind Spa Services on the first floor of North Hall," a representative of the Center wrote on its Facebook page. 

In other words, the Women's Center did everything it could to provide a safe space—and a "mind spa"—for pro-choice students. 

But if anyone needed a safe space, it was probably the pro-life students. After all, pro-choice demonstrators grabbed their materials and threw them on the ground. This interaction was caught on video, and generated widespread applause. A campus security officer talked to the aggressor, but did not discipline her, according to Campus Reform.

It would be nice if pro-choice students could exercise their First Amendment rights without violating anyone else's.

NEXT: Sen. Jeff Flake on Why GOP Cuba Policy Is Wrong

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. Tolerance…

    1. Tolerance goes too far when it tolerates intolerance. And democracy founders when people are convinced to embrace something fundamentally undemocratic.

      As God I don’t believe in is my witness, I will turn Neil Macdonald into H&R meme!

      1. What pisses me off about him is even with all that access to Washington he manages to be so vapid – and on my dime no less.

  2. It would be nice if pro-choice students could exercise their First Amendment rights without violating anyone else’s.

    It would also be nice if Megan Fox was sucking my dick right now. But back here in the real world…

  3. Baby totalitarians =/= Pro choice

    1. No true Scotsmen pro-choicers, is it?

      1. No I was saying that stifling dissent is being a totalitarian which by definition is opposing choice, not that these folks were not true supporters of abortion rights.

    2. No, Jar-Jar, in this instance the pro abortion kids were very much the little fascist bullies. Since you’re new here, I’ll just put it out there that I’m one of the strongest, consistent and well-informed (blastocysts, baby) supporters of abortion rights on here.

      That does not preclude that the anti-abortion folks are also engaged in an ongoing effort to deny rights to others. And I acknowledge their claims that they believe they are trying to protect human beings.

      1. I’ll just put it out there that I’m one of the strongest, consistent and well-informed (blastocysts, baby) supporters of abortion rights on here.

        Which is kind of odd when you think about it, isn’t it?

      2. Sorry I was unclear in the interest of brevity I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of claiming to be pro choice by trying to forcibly silence opposition. I was not denying these people were pro choice in the sense of being pro abortion rights, nor was I blaming the Right to Lifers. Choice includes the choice to disagree is what I was getting at.

      3. “… in this instance the pro abortion kids were very much the little fascist bullies.”

        Because you are so well informed, you must know that this is the norm, not the exception.

        “…the anti-abortion folks are also engaged in an ongoing effort to deny rights to others.”

        No, they are engaged in an ongoing effort to secure the most important right — life — for others.

    3. You mean you’re shocked and outraged that people recognize the right to life? Recognizing the right to life is totalitarianism? Ha! I laugh in your face.

  4. Mind spa? You really can’t make this shit up.

    1. Well, you could, but everyone would call you a liar and say it’s completely unrealistic.

      1. Well, you could, but until about 5 years after you had, everyone would call you a liar and say it’s completely unrealistic.

    2. Where you get your mind blown?

      1. At the brain brothel. Duh.

      2. “Mind spa: where every story has a happy ending.”

        1. Kinda like the bar in the TV show Cheers – “Where they’re always glad you came…”

  5. According to half the commenters here, this brave pro-choicer would have been justified in beating the shit out of anyone distributing pro-life literature. I mean, I bet the pro-lifers did make her feel really bad with their aggressive pamphlets.

    1. Just say Nikki|3.10.16 @ 5:48PM|#
      “According to half the commenters here,”

      Bull
      .
      .
      .
      .
      shit.

      1. Not half. But several.

        1. AT LEAST 2~!!! KEN AND JOHN!!! BUT THATS TOTALLY HALF IN VOLUME OF POSTS SO ITS STILL TECHNICALLY CORRECT

          1. Its PTSD has rendered it innumerate.

      2. Produce and actual number Sevo. Show your work. We’ll go from there.

        1. “an”, obviously

        2. Sevo didn’t make the claim.

          1. Happy for anyone here to produce a number. Including you.

            And I’m not making claims about numbers. I want you people to convince me with numbers.

            Because I know that that’s going to be difficult. Do you mean people who commented on that thread (trivial to tally, but perhaps not representative of consensus – whatever that means)? All current commenters (diffucult to tally, but perhaps NOT representative of consensus…)? Etc.

            1. Tonio|3.10.16 @ 7:02PM|#
              “Happy for anyone here to produce a number. Including you.”

              A number of what?
              I called bullshit on a claim that “half of the commenters…”
              I didn’t make a claim for any number at all.
              Oh, well, 35. 96.5? 57 on a Tuesday afterrnoon? That make you happy?

              1. Apparently not expressing sufficient outrage is the same thing as endorsing the behavior. It was a Trump thread so, several people lost their minds.

      1. It’s a troll and has retreated to its safe space under the bridge.

        1. This dipshit is calling anyone else names. Lolz.

        1. I see a few people (like John, unsurprisingly) making dumb arguments to try and justify the assault somewhat. Most people are anti-John in that post though. It isn’t nearly half and half.

          Basically it’s the usual suspects justifying the Trump behavior – Papaya, John, RRR. I agree their arguments are retarded, but the vast majority of people seem to be on the right side in that thread.

          1. And Ken, which is really funny because he used to harangue everyone around here whenever they said cunt.

            1. Twat did you say? I cunt hear you.

              1. Do you have an ear infuction?

                1. you can finger it out later

          2. “” the vast majority of people seem to be on the right side in that thread.“”

            Well an unreformed racist *would* say that.

            1. Sure Gilmore, a Nazi like you would say something like that.

          3. I never justified the assault. I have no doubt you think that but you think that because you are idiot. I don’t know how else to put it. I said multiple times that the assault was wrong and the guy should have been arrested.

            I am sorry Irish but you and Nikki both are why this board is not what it used to be. As bad as Joe was and other people, they at least had the capability of understanding and engaging in argument. And you don’t. You just don’t. It is not that you are wrong. I often agree with you. It is that you are just not very bright and are incapable understanding anything but simplest arguments. So, you read me saying “holy shit this needs to stop” as being some kind of justification.

            I don’t know how to deal with that. I don’t know how to dumb my arguments down enough for you to understand them. And what is especially galling is that not only do you have no fucking idea what is going on, you then act smug towards me. Unsurprisingly? Yeah unsurprisingly, you are incapable of understanding what I am saying.

            Go fuck yourself. You are an idiot. Worse, you seem to take pride in it.

            1. It is not that you are wrong. I often agree with you. It is that you are just not very bright and are incapable understanding anything but simplest arguments. So, you read me saying “holy shit this needs to stop” as being some kind of justification.

              Having skimmed the above thread, this explanation sadly appears to hold.

              FTR, I completely disagree with your (John’s) formulation that “the left” somehow has a monopoly on confrontational protest and that something is different in the 2010s. LOL 80s Abortion clinic protests much?

          4. Basically it’s the usual suspects justifying the Trump behavior – Papaya, John, RRR

            Interesting, because I said in my first post on the thread that the guy who punched him should be arrested. And noting that Trump supporters are probably not going to follow the usual rules of civilized behavior when it came to protestors is something I’ve been predicting for months now. I’m just surprised it took this long.

            I guess in some people’s eyes that equates to “justification,” but to be blunt, recognizing an easily agitated voting base who no longer gives a fuck how they’re portrayed in the media is hardly supporting the behavior.

            1. I didn’t follow that thread, nor do I care to — Trump threads have turned into the same 5 people screaming at each other for reasons I barely understand.

              It should be noted, however, that Trump’s base of support is the working class, and the American working class is unapologetic about the use of violence to resolve conflict. The working class is the reason our enlisted class has stood toe to toe with Imperial Japan, Imperial Germany, and the Nazis; it’s a part of American society that sees a use for violence in settling non-violent affairs. Yep, those people are still around — and it really is too fucking bad that essentially anyone that mattered saw fit to eliminate their emmployment prospects and to spit on their cultural values, cuz now they’re pissed and they can vote and caucus just as well as anyone. It’s not a fucking tea party anymore, and that’s on the heads of the political class.

              1. It should be noted, however, that Trump’s base of support is the working class, and the American working class is unapologetic about the use of violence to resolve conflict.

                But the American working class isn’t working. They’re eating on food stamps and generally subsiding on the largess of globalist billionaires the likes of who’s wealth the world has never seen.

                1. Nope, that’s not true. That’s the class directly below the working class — the underclass. The underclass largely does not vote at all, unless they are taken to voting stations by social workers or political activists. The underclass also generally doesn’t fight to resolve conflict; fighting, like any other activity, is short-sighted and for its own sake.

                  The working class hates the underclass and is constantly in danger of falling into this class or having their children fall into this class if economic times are bad. This is effectively what happened to the enormous black working class in the 70s (now moribund).

        2. Public property (university) versus private property (hall/closed “rally space”)? Further, wouldn’t the pro-choice person be the invader? (Not positioning myself in respect to the Trump incident. For now, asking about differences.)

          1. If the cops are leading someone out of a private building, you aren’t allowed to punch them in the face. If I were getting led out of a bar by a bouncer and you knocked me out, that would still be assault.

            1. …you aren’t allowed to punch them in the face.

              Apparently, you are. (At least until the police realize there is video and it made them look bad.)

              1. Oh, did they go back and arrest Fat Willie Nelson?

            2. See my proviso. // I only superficially familiar with the facts of it. Assuming that the guy was still insulting people, and that the police did not prevent it, punching the guy might be justified. — As for how the police behaved, it might have been the right decision to not take hold of the puncher, if there was reason to suspect that it would have caused a violent altercation with/between other attendees.

          2. Oh, there are lots of differences. But the justification for the Trump incident was fundamental: you can’t expect people not to punch you if you say something mean.

            1. As a matter of law — I’m sure we agree.

              As a matter of philosophy, if someone invades property, and does his best to provoke — possible to discuss.

              As a completely abstract thing — agreed, this would be face punching of all against all.

              1. someone invades property

                Unpack that for us a bit, will you? Whose property, exactly? If the property is public space, why is it not a free-speech zone?

              2. You can’t “invade” an open, public event.

                1. You can. Of course one shouldn’t think of it as mustering a fleet and sailing it into the convention. The owner – right holder – sets rules of behavior, rules that exclude people who don’t behave in accordance with the rules. People who plan to enter and intend to disobey the rules are indeed invaders. You may call them “trespassers”, but that draws one into technicalities of contemporary law. Thus the grandiose terminology is much better. Also more grandiose.

            2. If I follow you around whenever you’re in public and scream in your face? I’m just saying something mean, right? John was wrong, but I think you’re overstating your case.

              1. If you follow me around in public and scream in my face, and then I wait until police arrest you to punch you in the face, I am probably in the wrong.

                1. And she is in the right? No one ever said the person who threw the punch was right. Yet, you continue to insist they did. Can you just not read?

                  1. That’s what is so astonishing, nobody said the guy was right. But pointing out how going to a Trump event looking for trouble, and finding trouble is somehow interpreted as condoning the guys actions.

        3. Awww it got triggered by the awful commenters .

          1. No, that implies an improper reaction.

    2. WHATCOME SHE JUST DONE CALLED US FAGS

      *beats up Nikki*

    3. DONALD TRUMP IS TEARING US APART

      1. We need a Hillary Presidency to unite us!

          1. Well, if an Obama presidency didn’t …

        1. The only thing that;s going to unite us is Trump losing, badly, and his supports crawling under some rock and never emerging again.

      2. …, LISA!

    4. Burn that straw man, sweetie.

      1. I’m sure you could beat me up.

        1. I’ve seen your giant veiny hands. No way.

        2. Acosmist is a big goat

    5. Jesus, did we used to have this passive-aggressive shit in the ’08 elections, too?

      We’re rehashing an argument between a nihilist anarchist and an alt-conservative about a populist non-libertarian politician in a thread that has nothing to do with any of those things… why?

      Who gives two shits? Fuck John or fight him; I don’t care. It’d be nice if we could contain all the Trump excretions on the many, many threads that Reason provides hourly to do that shit it.

      1. *gasp!* A different way of looking at this….argument/whatever the hell it is?? Why you must be a heretic!

      2. No. We never did. People have lost their fucking minds on here. A third rate reality TV star and real estate hustler runs for President and half of the world’s self proclaimed Libertarians go full retard over it.

        I think it does in some ways go back to the 08 elections. The 08 elections really made politics about social signaling. And that virus has infected libertarians with a vengeance with the coming of Trump. You would think people who are as cynical about politicians as Libertarians claim to be, would be the ones who are the most sane in their response to Trump. Not so apparently.

        1. Why would someone who is cynical about politicians be less cynical about a politicians who is the apotheosis of everything that justifies that cynicism?

        2. The fact that you can’t grasp why we would hate someone who is the polar opposite of everything we believe in seizing control over the main party which is a vehicle for our policy objectives speaks volumes about you.

          You should stop even calling yourself libertarian-leaning if you can’t even get behind free trade.

          1. No Hazel the fact that you would go insane over a garden variety politician is the problem. He is the polar opposite of everything you believe? So is every other candidate sans Rand Paul and I don’t see any of you shitting your pants over them. Bernie Sanders is a socialist and you don’t have the cases of the vapors over him that you do about Trump. No one expects you to support Trump.

            And I do support free trade. But unlike you I do something besides support it; I understand it and realize it is not some fucking magic talisman. You might try understanding these things you claim to support sometime Hazel.

            1. go[ing] insane over a garden variety politician is the problem.

              Most of the people going most insane about Trump are the same people coming out to defend all the bullshit SJW crap when it’s not mandatory from the government.

              There’s a cabal of low-thinking leftytarians on here who can’t help but whip out their SJW-boners every once in a while and splooge their smugness all over the place.

              There are a few conservatarians like that as well, but they tend to be fairly quickly shouted down into submission by the “progressive with anarchist leanings” types.

              1. “Most of the people going most insane about Trump are the same people coming out to defend all the bullshit SJW crap when it’s not mandatory from the government.”
                No, not true. I have never said anything nice about SJWs voluntary or otherwise nor ever will, indeed they are among the groups I despise the most. And I also find the Trump apologists around here to foaming-at-the-mouth asshats. See I can despise both as worthless shit-stains who’s mothers should have aborted them no problem at all.

                People like John will cheer for Trump because to them, he’s at least on the right side of being wrong. They’ll pick anyone on one side over anyone on the other. In reality though, there aren’t two sides; there’s the positions, which is more akin to a point on a plane, and then there’s 360 degrees of wrong surrounding it in every direction. And one quadrant of wrong doesn’t hold much more appeal to me than another.

            2. He is the polar opposite of everything you believe? So is every other candidate sans Rand Paul and I don’t see any of you shitting your pants over them.

              Um, no. Trump is quite unique in his open stance against free trade agreements in the Republican field. This is easily the first time in 30 years that any Republican candidate has openly declared an opposition to free trade agreements and come anywhere close to winning the nomination. He’s also more extreme than the other candidate on torture and national security – in an unlibertarian direction.
              He also combines a host of other terrible positions , whereas other candidates are only bad on one or two of them at a time, not all of them combined.

              Of course I don’t have the vapors over Sanders because I don’t expect the Democratic party to be a vehicle for libertarian policy objectives on economics. I expect them to promote socialist economic policies, even when they don’t openly espouse them. I DON’T except the same level of economic claptrap to emanate from the mouth of the frontrunner for the GOP nomination.

    6. Nikki you are the worst. Stop trolling for soiled diapers.

  6. If I could believe that these people would never attain power over anyone else, this wouldn’t bother me. But I know that these are exactly the kind of people that are attracted to and will be recruited by the bureaucracy.

  7. From their Facebook page:

    In addition, Health Education and Promotions, Women’s Health Specialists, and the WRRC will be tabling and providing a full-spectrum of reproductive health resources and education on the MU quad during the days of the demonstration. We will be collaborating with the CRRC’s, including the LGBTQIARC and Center for Student Involvement, throughout the week to provide support as well!

    So, are they like randomly adding letters now?

    1. No. “ARC” is well-known as Association for Retarded Citizens.

    2. I’ll decode it for you:
      Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Queer, Irritable, Aphasic, Retarded Cretins.

    3. I’m sticking with LGBTQWERTY.

    4. No, they evolve. It’s a new language.

    5. QUILTBAG is so much easier to remember…

      1. We’re talking about people who used to speak like this; I don’t think they have problems with an overly-long acronym.

        1. Some men simply declare themselves heroes. Your appelation, sir, is well earned.

        2. So, meeting strangers at remote park benches has a always been a thing. Whadyaknow.

          1. It’s almost like there used to be very few non-anonymous social dating scenes available to homosexuals, for some mysterious reason.

            Oh, also many males (straight and gay) are, as Mac Dre (RIP) said : “Non-discriminant” … lol.

  8. I blame her parents.

  9. OT, kinda: A mom is facing felony charges for letting her 9-year-old watch the baby for 10 minutes, but this 10-year-old girl is literally forging her own pewter rings (with a blowtorch even!)

    1. I fully expect that in a week, Lenore will be writing an article here about the dad of that 10 year old girl getting arrested for allowing her to do that.

  10. Is there more to this than the video shows? It looks like one oddly dressed woman? swipes a pile of paper off a table. Yes this is jackass-like behavior, but if this is the extent of the altercation it hardly rises to multiple protesters bullying or getting physical with the other activist as the headline and write up implies.

    1. Which makes it even crazier that the pro-choice sugardumplings would need counseling for their “trauma.”

    2. It looks like a combination of Dennis the Menace, a girl scout, and some Starbucks hipster from 5 years ago. Not sure if a woman.

  11. Principals, not principles.

  12. How about without assault and petty theft?

    1. Cops don’t give a shit about crimes with victims. Had someone had a tiny amount of drugs on the other hand, you can bet the cops would be all over that shit.

      1. Yeah, if you want the cops to come down on someone you plant drugs on them and make an anonymous report.

        1. Its a college campus. You can also accuse them of rape.

          1. Only if the person is a heterosexual male.

    1. Actually, that wasn’t pepper spray as is commonly thought. It was actually deodorant, which is totally understandable given the circumstances. /sarc

      1. Well, then, give him his job back!

  13. That’s hilarious. Now “safe spaces” are used for raids. Some kind of Pussy Vikings. The sheer infantility: duplicitously hitting the other kid then hiding behind mommy.

    1. A popular activity on “both” sides!

        1. The political spectrum. Just a bad joke.

          1. I think the joke is BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

          2. You’re well within the limit. Don’t feel restricted.

  14. Protesters Bully Pro-Life Students, Grab Their Flyers, Retreat to Safe Space

    And nothing else happened.

    Where’s the Sad Face button?

  15. I would like to know if this is actually indicative of the culture in today’s universities or if the incidents – incidences – no, incidents that we’ve seen go viral are pretty much the bulk of it.

    1. Good question. If policies and widely shared concepts and convictions make this kind of behavior possible – lucrative, even – then one would assume there’s more.

  16. It would be nice if pro-choice students could exercise their First Amendment rights without violating anyone else’s.

    The underlying principle in Marxian politics is that the moral superiority rests with the class of people made of the oppressed and exploited, turning anybody else into the villain for which there should be no regard.

    Remember that these are totalitarians we’re dealing with, Robby.

    1. Bingo Mexican. And that is why playing “pox on both houses” is such a stupid thing to do. One side really is worse.

  17. So “safe spaces” are like the Cambodia of Campuses?

  18. I demand a refund for this article. Massively oversold the video. A bidet is more interesting.

    1. Yeah, swiping some papers off a table =/= bullying.

      I’ll admit the safe spaces are stupid but people being assholes are not unique to college campuses.

      1. I think it’s just pointing out another symptom of the larger issue which is that the leftest assholes have taken control of campus life and instead of repercussions there is coddling. The little things do add up. Like all the nickle dime infringements on your liberty.

  19. By “choice” they mean abortions. Not having an abortion is not a valid choice to them.

    I’m in favor of 60th trimester abortion for some of these people.

    1. One side is saying people should be free to choose to have abortions. The other side is saying people shouldn’t be free to make that choice.

      Which, in your mind, is the camp that is opposed to choice?

      1. We were having a somewhat civilized abortion thread, and you just have to drop that big steaming pile of shit here…

      2. The side that destroys all choices — life, education, sex, marriage, work, play, everything — for their unborn children is opposed to choice.

        The other side wants all people to live to have choices.

      3. You do not have a choice to recognize whether or not someone has the right to life. The choice to kill your own child is a choice to be condemned and denied.

    2. Not having an abortion is not a valid choice to them.

      Citation needed.

      1. When you openly proclaim you’re pro-abortion, no citation is needed to show that the person making the proclamation is pro-abortion. Are you an idiot?

  20. Ripping down sins out of people’s hands = violent; assault.

    And we keep getting lectured how Libertarians and Conservatives are Fascists ….

  21. Bullies suck. If you see one, punch them in the face and take their lunch money.

    1. I used to go after bullies as a yute

  22. I am genuinely curious about these Mind Spas.

    1. I’d imagine there’s a strong smell of patchouli.

      1. “I’d imagine there’s a strong smell of patchouli.”

        If it’s patchouli, it’s a STRONG smell.

      2. I would have guessed play-doh and puppy piss.

    2. AC could probably be very helpful here.

  23. mind spa

    And everyone in flyover country reaches for his gun. These precious little idiots are why we’re going to be stuck with President Trump for at least four years.

    1. Trump is not going to beat Hillary. I’d make this my signature if this place had them.

      1. I agree. Hillary will be President. There goes the price of guns and ammo again.

      2. You might be surprised.

        Trump will attract the usual GOP vote, the anti-Hillary vote, and above-average percentages of the black and Latino votes. Hillary will get some anti-Trump votes, but she has nothing whatsoever to speak to her as a candidate.

        And with the economy falling apart again, the Dems are going to be on the hook.

        1. A recession would need to happen before November, and that window is closing fast.

          1. It’s looking increasingly like we’re in one right now. December was a bad month.

            And watching Trump perform tonight is a reminder of why he will trounce Clinton when they’re both forced into months of continual exposure. He was born for this. Hillary has to be put away into her crypt for a couple of days after every two hours of exposure.

            1. I don’t think Trump’s, um, performances will carry him much further than they already have. Clinton was never popular (least of all now) even among her supporters for her personality or charisma or anything she says. She is popular entirely because of what she represents: a default center-left democrat with a vagina and enough ‘experience’ in office that we can be sure she won’t do something uncouth like fart on the premier of China.

              You could literally have Trump go at it with a cardboard cutout of Hillary for an hour, and it wouldn’t convert anyone from Hillary to Trump. It’s not like wooing Cruz or Rubio supporters. Hillary’s strategy may as well be to just sit there and be not-Trump not-Sanders garden-variety Democrat. Against Trump, that may be enough to win, as most people are still pretty indifferent to her past, for better or worse.

    2. If it was only that, they’d go for someone like Cruz.

      No, there’s something Trump has and Cruz doesn’t – and it ain’t militant cultural conservatism.

        1. Yeah, but Ted has Penelope.

          1. …or am I confusing my Cruzs?

    3. They are the kinf of people who would vote for Trump.

  24. Pro-lifers at the University of California at Davis were heckled by pro-choice student-protesters who grabbed their flyers and threw them on the ground?in full view of a campus security officer.

    The counter-protest The assault on free speech

    If it’s on film, they need to file complaints towards prosecution. Sue.

    Until thugs are made to *pay a price* for their thuggery, they will continue.

    1. They’ve been being egged on by the “adults” since they started high school.

  25. I blame Bush

    1. History will judge that most things really are all his fault.

      1. It will be like the Kevin Bacon game but you connect all of life’s problems to Boosh.

      2. Most?

    1. Poor Bruce Willis or Micky Rourke, whatever he’s calling himself these days.

      1. He was excellent in those dual roles in Sin City.

        1. That was a strange movie Jessica Alba was so hot in that. I had it at one point but it disappeared.

          1. I got the DVD for around three bucks at some point.

            Too bad they waited almost a decade, then released a clearly inferior sequel. Not sure why they even bothered.

  26. So, the interesting thing to me is the petty-bureaucrat organizing the anti-anti-anti-something “Self Care”-session (aka “counter protest”) in the name of the Official Capacity of the university Women’s Resources and Research Center…. which, as Robby notes, was soliciting for Volunteers to do things like “make signs” “hold signs” “hold umbrellas over people holding signs” “massage feet of people holding umbrellas” etc.

    The thing i find ridiculous is that they seem to feel that the university has some responsibility to surround any speech they deem officially un-cool with an army of “Warners” and “Care providers”. …. its the “How can we make a lot of WORK out of this thing”-part, something to justify our own existence-part….

    that, ‘everything even remotely disagreeable is the responsibility of our official organization to rush to it and do our victim-dance and pretend it is *absolutely necessary* lest people be Mind-Harmed by WrongThink.

    Its the banality of it, really. And her little Mascot Stuffed Animal. Its like Hallmark-Card Totalitarianism. Its cute and offers everyone a hug.

    1. if that wasn’t clear…

      …what’s remarkable to me is the way that “counter protesting” – trying to surround and drown out someone else’s speech (which they disagree with) – was being presented and sold = As a “Community Health Issue”

      Its an official university organization who seems to think that they have a mandate to prevent anyone else from being exposed to certain ideas. Its this presumption that “one kind of speech is healthy and good and healing” and another kind of speech necessitates all these so-called “protections”… which is really just their excuse to limit the other-side from having any legitmacy whatsoever.

      Its the way that they treat someone else’s speech like an infectious disease that might destroy passerby from mere exposure to it…. and do so with all this officious language and acronyms giving themselves this air of authority and expertise, and with this hugs and cookies and stuffed animals to go with.

      Its nothing about the abortion issue at all as far as i’m concerned, and everything about the way this sort of “safe spaces” behavior/thinking is so freaking widespread, established, and treated as “normal”, when from the outside its absolutely ridiculous and quasi terrifying.

      1. Also =

        Neither here nor there…. but the only other video that the “WRRC” at UC Davis has on their channel…?

        Is titled, “If My Vagina…

        obviously, that’s probably to be expected.

        But…. the first spoken line of that video is,

        “If my vagina was a historical figure… it would be Michelle Obama’s Arms” (?*)

        and then it gets stupider.

        (*dwelling on this, I’m now guessing that means, “muscular” or something. Which i still don’t think answers the question … but is just plain fucking creepy and weird even by itself)

        1. “If my vagina was a historical figure… it would be Michelle Obama’s Arms” (?*)

          WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?!?!?!?!?

        2. Also, what’s a “vergina”?

          1. It’s what you dangle out of the winder at passing truckers.

        3. Too many words Gilmore. You nailed it with three words: ‘hallmark card totalitarianism’.

          I am stealing that btw.

      2. as a further clarification =

        I am 100% in support of people “protesting” if that’s what they think they need to do. Feel free. Organize your own event where you offer people materials explaining why those other people are all going to hell and represent the worst thing on earth.

        What creeps me out is that they don’t even seem to think that’s what they were doing, or had anything to do with the language they used. It wasn’t “counter protest”… it wasn’t “to counter the Pro-Life message” with their own Pro-Choice stuff….

        it was to “protect” bystanders who might be “harmed” by the other people.

        There’s no conception of any rational ‘debate’ going on. Its just “one side heals” the other side is “dangerous or damaging or offensive”.

        What’s weird to me is that when the choice vs.life “abortion” thing was actually far of a real-dispute?… in the mid 1990s, when politically there was actually more of a 60/40 (choice/life) split… people were actually far more generous and willing to accept the other side’s views.

        Whereas now, when I’d guess that split is more like 80/20 (choice/life)? the dominant group is *far less tolerant* of out-groups, and treats them as far more dangerous and heretical.

      3. what’s remarkable to me is the way that “counter protesting” – trying to surround and drown out someone else’s speech (which they disagree with) – was being presented and sold = As a “Community Health Issue”

        I don’t think the word “Orwellian” can be used often enough to describe this shit.
        It’s exactly like something that was lifted from some sort of creepy socialist cult from a 1960s dystopian sci-fi.

    2. I wonder how many trolls fill out that form.

    3. “Its like Hallmark-Card Totalitarianism. Its cute and offers everyone a hug.”

      A hug from Cthulhu.

    4. Hallmark-Card Totalitarianism.

      An accurate depiction of the “pro-life” assault on individual liberty, advocating the initiation of government force against the entire concept of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights.

      1. Hey, I was curious, what do you think about Ron and Rand Paul?

        1. Extreme socons who lie about the Constitution, defending the racist version of States Rights, masquerading as federalism. Ron says it was Rogue Judges who defended equal rights under the Constitution. Says marriage equality should be a state issue, but Aggressively supported DOMA’s federal override of state matters (no shit)

          Rand calls for nationwide religious tent revivals as his version of bigotry — thus fucking up his own outreach for the social liberals at Berkeley and elsewhere. Says abortion should be a state issue, BUT also brags about sponsoring a total FEDERAL ban … on the same web page!

          Barry Goldwater warned that the “Moral Majority” was a major threat to his party, which came true. They’ve also infiltrated and severely damaged the libertarian movement,. along with the conspiracy freaks of Alex Jones, with “libertarians” who are OUTRAGED by the definition of libertarianism.

          Personal opinion, they are a major factor in the fact that the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians. (Cato/Zogby survey)

          Any questions?

          1. Fascinating. I’ve never heard such a concise, cogent analysis. Could you elaborate further on that poll about 91% of libertarians? I’ve never of it before.

            1. Cato commissioned a top political pollster, Zogby.. It was a poll type used to measure Brand Acceptance. It’ still online but ignored, and highly possible that David Boaz had no idea what he was reporting — typical for him. He responded to Obama’s “Buffet rule” by publishing a 5-color chart of what the rich pay in other countries … totally useless, but I understood when the Kochs walked out.

              http://bitly.com/1AGaBU7
              It’s lengthy. Scroll down to the boldface header “How Libertarians See Themselves”

              In our Zogby survey we found that only 9 percent of voters with libertarian views identify themselves that way. Voters we identified as libertarian identified themselves this way: ?.”Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?” We asked the other half of the respondents, “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian?”

              The results surprised us. Fully 59 percent of the respondents said “yes” to the first question. That is, by 59 to 27 percent, poll respondents said they would describe themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.”

              Too lenghy to quote here, but they saw a 25% dropoff from “also known as libertarian” which Boaz describes as “robiust”

              Only 5.3% accepted “libertarian” which is lower than others, but shows how toxic the label is versus alternative depictions.

          2. I especially like The random Capitalization. The occasional USE of all-caps always enhances a post and does NOTHING to convince the Rest of us THAT the poster is unbalanced.

            I would ask if you are German but you capitalized an adverb.

            1. Read the dumbass

              I especially like The random Capitalization. The occasional USE of all-caps always enhances a post and does NOTHING to convince the Rest of us THAT the poster is unbalanced.

              (laughing)
              1) She meant that I AM unbalanced. Excuse my caps (snicker)
              2) It alone is no INTELLIGENT reason to convince or determine anything EITHER WAY (lol).
              3) This is the excuse losers use, to avoid thinking, like when their tribal fairy tales have been publicly exposed as bullshit.

      2. Tell us again about that survey? 134% of Americans would vote libertarian if only we advertised better (hey, I do my part by wearing short shorts, what do you do?)

        1. MarkLastname
          Tell us again about that survey?

          Cato commissioned Zogby, a top political pollster, to measure the libertarian brand. From their website (my emphasis)

          Cato Survey
          In our Zogby survey we found that only 9 percent of voters with libertarian views identify themselves that way. Voters we identified as libertarian identified themselves this way: ?.”Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?” We asked the other half of the respondents, “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian?”

          The results surprised us. Fully 59 percent of the respondents said “yes” to the first question. That is, by 59 to 27 percent, poll respondents said they would describe themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.”

          Thus, the libertarian brand was rejected by 91% of libertarians.

          http://bitly.com/1AGaBU7

          Any questions?

          134% of Americans would vote libertarian if only we advertised better (hey, I do my part by wearing short shorts, what do you do?)

          (yawn) Like a Birther, you refuse even obvious reality. Like when you were totally humiliated as a blowhard here:

          https://reason.com/blog/2016/03…..nt_5967798

        2. “134% of Americans would vote libertarian if …”

          Well, maybe not.

          But 134% of residents of Chicago would vote Libertarian if Libertarians controlled the Chicago city government.

          1. This is Macy’s Widow making a fool of herself again.

            This was the first.
            https://reason.com/blog/2016/03…..nt_5974639

            For those who may be new, when you see the term “cyber-bully” that’s what it means.

      3. If commenting here is an example of brown shirts kicking and beating someone on the ground, then passing out literature must be genocide. Oh sweet Hihnflower, please help protect us from the violence assault on liberty that is pamphleteering.

        1. something something aggressors

          ag?gres?sion
          [???reSH?n]
          NOUN
          hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront:
          synonyms: hostility ? aggressiveness ? belligerence ? bellicosity ? [more]
          http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/

          bul?ly \?bu?-l?, ?b?-\
          a : a blustering browbeating person; especially : one habitually cruel to others
          http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bully

            1. CZmacure
              People who quote the dictionary to try to win arguments on the internet.

              (laughing) What HE just did! (OMG) And he’s a liar.

              pedant
              [ped-nt]
              noun
              1.a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
              2.a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
              3.a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to common sense.

              Hey Chump, how does that apply to using words properly — and ridiculing buffoons who do not?

              Cyber-Bully
              noun
              1) One who LIES ABOUT efinitions, in a lame attempt to defend bullshitters and thugs in his own tribe.
              2) One who lies win arguments on the Internet. A thug.
              3) A pathetic loser.

          1. hos?tile
            ?h?stl,?h??st?l/
            adjective
            adjective: hostile

            People who disagree with me on the internet.

            vi?o?lent
            ?v?(?)l?nt/
            adjective
            adjective: violent

            People with whom I disagree on the internet.

            1. Do we think he realizes what he just said about himself?

        2. jarflax
          If commenting here is an example of brown shirts kicking and beating someone on the ground, then passing out literature must be genocide. Oh sweet Hihnflower, please help protect us from the violence assault on liberty that is pamphleteering

          Hihnflower my sweet, I am not sure aggression can be stretched to include comments on Reason,

          It’s called “verbal; aggression” dumbass.
          Every time you abandon mere insults, you humiliate yourself.

          Verbal aggressiveness in communication has been studied to examine the underlying message of aggressive behavior and to gain control over occurrences. Infante and Wigley (1986) defined verbal aggressiveness as “a personality trait that predisposes persons to attack the self-concepts of other people instead of, or in addition to, their positions on topics of communication”.[1] Verbal aggressiveness is thought to be mainly a destructive form of communication

          http://bitly.com/227CrVd

          .Stalking me on 5 pages. Because he was humiliated. Welcome to Reason Comments, the only unmoderated major political site where thugs travel in packs, like brownshirts (count them). Readers are advised to meet some REAL libertarians. Non-aggression. And literacy.

          (my tone is self defense of repeated aggression by this now-admitted thug)

        3. ANOTHER lie

          jarflax
          If commenting here is an example of brown shirts kicking and beating someone on the ground, then passing out literature must be genocide. Oh sweet Hihnflower, please help protect us from the violence assault on liberty that is pamphleteering.

          (yawn) Expose the liar again:

          https://reason.com/blog/2016/03…..nt_5971719
          We’ve all seen the videos and drawings
          Up to a dozen people standing in a circle,
          kicking and beating the shit out of someone on the ground,
          This is how they look in real life.
          Emulating the Nazi Brownshirts.

          Anyone else stupid on “emulate?” Proof:
          https://reason.com/blog/2016/03…..nt_5972427

          jarflax|3.10.16 @ 2:14PM|#
          What do you get when a Stallion Does your Ass? A Hihny
          ((an adult?))

          Citizen X|3.10.16 @ 2:22PM|#
          Michael Hihn ? 104 years old and is kept alive only by his own self-righteousness.

          BigT|3.10.16 @ 3:12PM|#
          He’s just objectively stupid.

          Red Rocks Rockin|3.10.16 @ 2:56PM|#
          Christ, you’re so pathetic

          jarflax|3.10.16 @ 3:44PM|#
          The problem is he has no idea what any of us are saying. He is arguing with the voices in his head

          Citizen X|3.10.16 @ 4:18PM|#
          HIHNSANITY!

          Ship of Theseus|3.10.16 @ 4:29PM|#
          Logic is hard.

          jarflax|3.10.16 @ 4:48PM|#
          I understand that the voices sometimes get so loud that you need to giggle and rant.

          Thug ?

    5. That made me pause as well; is that “Center” run by the university? That asked, it seems perfectly in line with other affirmative Title IX efforts, which means it’d be perfectly flawed, and commonly accepted.

  27. Just the abortion thread Reason needed to spruce things up around here!

    1. Rarely is it the case that an off-topic thread in an abortion discussion is even more awful than the abortion discussion, so… congrats, everyone?

      1. Next time, Mass Effect 2 plot deconstruction for OT thread instead?

        1. Next time, I’m travelling back in time, aborting myself in the past, and leaving behind a suicide note incriminating whoever the fuck decides to mention Trump in an abortion thread.

          Though Mass Effect 2 character deconstruction would be nice as an alternative.

          1. Can we just travel back in time and abort Trump?

            1. It’s kind of like killing Hitler, where history’s movement just makes it all happen anyways with some other rich asshole.

              No, the only way to stop it is to go back in time and abort anyone who supports Trump or who shamed his supporters on Twitter.

              Then and only then can Hit and Run finally have the Mass Effect sidebar discussion it deserves.

              1. Indeed, haven’t we learned anything from Command and Conquer?

          2. What’s there to deconstruct. The entire series is pretty dull, especially story and universe. That Primo, Proto, Ancient, Enkindler – whatever – DLC character could have been interesting, but he ended up as some kind of clumsy caricature, caught between an attempt to include evil, a realistic perspective on empires, and Bioware’s awkward interspersed humor, which serves to ruin immersion even more than the colorful, yet bland, cartoonish style. I like Strahovski, have some appreciation for Williams, but there’s not much. The assassin with the lung problems is a ridiculous instance of “I’m a weapon, so I didn’t do it, but maybe the weapon is me, so I did it, and who guides the damn weapon anyway — anyone still listening, because I’m so delicate and my wife is dead, and I’m a single parent with that criminal son, who is a weapon, so he didn’t do it, but maybe…”. The best two elements of the series: Jack, and Morinth. Of course Jack doesn’t get much time, and they turned Morinth into one of those harpies. Why wouldn’t they, after all, she was the one character who could actually make some things complex and raise a few problems.

        2. Can we not, because then I have to remember Mass Effect 3 happened?

          1. Dammit, John, SOME KID DIED! You must pathos!

            1. Half the goddamn planet looks like it’s either made of lava/permanently on fire and I’m supposed to care about one bloody kid? During my sleepover with Garrus (FemShep+Garrus for life, don’t judge me) another hundred thousand children died!

              I mean, it’s not like you could have killed off Anderson instead, an established character that the audience actually cares about. And instead of having stupid dreams about chasing some kid in the woods you’d just have Dream Keith David telling you how you failed him. That’d just be dumb.

              1. I don’t judge you, Garrus is a bro. If he were option in ME1, I’d have been all over him, but Liara it was and I decided my paragon Shep would be faithful through three games.

                Fuck it, I declare Mass Effect Friday tomorrow.

        3. Btw, when does ME4 come out?

          1. Sometime next year. And they’re not calling it ME4. They had to change galaxies because ME3 shat the bed.

            1. And apparently something’s up at Bioware because the game’s lead editor and one of its writers quit this week.

              On the plus side, David Gaider’s also gone, the man largely responsible for most of Dragon Age 2’s plot stupidity.

              1. I finished Trespasser few weeks ago and I really want them to not fuck up next Dragon Age. Inquisition managed to set up a potentially awesome sequel.

                Hopefully someone’s making Bioware writers play through Witcher 3 to see how it’s done. God damn, when CD Project puts out a $10 expansion, they have better writing and characters in it than most AAA RPGs.

                1. I haven’t even touched Dragon Age 3, I had too much other stuff I was more interested in and not enough time. And I’ll openly admit that ME3 and DA2 killed most of my Bioware love.

                  I’m only 30 hours into Witcher 3 but my god is the writing great. There’s random NPC conversations that trump most Bioware dialogue trees. Hell, the non-quest notice board posts are better world-building than anything Bioware’s come up with in years.

                  1. “I’m only 30 hours into Witcher 3 but my god is the writing great.”

                    Don’t overdo it. They did an above-average job with the Trish, Yennefer, and that third woman, though. The three have more depth and range than most female and – even more so – most male video game characters. Not sure how far you got in your 30 hours, so I’ll leave it at saying that there’s one remarkable man, additionally.

                    1. *job with [] Trish, Yennefer

                      How far (main quests) are you?

                    2. Only just finished the Baron’s subplot and sailed up to Novigrad.

                      …I play a lot of Gwent. Probably too much.

                      “Ha, take that, you semi-literate peasant, I beat you at a children’s card game!”

                    3. Haha, yeah, collecting cards. The entire world is in peril, and one is encouraged to do that. By the way, if you want the trophy (and collect all), you should get check online for a list of cards. I’m not sure whether there is a point/card of no return, but I think so. Not to mention a bug. — I enjoyed collecting and playing cards. Wish there were more, and a more depth.

                    4. There’s no such thing as too much Gwent. And there’s an invitation-only tournament side quest.

              2. There is something up. Though/because the quitting started a while ago.

              3. DA2and ME3 are textbook examples of why I wish game writers would stop trying for complexity. I read for complex moral analysis, I watch politics to convince myself that no good outcomes are possible. I play games so I can escape into a world where if I just do it all right, I can save the day and make happy rainbow unicorns. Games that seek depth by forcing me to choose between horrible outcomes miss the point of gaming as far as I am concerned.

                1. Common mistake. It’s not the grand decisions (save the village, or a bunch of protected wildlife) but characters and character relationships that add depth. It’s the choices one could make in respect to them that matter. Things get complicated when they get personal, when preferences and loyalties clash. Few things are better than supporting an evil character because you like her.

                  1. I had that very thing happen in Dragon Age 3, because I made my warden king in DA:Origins. So I had a genuine choice with no simple answer at one point.

                2. I actually found the horrible ending of ME2 where everyone (including Shepard) dies to be pretty funny.

                  I think ME2’s biggest failure was that the outcomes were all the same, and two of them were absurd. The ‘control’ ending should have been the ‘bad’ ending. To even suggest it could be consistent with ‘happily ever after’ goes against the themes of the game from the beginning. And synthesis? Wtf? Everyone in the world is forced to share a consciousness with their iPad? Terrible. Really, a typical Star Wars episode VI happy ending would’ve been better.

      2. Did you say circumcision deep dish pizza?

  28. But the pro-lifers were the aggressors, by definition, seeking the initiation of government force against innocent women, denying our founding principle that a woman’s unalienable right to Liberty is precisely equal to a fetal child’s unalienable right to Life … as shown in a simple dictionary definition of unalienable.

    Indeed,simply stating that self-evident fact always elicits a flurry of aggression and verbal assaults, shouting down all “blasphemies” like Nazi brown shirts, even here on a supposedly libertarian web site.

    Beware the militant self-righteous, the most dangerous threats in human history.

      1. Oh, Buddha….

        But the founders insisted on separation. (sarc)

    1. Beware the militant self-righteous

      Such as, say, pathetic old men who invade threads screaming incoherently about their self-righteous libertarian purism?

      Sorry Hihn, but I don’t consider you a threat. I’ll just let nature take its course.

      1. I don’t think Hihn is an “old man”.

          1. He’s like a libertarian version of a campus SJW. And his knowledge of libertarianism is sort of Libertarianism 101. So he’s either actually a college kid with a libertarian bent who’s inflicted by the same mind-disease as the rest of the trigger-warnings-microagressions crowd, or he’s a troll posing as a cross between a SJW and libertarian.

            1. Have you Google searched him?

              1. Heroic Mulatto|
                Have you Google searched him?

                (snicker) You’ll find my platform for state insurance commisioner.

                1) There are two prices involved: drugs and insurance. Deregulating health insurance will greatly increase the number of insured families. But drug prices would be beyond my control, and another candidate seems to agree. He would form nongovernmental buying co-ops. Great idea, but why must we elect him first?

                2. Deregulate. Open your Yellow Pages. Compare the number of health insurers with the number of auto and home insurers. Then ask yourself which insurance is the most highly regulated – but offers the fewest choices, with out-of-control prices. As you can see, over-regulation is hazardous to your health.

                3. Insurers have legitimate concerns regarding fraudulent health histories from applicants. But insurance applicants can now be forced to choose between living and lying when new jobs require them to change carriers. Deregulate for portable coverage.

                Please link to your published work, your campaigns, or anything you’ve done to advance liberty to anyone … beyond being aggressor cyber-punk

            2. I’m pretty sure Francisco asked him to change something on the Michael Hihn facebook page, and he did.

              1. So? It’s not that hard to set up a facebook page under a fake name.

              2. You’d be full of shit, as always.

                something something aggressors

                ag?gres?sion
                [???reSH?n]
                NOUN
                hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront:
                synonyms: hostility ? aggressiveness ? belligerence ? bellicosity ? [more]
                http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/

                bul?ly \?bu?-l?, ?b?-\
                a : a blustering browbeating person; especially : one habitually cruel to others
                http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bully

              3. I’m pretty sure Francisco asked him to change something on the Michael Hihn facebook page, and he did.

                (lol) Then you’re wrong again.

            3. Hihneous crime, Hazel.

              1. Hihn is Nikki.

                1. Hihn is Nikki. Says the conspiracy nut.

                  something something aggressors

                  ag?gres?sion
                  [???reSH?n]
                  NOUN
                  hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront:
                  synonyms: hostility ? aggressiveness ? belligerence ? bellicosity ? [more]
                  http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/

                  bul?ly \?bu?-l?, ?b?-\
                  a : a blustering browbeating person; especially : one habitually cruel to others
                  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bully

              2. something something aggressors

                ag?gres?sion
                [???reSH?n]
                NOUN
                hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront:
                synonyms: hostility ? aggressiveness ? belligerence ? bellicosity ? [more]
                http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/

                bul?ly \?bu?-l?, ?b?-\
                a : a blustering browbeating person; especially : one habitually cruel to others
                http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bully

              3. Childish blather, Sevens

                ag?gres?sion
                [???reSH?n]
                NOUN
                hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront:
                synonyms: hostility ? aggressiveness ? belligerence ? bellicosity ? [more]
                http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/

                bul?ly \?bu?-l?, ?b?-\
                a : a blustering browbeating person; especially : one habitually cruel to others
                http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bully

            4. Hazzel Meade makes an ass of herself again

              HazelMeade
              or he’s a troll posing as a cross between a SJW and libertarian

              An online archive of my published writing. Check Taxes, Healthcare, Federal Budget, Education and Federalism.

              http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm

              My campaign platform for state Insurance Commissioner

              1) There are two prices involved: drugs and insurance. Deregulating health insurance will greatly increase the number of insured families. But drug prices would be beyond my control, and another candidate seems to agree. He would form nongovernmental buying co-ops. Great idea, but why must we elect him first?

              2. Deregulate. Open your Yellow Pages. Compare the number of health insurers with the number of auto and home insurers. Then ask yourself which insurance is the most highly regulated – but offers the fewest choices, with out-of-control prices. As you can see, over-regulation is hazardous to your health.

              3. Insurers have legitimate concerns regarding fraudulent health histories from applicants. But insurance applicants can now be forced to choose between living and lying when new jobs require them to change carriers. Deregulate for portable coverage.

              Please link to your published work, your campaigns, or anything beyond being trashmouth cyber-bully

        1. If only he had an online repository of his work with a photograph of himself hosted somewhere on the internet and highlighted in orange…

          Anyway, you’re only as old as you feel, they say.

          1. Pat (PM)
            If only he had an online repository of his work with a photograph of himself hosted somewhere on the internet and highlighted in orange.

            Here it is!

            An online archive of my published writing. Check Taxes, Healthcare, Federal Budget, Education and Federalism. The photo is on the home page.

            http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm

            Please link us to your own published work. your political campaigns, or anything else you’ve done to promote and expand liberty in the real world of citizens or voters.

      2. Sorry Hihn, but I don’t consider you a threat

        I’m not
        You are.

    2. *yawn*

      Can we get a better abortotroll than Hihn? I think half of our problem is that all of our trolls somehow survived botched abortions.

      1. something something aggressors

        ag?gres?sion
        [???reSH?n]
        NOUN
        hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront:
        synonyms: hostility ? aggressiveness ? belligerence ? bellicosity ? [more]
        http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/

        bul?ly \?bu?-l?, ?b?-\
        a : a blustering browbeating person; especially : one habitually cruel to others
        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bully

      2. I think half of our problem is that all of our trolls somehow survived botched abortions.

        Libertarians oppose death threats and death wishes, both forms of aggression.

    3. Here have a safe space Hihnflower

      derpderpderp derpderpderpderpderp derpderpderpd
      e…………………….. ………… ………………………………. e
      r…………………………… ……………………… ……………..r
      p……………….. ………..Hihnflower… ……………………..p
      d…………………………. ………………………….. ………….d
      e…………………………… ………………………. ……………e
      rpderp derpderpderpderp derpderpderpderp derpder

      1. something something aggressors

        ag?gres?sion
        [???reSH?n]
        NOUN
        hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront:
        synonyms: hostility ? aggressiveness ? belligerence ? bellicosity ? [more]
        http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/

        bul?ly \?bu?-l?, ?b?-\
        a : a blustering browbeating person; especially : one habitually cruel to others
        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bully

      2. jarflax
        Hihnflower my sweet, I am not sure aggression can be stretched to include comments on Reason,


        (snicker) It’s called “verbal; aggression” dumbass.
        Every time you abandon mere insults, you humiliate yourself.

        Verbal aggressiveness in communication has been studied to examine the underlying message of aggressive behavior and to gain control over occurrences. Infante and Wigley (1986) defined verbal aggressiveness as “a personality trait that predisposes persons to attack the self-concepts of other people instead of, or in addition to, their positions on topics of communication”.[1] Verbal aggressiveness is thought to be mainly a destructive form of communication

        http://bitly.com/227CrVd

        Stalking me on 5 pages. Because he was humiliated (like this). Welcome to Reason Comments, the only unmoderated major political site where thugs travel in packs, like brownshirts (count them). Readers are advised to meet some REAL libertarians. Non-aggression. And literacy.

        (my tone is self defense of repeated aggression, by a thug)

        1. Iverglas?

          1. Iverglas?

            Iverglas is a lefty thug. jarflax is not a lefty.

        2. Oh sweet Hihnflower I must thank you, I had always been skeptical about the psychological concept of projection, but you have opened my eyes.

          1. Says the bully who just learned what verbal aggression is … as he launches yet another verbal aggression. (snicker)

            1. jarflax
              The Government should shrink itself, repeal 90+% of the laws and actually provide neutral arbiters of contract disputes, police who protect lives and property at risk of their own, and defend the country from invasion. This would do more to solve our problems.

              How do we cause that to happen?

              The Government should promote the values of individual liberty and responsibility by ceasing to undermine them.

              How do we cause that to happen? How do you explain that to friends and acquaintances?

              Many people in the abstract favor libertarian positions. The difficulty is that people tend to get much more outraged when a program or policy they like gets cut than they get happy when a program they don’t care about is cut. In other words, when you get to the specifics of legislating you lose more votes by cutting a program than you gain.

              That’s because the enemy has actual proposals instead of “Government should ” or “I want.”
              Even beginning activists quickly learn you can’t beat a something with a nothing … or with theories. Sharon Presley said the same thing.
              “The libertarian movement is not really going to go too far forward until they get a better idea of how to talk to the average person. Because the average person doesn’t give a flying handshake about theory, or Austrian economics.”

              Even Ayn Rand knew better. You’re all alone with other purists,

              1. https://reason.com/blog/2016/03…..nt_5972427

                Am I right to comnpare my stalkers with Nazi Brownsirts? Here’s the proof

                jarflax|3.10.16 @ 2:14PM|#
                What do you get when a Stallion Does your Ass? A Hihny
                ((an adult?))

                Citizen X|3.10.16 @ 2:22PM|#
                Michael Hihn ? 104 years old and is kept alive only by his own self-righteousness.

                BigT|3.10.16 @ 3:12PM|#
                He’s just objectively stupid.

                Red Rocks Rockin|3.10.16 @ 2:56PM|#
                Christ, you’re so pathetic

                jarflax|3.10.16 @ 3:44PM|#
                The problem is he has no idea what any of us are saying. He is arguing with the voices in his head

                Citizen X|3.10.16 @ 4:18PM|#
                HIHNSANITY!

                Ship of Theseus|3.10.16 @ 4:29PM|#
                Logic is hard.

                jarflax|3.10.16 @ 4:48PM|#
                I understand that the voices sometimes get so loud that you need to giggle and rant.

                The very definition of aggression and bullying. Imagine people visiting Reason and seeing thugs running wild in the only unmoderated major political site on the web. When libertarianism is ANTI-aggresion, fiscally conservative and socilally liberal, aka toerant of opposing viewpoints (gasp)

      3. jarflax makes an ass of himself again (yawn)

        jarflax
        Here have a safe space Hihnflower

        (snicker) I prefer my platform for state insurance commissioner.

        1) There are two prices involved: drugs and insurance. Deregulating health insurance will greatly increase the number of insured families. But drug prices would be beyond my control, and another candidate seems to agree. He would form nongovernmental buying co-ops. Great idea, but why must we elect him first?

        2. Deregulate. Open your Yellow Pages. Compare the number of health insurers with the number of auto and home insurers. Then ask yourself which insurance is the most highly regulated – but offers the fewest choices, with out-of-control prices. As you can see, over-regulation is hazardous to your health.

        3. Insurers have legitimate concerns regarding fraudulent health histories from applicants. But insurance applicants can now be forced to choose between living and lying when new jobs require them to change carriers. Deregulate for portable coverage.

        Please link to your published work, your campaigns, or anything you’ve done to advance liberty to anyone … beyond the childish insults, aggression and bullying you initiate here again

    4. How much do you get paid to try to make us all dumber?

      1. Vapourwear|3.11.16 @ 6:07AM|#
        How much do you get paid to try to make us all dumber?

        In your case that would mean being paid for nothing.

    5. “seeking the initiation of government force against innocent women, denying our founding principle that a woman’s unalienable right to Liberty ”

      Ha! The logic is not strong with this one. The mother initiated force against her child, denying her child the founding principle of the right to life. There’s a reason that life is mentioned first in the list of rights, you dimwit.

      1. There’s a reason that life is mentioned first in the list of rights, you dimwit.

        So is liberty. And “unalienable” means all fundamental rights are precisely equal. Check a dictionary. (lol). And, ummm. Life and Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are …. ONLY the mentioned ones!!!!

        The Ninth Amendment forbids government action, at any level, to deny or restrict at even unenumerated rights!!!!

        (boldface is response to trashmouth aggression by a thug)

  29. The counter-protest was organized by the UC-Davis Women’s Resources and Research Center,

    This Center seems to be funded by UC-Davis*. The Center used some of its funding to organize a political protest (or counter-protest which is still a protest). The UC system is funded by taxpayers. I am a CA taxpayer. It’s 10% here. I funded this counter-protest. Sorry ’bout that.

    * http://wrrc.ucdavis.edu/

  30. Eventually the ‘safe space’ crowd is going to run into someone a lot more willing to use actual violence as opposed to ’emotional violence’. And it won’t be pretty.

    I was in Ottawa when the whole I went to the speech mostly so I could take shots at her in the Q&A. The protesters were flipping tables, pulling fire alarms, aggressively pushing people away from the doors. The folks trying to actually get in started to get riled up. For a minute there it got this close to a donnybrook.

    1. Ah, html fail, *I was in Ottawa when the whole ‘Ann Coulter incident’ happened.

  31. OT and more interesting: We have had a bit of rain here. In fact, some neighborhoods in West Monroe only have the roofs of the houses sticking out of the water. Roads are out everywhere. Schools in multiple parishes are closed. The water is up everywhere.

    My property backs up to Rigolette bayou south of Iatt lake. Recently they drained Iatt lake to kill of the salvinia that was beginning to choke it. When they did it greatly reduced the available habitat for not a small number of alligators. I gave up fishing for the spring because every time I cast a bait about ten of the bastards popped up nearby and I could not get anything to bite. Oh well, I figured I would wait until the lake was refilled and the gators would wander back that way.

    All this rain and flooding has caused the bayou to rise dramatically and in some places it is far out of its banks. So are the gators.

    My neighbor told me this afternoon that the water was near his back door and that a ten foot gator ate his dog when he let it out to pee.

    I am sympathetic, but…he didn’t see that coming? I only lost one dog to them and I fenced my yard in (out).

    1. So can you kill and eat alligators? I’d have some heartburn over eating an alligator that just ate my dog, still you have to step up in your role as an apex predator sometimes. ( I say this after spending the day outside in springtime coastal California and complaining a few times about the deer flies )

    2. “I gave up fishing for the spring because every time I cast a bait about ten of the bastards popped up nearby and I could not get anything to bite.”

      With all the possibilities of who could – and should – bite what or whom, no biting sounds like a decent outcome.

      Tough place you got.

  32. Alert King Obama’s Special Elite Hate Crime Unit!!!

    1. This is just perfect for Power Rangers. They come in colors! So every one gets diversity, hey! Someone add a picture, or moving picture — ah, whatever.

  33. Note the distinctly brown shade of the perp’s shirt.

    1. All too common among Nazi-emulating bullies and aggressors.

  34. Note the distinctly brown shade of the perp’s shirt.

  35. Of course, the “choice” in “pro-choice” is the choice for mothers to kill their children. This is a classic euphemism, hiding behind neutral words to avoid accurately describing the morally repulsive act you actually support.

    1. Behold the authoritarian

      khm001|3.11.16 @ 12:47PM|#
      Of course, the “choice” in “pro-choice” is the choice for mothers to kill their children. This is a classic euphemism, hiding behind neutral words to avoid accurately describing the morally repulsive act you actually support.

      As you support the morally repulsive rejection of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights, as enshrined in the Constitution that so many piss all over,

      Ir’s always sad to see anyone manipulated and exploited by their faith. As we learned in high school:

      1) Unalienable rights are, by definition, precisely equal to each other. That means Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness plus all those not mentioned.

      2) The Ninth Amendment forbids all levels of government from denying or disparaging fundamental human rights, explicitly those not enumerated in the Constitution.

      Deny the antichrist who preaches against those rights endowed by our TRUE Creator, thus defying the Will of God in the Name of God. Repent. Accept. Seek the TRUE Lord Jesus Christ. Repent and seek His forgiveness.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.