Liberals Need to Stop Giving Students Reasons to Buy Trump's Anti-PC Rhetoric

Donald Trump and Milo Yiannopoulos profit from left-wing campus censorship.

|

Milo Yiannopoulos
Screenshot

Political correctness is a vague and ill-defined concept, but hatred of it is one of the most consistent animating philosophies of Donald Trump's supporters. It's discouraging, then, that self-proclaimed progressives at a number of universities are playing right into Trump's hands by giving legitimacy to complaints about PC-based censorship on campus. 

The college left's treatment of Breitbart tech editor (and pro-Trump provocateur) Milo Yiannopoulos, whose visit to DePaul University last week was interrupted by Black Lives Matter protesters, is a perfect example. Yiannopoulos is currently touring colleges—at the invitation of conservative and libertarian students—telling everyone how evil, censorious, and militantly illiberal the left has become.  His over-the-top shtick–"feminism is cancer" is one of his favorite mantras—relies upon the idea that the left is intolerant of offensive ideas. 

In response to his antics, the left continues to provide ample fodder for the validity of his hypothesis. At DePaul, protesters stormed the stage and appeared to threaten Yiannopoulos with a light blow to the face. Indeed, censorship and outright violence has derailed a number of campus speakers who were deemed controversial for one reason or another, from the arch conservative #NeverTrumper Ben Shapiro (now an antagonist—or rather, protagonist—in the Yiannopoulos saga) to Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich

I disagree with Trump supporters on almost everything, including their belief that political-correctness-run-amok is some great national concern. But the American university is certainly one place where this concern has relevance: it is true that students and faculty members are routinely investigated for merely saying the wrong thing.  

As I argue in a recent column for The Daily Beast, progressives will never defeat Yiannopoulos and his ilk if their reaction to his free speech experiment is to prove him correct about their censorious intentions: 

After his DePaul appearance, Yiannopoulos headed to the University of California at Santa Barbara, where students literally carried him to the stage on a throne. 

Campus censorship is a moral wrong on its own. But look, progressives: if you want to stop the Trumps and Yiannopouloses (Yiannopouli?) of the world, you might want to ask yourselves if continuously proving them right in the eyes of their fans is the best strategy. 

Students who disagree with Yiannopoulos are welcome to call him out: ask him tough questions, hold civil demonstrations before and after his events, invite speakers that counter his narrative. But censoring him doesn't stop him: it does the opposite. It makes him a hero. He benefits from it. 

And so does Trump.

NEXT: No peace for Greenpeace

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. you might want to ask yourselves if continuously proving them right in the eyes of their fans is the best strategy.

    Wrong question. They don’t give a shit about their fans, and if they could, it’d be reeducation camps for them tomorrow.

    It’s whether they want to keep proving them right in the eyes of anyone looking that they should ask themselves.

    1. Seriously, they assaulted him for saying something that put nobody but himself in physical danger. His point has been proven. The only reason the proof is limited to his follower is because you don’t see the NYT covering this. The evidence is in. It’s just a matter of it you’ve been in a position to see it or not.

      1. Robby hates Yianappolis mostly because his existence forces Robby to admit that maybe someone on the left might not be well meaning but just a little mistaken.

        This article is like some parody of the dreaded cosmotarian. Robby can’t bring himself to say that the left has gone full totalitarian facist and how horrible that is. No, the problem here in Robby’s eyes is that the left keeps making it look like icy people like Trump and Yianappolis have a point about something.

        That is rather a remarkable attitude to come from a self professed Libertarian to say the least.

        1. icy people

          They seem pretty fiery to me. Kinda part of their attraction.

          I kid because I love, John. I swear I wish I could come up by such typos on purpose.

          1. My kingdom for a K.

            1. K-A-R-S Kar’s for Kids?

            2. You want three? They are cheaper in bulk.

              /Irish

              1. So heat death of universe = honks win?

                1. It’s always been a set up, man.

            3. Or your ingdom.

        2. The article has an odd tone, no question.

          The idea that campus “liberals”/SJWs are vicious, censorious little twats is presented as a “hypothesis”, in spite of the proof of this idea being offered a few paragraphs later.

          A controversial speaker turning attempted censorship into publicity, thus defeating the censors comprehensively, is presented as an unfortunate side effect of censorship, not as a proof of the value of free speech.

          It sure comes across like Robby’s preferred outcome here would be Milo just going away, rather than the campus censors being run off like the mangy curs they are.

          1. We slouch closer and closer to the epic “Libertarian Case for Hillary”.

            But now it may just be a battle of whether Robby or Nick gets to it first.

            1. Seems that even libertarians are no strangers to poisonous virtue-signaling.

        3. John, the trigger warning for stupidity is “As I argue in a recent column for The Daily Beast”.

          There’s a reason this garbage isn’t in the actual magazine.

  2. It might be time to finally put to rest the myth that the left or progressives were ever champions of free speech. Their remedy is never more speech, it’s less.

    1. Doesn’t it seem to swing from left to right depending on whose sensibilities are offended?

        1. In fairness though, the right has never approached the sheer brazenness of the left when it comes to the abridgment of speech. The right prefers to keep you safe and secure by any means necessary.

          1. Shit if the right had posited that contracts were needed for all sex the left would lose its mind!!!

            Alas, the left though of it first, and of course thinks its totally innocuous.

      1. But is there a myth floating about that has the right defenders of speech?

        1. Seeing as people keep conflating “anti-PC” with being “pro Free Speech”, yes.

          1. Seeing that PC speech codes == SHUT UP!! I’d say thats a correct assessment.

    2. It’s a who’s in power thing. If campuses were still majority conservative run like in the 70’s the left would be all about the free speech. It’s just because the current crop has been raised in an environment where they’ve always been on top that they don’t care about the principal anymore.

      1. Campuses were not ‘majority conservative’

        Ever.

        The professoriate and administration may have been insufficiently leftist for the students, but the left has held the power in academia for a long, long time.

        Prior to leftist takeover academia tended towards classical liberalism.

        1. Large numbers of people today labeled as ‘conservatives’ or ‘right wingers’ are closer to classical liberalism.

          1. Bingo! Large numbers of the left are more like National Socialists…

      2. How old are you? What gives you the impression campuses were majority conservative in the 70s?

  3. Of all the complaining I see about Milo Yiannopoulos, the most overwhelmingly common argument I hear against him is basically “he says mean things that make me feel icky”. Which is to be sure not argument against what he says, so much as it’s delivery. So what if the leftist antics lends credence to him? You’ll need to explain how that’s a bad thing before you start concern trolling.

    1. “he says mean things that make me feel icky”

      Troll Response: “So a gay man makes you feel icky?? Check your privilege!!”

      1. Check your privilege, and be sure to tip the privilege-check girl.

  4. Milo Yiannopoulos

    One of our nation’s most valued public intellectuals.

    1. When you consider his competition, that is true. “Valued” is a relative term Crusty.

      1. Another valued public intellectual, Bill Nye, has the decency to wear a white coat to help further is superiority over us. Milo just does his hair. There is no comparison, John.

        1. Okay, that is a fair cop. And I am pretty sure Milo doesn’t keep his pants properly creased, so that puts him below David Brooks as well.

    2. he actually, authentically is.

      let’s face it: he’s basically a modern-day Socrates. he runs around aggravating and trolling the mainstream and does it better, and with more truth, than most other people.

      people like Milo are important. more important than, say, someone like Suderman or Dalmia could ever hope to be.

      1. Suderman and Dalmia want to change things but do so without offending anyone or causing any of the leftist friends to think worse of them. Sorry kids, it doesn’t work that way.

        1. “…but do so without offending anyone they think matters…”

          Subtle difference there.

      2. let’s face it: he’s basically a modern-day Socrates.

        1. I didn’t think he was into kids.

          1. I think it just means he’s ugly and doesn’t shower.

            1. The Socratic Method = Cock-loving Tweets.

          2. He’s Greek isn’t he?

            1. “Let us cavort like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean.”

    3. He’s British, goddam it! Stop appropriating awesome people from other cultures without their consent, Yankee shitlord!

      1. Unless you’re from UK, in which case, DAMN, the nation of Benny Hill* has fallen far.

        * I’ll always have a soft spot for that old pervert. He was an embodiment of English taste for oddly chaste pornographic materials Orwell mentions in (I think) Road to Wiggan Pier

  5. I disagree with Trump supporters on almost everything, including their belief that political-correctness-run-amok is some great national concern. But the American university is certainly one place where this concern has relevance: it is true that students and faculty members are routinely investigated for merely saying the wrong thing.

    So you don’t think the ability to speak freely at our universities is of any “national concern”? I had no idea Robby held education and the academy in such disdain. I guess Robby doesn’t have much time for any book learnin and views the death of freedom at our academic institutions just one other right wing generated kerfuffle that keeps the nation’s attention off of the important issues of gay rights, uber and pot.

    1. It’s easier to just learn one view point in college.

    2. John, I think Robby’s opinion is that liberty is threatened more perilously by myriad other State-based actions, and that the danger of PC outside of the college and social media bubble is largely overstated. I don’t think he holds higher education in disdain, otherwise he’d be covering a different beat.

      1. Since when does something have to be the greatest concern to be a “great national concern”? Moreover, the article that Soave links to is him denying that PC makes it more difficult to fight radical Islam, claim so ridiculous even the more left wing members of the comentariat on here couldn’t take with a straight face.

        And if he doesn’t consider what amounts to a mortal threat to higher education a “great national concern”, then he does need to find a different beat to cover.

        1. I’m trying to give Robby the benefit of the doubt, for once. He’s a hip young kid who writes for the Daily Beast, after all, and so I can understand if he has some reluctance to write anything in favor of a guy like Milo.

          But I agree that it’s a bigger deal than he’s making it out to be, for the reasons that Bill points out below.

          1. I will give Robby the benefit of the doubt the day he gives me a reason to do so. As of yet, that hasn’t happened.

          2. If Robby is reluctant to write anything in favor of Milo, he should avoid the subject.

      2. I think Robby’s opinion is that liberty is threatened more perilously by myriad other State-based actions, and that the danger of PC outside of the college and social media bubble is largely overstated.

        Perhaps. If so, then he’s pretty foolish. The standards that prevail in the universities of today will wind up being the standards that prevail in society at large 20 years in the future. You’re already seeing it creep into society at large. If you don’t think so, you might want to ask Brendan Eich about how contained it is.

        1. you might want to ask Brendan Eich about how contained it is

          Well, he did inflict Javascript on the world. He got off easy if you ask me.

          1. Okay. That is funny. And if he were fired for Javascript, I’d be cool with it. But, I get a really bad feeling about people getting fired for having the wrong politics.

          2. Okay. That is funny. And if he were fired for Javascript, I’d be cool with it. But, I get a really bad feeling about people getting fired for having the wrong politics.

            1. the squirrels thought so too.

        2. See also: the state of California inflicting punishment on “climate deniers”.
          These people wield power. More now than ever. Apparently Robby doesn’t read Reason.

      3. John, I think Robby’s opinion is that liberty is threatened more perilously by myriad other State-based actions, and that the danger of PC outside of the college and social media bubble is largely overstated.

        Then Robby’s ignoring how academic norms influence later state policies (and vice versa). The role of academia in modern states is analogous to that of the Church in feudal states.

        1. Shit its a positive feedback loop. One of the key instigators of these insane campus norms is the Dear Colleague letter from Obama’s Administrators.

    3. “So you don’t think the ability to speak freely at our universities is of any “national concern”? I had no idea Robby held education and the academy in such disdain.”

      Yeah. The institutions that teach ya that getting a degree in art history will give you a high paying career are clearly valuable on a national level.

      1. I am pretty sure the university has contributed a whole lot western civilization and is a large part of its rise. Your point just proves how much damage the leftists have done not that the damage isn’t an important national concern.

    4. Book lernin’ is for fags.*

      NTTAWWT

    5. John, Robby doesn’t want to be disinvited from Michigan’s alumni parties, so he has to say things that are total B.S. so that the true believers in the one true god of progressivism that work for daddy’s company can network with him. “The Leaders and the Best” indeed.

  6. After his DePaul appearance, Yiannopoulos headed to the University of California at Santa Barbara, where students literally carried him to the stage on a throne.

    Oh, come on. There’s no way that actually-

    The conservative firebrand and self-proclaimed “Internet supervillain,” entered the lecture hall where he was scheduled to give his talk “Feminism is Cancer,” while being carried in on a throne by a crew of students all sporting red “Make America Great Again” hats. The procession was led by a man waving a large American flag and included a full-sized cardboard cutout of Donald Trump (whom Yiannopoulous calls “Daddy”). All the while, the satirical jingoist anthem “America F*ck Yeah!” from the movie Team America: World Police was blasting.

    Huh. Damn. Well, uh, that’s definitely a thing.

    1. When you start enthusiastically using what is supposed to be satire…

      1. …as satire, leftish idiots will take it seriously

    2. being carried in on a throne by a crew of students all sporting red “Make America Great Again” hats

      I’m picturing a crew of fit young men in thongs… like something out of a RuPaul video.

  7. Donald Trump and Milo Yiannopoulos profit from left-wing campus censorship.

    You know who else has made a career out of covering left-wing campus censorship?

      1. “Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew” was groundbreaking.

      2. That David Horowitz will never be the REAL David Horowitz to me.

        1. Also – the classic parody of the OG David H.

        2. I had those two confused for years.

          1. They both Fight Back in their own way.

            1. I was beginning to think I was the only one who remembered that show.

    1. You see the problem with left-wing campus censorship is not that it is destroying our universities, creating a generation of mindless leftist drones or that it threatens to spread to the rest of the society. No, the problem is people like Yiannopoulos and Trump (gasp) are profiting from it.

      You can’t make this shit up.

      1. As much as I disagree with you about the Oompa Loompa Messiah, that criticism is spot on.

      2. Outcomes over opportunity.

        It’s a mark of the statist.

        1. Anything out of Bernie’s mouth that has “Justice” appended to it means guaranteeing equality of outcomes, not of opportunities.

          If the outcome is “guaranteed”, who will any longer work to achieve an outcome. (When we end up like Venezuela, they will blame it on the falling oil prices.)

  8. “Yiannopouloses (Yiannopouli?)”

    It’s not Latin; it’s Greek. So the plural is Yiannopouloi, as in hoi polloi.

  9. Sorry, Robby, but all the hedging undermines your point. The behavior of the left doesn’t make Yiannopoulos’ assessment of the left “look” accurate. It makes it accurate. Period. Full stop.

    Look, I’m not a particular Donald Trump fan, either. But, isn’t the entire point of libertarianism that you have rights even if your “icky”? And isn’t the point of intellectual debate that you’re supposed to assess arguments on their merits, rather than your feelings about the person making the argument?

    1. Robby is engaging in a variation of ad hominem here. He can’t admit the truth because doing so will mean admitting that people he doesn’t like are correct. People Robby doesn’t like are not supposed to ever be right about anything. And damn the campus left for making Robby sort of kind of have to admit someone he hates might have a point seems to be the gist of the article.

      1. This cycle really is relieving. I don’t like Trump but I have no trouble admitting it when he and his allies are right. And he is right to hate PC. It is essentially an movement against freedom of speech and thought.

    2. And isn’t the point of intellectual debate that you’re supposed to assess arguments on their merits, rather than your feelings about the person making the argument?

      Ugh, its like you can’t even tweet that.

  10. Political correctness is a vague and ill-defined concept

    So much so that a person can write about it nonstop for a few years and still pretend that it may not really exist.

    In response to his antics, the left continues to provide ample fodder for the validity of his hypothesis.

    Editor = (this is too many words for “He’s right”)

    progressives will never defeat Yiannopoulos and his ilk…

    (implicit question never stated) “And why should anyone want to see them win?”

    I mean, take “Trump” out of the equation as “Ultimate Doom” which must be avoided at all costs….

    why exactly is the thrust of the article here “Progressives Need To Improve Their Game”? Was there something important we shared in common with them which I’ve overlooked here?

    If Robby has problems with the boorishness of the Brietbart set’s M.O. fine – say so. But this whole article seems based on the idea that he (obviously) shares more in common with the PC-mongers than their critics.

    1. He wants them to be better. He knows they can be better. They’ve got good intentions!

      Milo, on the other hand, is a meanie. Nobody likes a meanie.

      1. As ENB has helpfully explained to us, while “social justice” often is the motivation behind appalling infringements on liberty, it has noble goals.

        1. Yeah noble goals. In the 20th century noble goals filled a shitload of graves.

    2. So much so that a person can write about it nonstop for a few years and still pretend that it may not really exist.

      Was it Robby who wrote the single Reason piece on Rotherham? The gist of that piece was something to the effect of “we just can’t figure out what all this is about or means”. Robby seems to have made an entire career at reason doing the same thing with campus PC; writing endlessly about the examples and excesses of it while simultaneously claiming it probably doesn’t exist or mean what it obviously seems to mean if it does exist.

      1. Scott wrote a piece on Rotherham and it wasn’t that bad. He suggests “outrage isn’t an answer” and that he’s still skeptical, but its not like he soft-pedaled the whole thing.

        1. No. It was that bad. So in response to hundreds of young girls being raped while the authorities looked the other way Scott says

          When all is said and done, there’s a lot to chew over here in the full report. Outrage isn’t an answer.

          Really? What exactly would get Scott outraged other than a transman being forced to use the men’s bathroom. I mean other than that of course.

          1. I think your jihad against scott is totally unwarranted.

            1. I disagree. It is not that I disagree with him, though I do but that doesn’t bug me. It is that he is dishonest that bugs me. He is forever playing “on the other hand” and constantly being obtuse and trying to support a position without taking the responsibility for holding it.

            2. (Looks around for Swiss to see if a *narrowed gaze* is enforced)

          2. What exactly would get Scott outraged other than a transman being forced to use the men’s bathroom. I mean other than that of course.

            A yokel refuse to bake a cake or perform another service for one of his betters.

            A yokel denying the ‘science’ of AGW.

    3. why exactly is the thrust of the article here “Progressives Need To Improve Their Game”? Was there something important we shared in common with them which I’ve overlooked here?

      Much pithier than my post. Well done, G.

      You would be hard-pressed to find an ideology more bitterly opposed to libertarianism than current campus lefty/proggy doctrine. Yet I cannot recall a single Reason writer who ever actually said “This current campus activism is bad tactics in the service of a bad ideology. Libertarians everywhere should cheer whenever these wannabe goons step on their own dicks and discredit their authoritarian cult”.

      Even when we kinda agree on a goal (gay marriage), the tactics and larger goals of the campus activists are inevitably opposed to liberty. They don’t want gay people to get marriage licenses because freedom; they want them to get marriage licenses as the thin edge of the wedge of creating a new grievance industry around “equality” (never a friend of liberty) and a new protected class.

      1. Exactly. The “pro gay marriage” argument has always been the leftist angle whereas the libertarian angle has always been “marriage isn’t the state’s concern.”

        But it’s the libertarians that are afraid no one likes them that always bow to the pressure of hanging out with the cool crowd. With such low self-esteem they deceive themselves into thinking that arguing “pro gay marriage” will get the leftists to start looking at things from a libertarian perspective. Such strategy never works (outside of maybe 1% of leftists re-thinking their angles – which means it essentially never works) yet libertarian pundits never stop using such self-defeating tactics. Eventually these low self-esteem libertarians become progressives in action, if not in self-labeling.

        In that sense it’s rather amusing for a libertarian pundit to tell progressives to stop using such ineffective tactics.

        1. Would it have been too much to ask for Libertarians to support gay marriage contingent on there being protections in place that would protect religious freedom? Yes, libertarians don’t support public accommodation laws. I get that. But we have public accommodation laws. So why was it okay for Libertarians to pretend we didn’t or they somehow didn’t matter when supporting gay marriage?

          And as bad as their position on gay marriage was, their position on the transgendered is worse.

          1. The editorial attitude here lately has been “Free minds and free markets…within reason”

            Gilmore has it right. Gillespie, and seemingly the Kochs, keep falling for the “Americans want results, not process” line. History proves results without process are only fleeting. Yeah, ‘process’ is a tough sell, but that’s what liberty is. Short-cutting it by trying to convince proggies that they actually have a lot in common with libertarians hasn’t worked before and won’t work now. It undermines libertarianism more than it gets any converts.

            1. Short-cutting it by trying to convince proggies that they actually have a lot in common with libertarians hasn’t worked before and won’t work now.

              Because they don’t. They are totalizing collectivists. We are individualists.

      2. They don’t want gay people to get marriage licenses because freedom; they want them to get marriage licenses as the thin edge of the wedge of creating a new grievance industry around “equality” (never a friend of liberty) and a new protected class.

        That may be part of it, but I’m convinced that a huge part of the motivation is simply because they know the bitter clingers in fly-over country will hate it. Something about the greatest thing being killing your enemies and hearing the lamentations of their women…

        1. Oh absolutely. Anything that the middling class or traditionalists might fine questionable or offensive must not only tolerated or accepted, it must be publicly celebrated under pain of state sanction.

          It’s pure Frankfurt School/smiley faced fascism..

    4. Was there something important we shared in common with them which I’ve overlooked here?

      Craft beer and indie rock

      1. And uber. Don’t forget uber. Some day a gay couple will be able to drive for uber in their prius while carrying a concealed weapon and dealing pot.

        1. I’m not convinced all proggies are in the tank for Uber, most of them want to see a well-regulated Uber.

          And by well-regulated they mean price-controlled, fingerprinted, background checked, licensed, the state-knows-best kind of regular. They really would have preferred that the number of taxi medallions were just quantitatively eased.

          1. +1 Austin City Limits

      2. Craft beer and indie rock

        I’m more Staropramen & OG rap, really

    1. No, that would be the plural of Yiannopoulus. Yiannopoulos would be pluralized as Yiannopouloi.

  11. I pretty much disagree with Trump on almost everything, but these leftist fascists deserve him. They deserve someone who plays their game from the other side.

    Leftists never stand on principles, only principals. They never image their authoritarian tactics will ever be used against him, because they think they will be in power forever.

    It’s why they used “feelings” and “the right thing to do” and “against hate” when justifying gay marriage, even though Libertarians had been calling for that since the 70s on freedom of association and freedom of contract and equal protection.

    1. Congratulations on being right in the 70s. If by “authoritarian tactics” you mean “persuasion,” well, it worked didn’t it? What sort of praise do you think libertarians are owed for being right but doing nothing to fix the problem?

      1. What sort of praise do you think libertarians are owed for being right but doing nothing to fix the problem?

        /Falls of chair laughing at what is almost a platonic ideal of a moronic comment.

      2. “Persuasion” like getting people fired for having political views they don’t like? Or getting an entire fraternity blamed for an event that never happened? Or maybe for getting a baker run out of business for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake. Nope. No authoritarian tactics here. Just reasonable persuasion.

        1. Meanwhile the Republican candidate for president wants to ban members of an entire religion from entering the country.

          1. Tony, stop! If I keep laughing like this, they’re going to fire me!

            1. And gives every indication that he’ll simply shutter the White House press briefing room and jail reporters rather than answer questions.

              Campus libruls are the free speech problem in this country!

              1. That doesn’t sound at all like our current president in any way. Nope, no sirree, not one bit.

                If there’s one thing we don’t have to fear about a Trump presidency it’s that he won’t answer questions. If a topic gets coverage on the evening news then he will let us know his opinion on it, whether we asked for it or not.

              2. Didn’t the US used to ban Communists from entering the country?

                Not sure why banning (highly ideological) religionists is deemed morally worse.

        2. Are you talking about Brandon Eich and Sweet Cakes by Melissa?

          I thought that individuals applying economic pressure via their personal choices was an acceptable tactic?

          Brandon Eich stepped down because there was a significant number of Mozilla Developers who were unwilling to continue working with him as CEO. The internal calculations aren’t known, but it seems likely that it was concluded that losing Eich as CEO was easier to swallow then losing all those developers.

          Similarly, the Klein’s closed the storefront for Sweet Cakes by Melissa because, after their anti-gay attitudes and behaviors became known, the storefront was no longer self-sustaining. Remember: this happened *before* any judgement in the case.

          In both cases it was the Free Market and people practicing their Freedom of Association that forced the change.

          1. Brandon Eich stepped down because there was a significant number of Mozilla Developers who were unwilling to continue working with him as CEO.

            No, he stepped down because the board of directors asked him to do so in lieu of terminating him. Eich hasn’t worked directly with Mozilla devs in the better part of a decade. The state, of course, was not involved, but the wisdom of monitoring the political contributions of your employees and basing their employment on maintaining the correct political positions is certainly debatable — like, for instance, if Apple were to fire Tim Cook for donating to GLSEN.

            Similarly, the Klein’s closed the storefront for Sweet Cakes by Melissa because, after their anti-gay attitudes and behaviors became known, the storefront was no longer self-sustaining.

            No, they closed the public storefront to try and avoid having to accommodate gay couples in the future under “public accommodation” (a strategy that likely wouldn’t have worked anyway), and because of personal threats to their safety. Later, of course, legal bills and $135,000 worth of fines made the business unsustainable.

            Thanks for maintaining your unblemished record of being a dishonest cunt in absolutely every post you make though.

      3. Tony! Yay! I was getting bored. Ima order more whiskey and beer. Tony’s here!!!!!!

  12. Liberalism went from self-parody to outright farce sometime in the 1980’s, and hasn’t looked back.

  13. WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE.

    The left and right rile each other up to provide a pretext for electing an autocrat (Trump or Bernie) to oppress their rivals. They are doing exactly what they are supposed to, and if they didn’t then Trumpkins would pretend to be whacko lefties to serve this purpose. (And if you don’t believe it just watch any video of the LP convention this weekend or a McAfee speech.) Good sheeple.

  14. Man, who would’ve thought that Trump and Breitbart would make conservativism… cool?

    I mean, used to be the colleges were run by stuffy moral conservative types and the punks and hippie activists were the cool kids stickin’ it to the Man. Now it looks like the left is doing everything it can to make their hated enemies the cool outcast types who don’t play by nobody’s rules.

    1. Man, who would’ve thought that Trump and Breitbart would make conservativism… cool?

      It’s not and they are definitely not. Andrew Breitbart was cool, but he was sadly murdered, probably by those morons running Breitbart.*

      *Buy my newsletter to find out how they did it!

      1. I cancelled my subscription to your newsletter after the page 3 girl turned out to be Krist Novoseli?.

        1. You’re missing out – the next issue’s page 3 girl is Evan Dando. Sucks to be you.

      2. It’s not and they are definitely not. Andrew Breitbart was cool, but he was sadly murdered, probably by those morons running Breitbart.*

        Right, what I meant was they’re “cool” in the way that they’re perceived as the ones “stickin’ it to the man” now. I don’t think there’s anything hip about what they would do with the levers of power, should they ever gain them.

        1. Right, what I meant was they’re “cool” in the way that they’re perceived as the ones “stickin’ it to the man” now.

          Yes. I see what you mean. They still aren’t cool as a whole, but I guess this Milo person is not so bad.

    2. And European neo-Nazis are recreating scenes from PCU

  15. Maybe people like Trump and every other sane adult out there hate political correctness because it’s being used as a hammer to bash in the skulls of anybody that dares question the progressive stupidity on campuses, like the Title IX idiocy or the censorship of conservative views or the “get some muscle over here” bullshit.

    So they’re not “playing into his hands” accidentally. They’re just being themselves. And a Trump, as well as many, many others, are sick and tired of being told what they can say, think or do lest they be shamed out of their livelihood or be silenced for their wrongthink. Frankly, I’m glad there’s been a backlash against progressive PC nonsense. Maybe it will result in due process being restored on college campuses and the 1A being recognized in the commons.

  16. I think the entire country owes Trump a thank you for providing some of the most enjoyable and epic butt hurt ever seen. The election is still six months away and the polls are still slightly favoring Hillary and so many people are losing their shit in just pathetic and entertaining ways. The latest involves revenge fantasies against Trump voters.

    Richard Cohen wrote in the Washington Post on Monday that the election has filled him with a sense of “fear of my fellow Americans.”

    “I don’t mean the occasional yahoo who turns a Trump rally into a hate fest,” he wrote. “I mean the ones who do nothing. Who are silent. Who look the other way? I always knew who Trump was. It’s the American people who have come as a surprise.

    Gabriel Schonfeld, a writer for the New York Daily News, even proposed that Trump’s supporters, should the candidate become president, be held responsible in some way.

    “All Trump voters,” wrote Schonfeld in April, “can and should be held to account for embracing a candidate whose character is so dubious, and whose plans for the country ? among them, singling out a religious group for a ban on an entry to the United States ? amount to an assault on the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.”

    http://www.washingtonexaminer……le/2592618

    God those tears are wonderful.

    1. I don’t mean the occasional yahoo who turns a Trump rally into a hate fest

      What’s really strange is, he’s not talking about the rioters or heckler’s veto protestors.

      1. He means 80 year old men with pony tails.

    2. held responsible in some way

      That’s an interesting euphemism.

      1. True. I wonder what this guy had to say about Obama’s cult of personality when he was nominated….

        *giggles*

    3. Democracy is wonderful, voice of the people, etc, until those filthy proles start voting for the wrong person. Then they should be punished for having the wrong voice.

    4. True, it’s hilarious to see the heads exploding.

      By the way, since when does the Constitution require we admit people who would prefer we do away with the Constitution and impose Sharia law? I seem to recall a long history of not letting enemies of the country into the country….

      1. One possible silver lining to this caricature of a political race is that maybe, just maybe the Republican party will learn that you don’t have to back down and apologize and grovel every time the progressives cry racism or sexism.

        One interpretation of the last two presidential elections is that the GOP was so terrified of being labeled racist that they nominated two milquetoast Republicans who were too timid to even openly disagree with the Democrat nominee. One skill Trump seems to have (I’ll contend that it is an accident of a congenital social disorder) is that he isn’t the slightest bit worried about offending his opposition. When accused of being sexist for calling a woman fat, he just doubled down. I think that won him huge support in the politically unsophisticated bulk of team red voters who are tired of having candidates who are afraid to stand up for themselves. I think we are all better off if the candidates are actually representing their own opinions, rather than miming some poll-tested version of a candidate – even if it is for a party I am not supporting.

        I hope Gary Johnson has the moxie to stand up for our ideals in an unapologetic and full-throated manner. Ron Paul was able to do it, but he was mostly mild-mannered. So is Johnson. Hopefully he gets an opportunity in the debates so he can get tossed a pile of red meat to chew on in front of the country.

        1. That is one of the upsides of Trump, yes. He’s got what I’ve always seen as a certain New York brashness. That’s hugely refreshing, compared to the poll-tested bullshit we’re so used to.

          It’s also refreshing compared to the slick, poll-tested lies of someone like Obama. Some of the people clutching their pearls about Trump will probably admit it: they are not upset by lying, just by brazen lying.

    5. “amount to an assault on the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.”

      Said with no hint of irony that the presumptive Democratic nominee is a stone cold felon and all around horrible human being.

      1. But Hillary is not so d?class?, don’t you know.

      2. He forgot the “except the 2nd amendment which needs to be ignored, oh and that the first amendment should ban organizations from making the wrong kinds of political comments” other than that Hillary will be greeeeaaat for the constitution.

  17. Incidents of overzealous campus liberals are anecdotes. White male resentment over cultural change is a trend, one that has always been here and that will never go away by the looks of things. It promises to be even more annoying the less able it is to win elections.

    1. A few bad apples get out of control in dealing with an impossible situation created by wreckers and enemies of the people. We know tony, we know.

    2. If it’s always been here and will never go away, how the fuck is it a “trend”, shit for brains?

    3. Incidents of overzealous campus liberals are anecdotes.

      “Anecdote” meaning, something actually happened.

      1. I thought anecdote meant “something I thought up on my way over here to make a stump speech”. Like sniper fire while getting off a plane in Bosnia or my kid was jogging around the World Trade Center when 9/11 happened.

      2. Much bigger than this phenomenon is the industry of exploiting it for Republican political gain. There only needs to be one instance. The fewer the better, in fact. Cultural resentment needs focus.

        1. Incidents of overzealous campus liberals hate crimes are anecdotes. White male progressive resentment over cultural change traditional America culture is a trend, one that has always been here and that will never go away by the looks of things. It promises to be even more annoying the less able it is to win elections.

          Much bigger than this phenomenon is the industry of exploiting it for Republican Democratic political gain. There only needs to be one instance. The fewer the better, in fact. Cultural resentment needs focus.

      3. “Anecdote” meaning, something actually happened.

        I think he meant “antidote,” as in those incidents are counteracting campus liberal poisoning.

  18. I disagree with Trump supporters on almost everything, including their belief that political-correctness-run-amok is some great national concern.

    If you value free minds and free markets (and free speech) then maybe social marxism should be on the top your list. The left loves to use violence to shut down those that they oppose. They do it at colleges, at Trump rallies and at companies. Milo is doing this country a service, he’s revealing the left for what it is.

    1. you would think so Bob. But Robby is a social Marxist. He just doesn’t realize it or understand why it is bad.

  19. I’ve made this point a number of times before –

    Milo & Brietbart are “winning” these campus debates, and they’re drawing large numbers of college-age people to an alternative from the PC-left POV they’ve been steeped in.

    Reason magazine, by contrast, is Not.

    Despite all the articles here on campus PC-nuttery, what would any reader take away from Robby’s tut-tutting and saying, “oh, but you can *do better*, Left!”?

    If libertarians want a place at the table and be listened to by a wider audience, they’ve got to pick battles and go after them with conviction and vigor and zero apologies. (*as usual, i’m thinking of Balko and police-misconduct as the best example)

    This gentle ‘a pox on both!’-stuff just isn’t worth doing, because in the end no one cares what your POV is. Take a stand and don’t waste your energy apologizing for having a few unpleasant allies.

    1. I read this comment this weekend and it really got me to thinking about this issue.

      The connection between the Alt-Right and the various masculinity movements deserves some elaboration. As many have mentioned, the demographics of the Alt-Right are young and male, and the role of young male frustration (sexual or otherwise) cannot be overstated.

      As Dreher adequately documents, the hegemonic narrative regarding gender is clearly insane. And while the level of insanity has climbed exponentially in the past decade, virtually everyone under-30 (my generation) has been marinated in relentless gender-equivalence propaganda since kindergarden. But, as the male cohort grows older, the distance between the experienced reality of of the dating market and the official dogma becomes unsustainable. The cognitive dissonance is simply too great, and boys are driven to seek answers elsewhere. And those answers come, with varying degrees of accuracy and crudity, from the PUA/Game/MRA/RedPill blogs. Whatever their faults, they all have one redeeming quality ? they are manifestly not insane. This comes as a great shock and relief to boys. A shock because they realize the magnitude of the deception they have experienced, and a relief because they realize they are not the crazy ones.

    2. Cont…

      These blogs are essentially applied evolutionary psychology. The systematizing, logical male mind is placed in the dispassionate, clinical service of disassembling every polite fiction about courtship, and replacing it with an amoral imperative. Women are to be understood, then mastered. And once women are mastered, they are irrelevant. Onto the next challenge. Unless you are in this generation, you have no idea the sea-change that is occurring. 35-year-olds are teaching 25-year-olds, who then repackage it for 15-year-olds.

      This then becomes the primary infection vector for other forms of thought crime. Once one aspect of the progressive catechism has been shown to be false, the whole edifice falls under suspicion. While the intellectual roots of the alt-Right don’t come from the masculinity crowd, most of their new converts do, and therefore the dominant attitude and aesthetics of the alt-Right come from this wing. They hate sentimentality, and have a Nietzschean sense of life ? true meaning in life comes from removing the shackles of slave morality, and freeing your ambition from the cloying masses who might call you racist or sexist or homophobic.

      Is it any wonder then, appeals to marriage based on life expectancy or lifetime earnings are rather ineffectual?

      1. I don’t think that’s what i was talking about really.

        i mean, yes I was saying that there’s few apparent alternatives to the “PC-Left cultural hegemony”

        my point was that magazines like Reason are ignored in the current context because they don’t even have the balls to identify who their adversaries (or allies) actually are

        In this article you get the impression that Robby (*speaking for libertarians) is on the side of the PC-left, and wishes they had a better response to people like Milo.

        Or maybe you get the impression that Robby shares Milo’s POV but bemoans his tactics and wants the PC-left to know he’s not mean like them.

        Regardless, you don’t get any perspective which either Milo, or anyone on the PC-left (say, Salon) would ever see any need to respond to or rebut.

        Its a non-argument, and its easily ignored and dismissed. And so libertarians remain on the sidelines and cede the debate to kooks.

        1. Yes. And I raise that comment because it shows how people who do understand the enemy are winning people over. The reason why the PC people can’t stop is because once you question one thing the entire edifice falls. And reason by constantly trying to equivocate and take their side, actually keeps that from happening.

        2. I don’t want to ring the “COCKTAIL PARTEES!!” bell, but I do think social perception has something to do with it. Culturally, a lot of libertarians are pretty immersed in pretty progressive cultures. My guess is that this is even more pronounced with libertarian writers. In that context, there’s a lot more cultural affinity with progressives than “square” conservatives. So, taking up the flag against progressives (really, conservatives have lost the KULTUR WAR and aren’t really in a position to infringe on liberty in pursuit of their agendas) means taking up the flag against friends and colleagues, in effect calling them viscous pricks who should be ashamed of themselves. That’s really hard to do, especially when those social connections are relevant to your career.

          1. That’s really hard to do

            If you don’t have the balls to disagree with people because you’re afraid they’ll think differently about you, you should consider a career other than being a writer.

            1. +1 Hitchens

              1. He was exactly who i was thinking of, actually.

              2. Except

                1. Hitchens was a hardcore iconoclast. IIRC he’d even said he liked disagreeing for disagreeing’s sake.
                2. Hitchens had long established himself as a major name on the left. No one was going to accuse him of being a conservative.

                I’m not particularly impressed with the failure to call the left out by many libertarians. But, it is there. People give the benefit of the doubt to people they know and like. And for a lot of the writers here, my guess is that means progressives. As an example, that idealistic young girl you dated for a couple of months in your Junior year can’t be an evil bitch who wants to run roughshod over people’s rights in the pursuit of her agenda. You knew her. She wasn’t like that. Maybe she didn’t think what she was arguing through. But, it couldn’t have been intentional. The asshole out there has to be that ignorant redneck fundie that’s not okay with gay people.

                It isn’t not having the balls to disagree because you’re afraid of how they’ll think about you. It’s not having the balls to disagree because you don’t want to think that about them. It’s sloppy thinking and makes for much weaker commentary. But, people do tend to be like that.

                1. Yep. It’s not being able to place people’s sometimes respectful behavior into place as politeness and putting up with you, even though they are a totalitarian at heart. It is very difficult to fully understand that and separate the two things, which is why I have very few progressive friends, and when I explain something to them from a libertarian perspective, they tend to say, “I can see that, and need to read up on the issue to more fully understand it.” In the same way, they helped me become libertarian, since on criminal justice and drug war issues, they brought up explanations that didn’t fit my conservative worldview at the time, made me think, and arrive at different conclusions. What’s sad is that this PC movement on the left is inhibiting these kinds of friendships in college and as the grads move on, throughout society. It is literally reducing our capability to critically analyze our own positions and come up with a better solution.

          2. conservatives have lost the KULTUR WAR

            In some sense, they have.

            There’s a lot of people who haven’t been convinced by proggy culture warrioring, so I wouldn’t say the cons have lost on that battlefield.

            They have lost in the more visible battlefields – schools, the media, the deep state – but that’s because of the left’s Long March through the Institutions. I think the culture war is more the spoils of a much longer war lost by conservatives.

            1. Perhaps lost is the wrong term. Reached the point where winning is impossible is a little more precise. The reality is that we’ve gotten to the point where conservatives aren’t ever going to be able to successfully impose social preferences through the political process. So, in that sense, yes, they’ve lost.

              The question remaining is whether the progressives are going to be able to impose their cultural preferences on conservatives through the political process. And if libertarians are genuinely sincere in their principles, there’s really one position that they should take.

    3. Sorry for the length but It is worth reading. I have always been hard on the PUA types but now I realize that is unfair. I grew up in a different world than those guys and things I take for granted they never learned.

    4. Milo & Brietbart are “winning” these campus debates, and they’re drawing large numbers of college-age people to an alternative from the PC-left POV they’ve been steeped in.

      Reason magazine, by contrast, is Not.

      Probably why some Reason writers seem so resentful. They’re stuck being chroniclers of change rather than its vanguard.

      1. I think it’s hugely problematic that one of the self-professed flagship publications promoting liberty and freedom feels that some gay man saying mean things to an audience is itself problematic.

        1. Oh, and more people need to stop giving suggestions to Liberals on how to fix their problems. The Mommy State will happily write them some laws if they ask nicely.

  20. Robby Soave’s commitment to libertarian principles over cocktail party invites is a vague and ill-defined concept.

  21. Hey Robby,

    The point has been well made, but I’m going to underline it anyway.

    Just because someone is a douche doesn’t mean they are wrong. And just because someone is on your side on a number of issues doesn’t mean they are right.

    The PC police are way, way wrong. Full stop. No need to soft-pedal it or signal that you are really one of them except they should be more polite.

    Trump might be a grade-A idiot and unrepentant douche, but if he says political correctness is run amok, you can’t really argue with it. You might wish that he’d stay off of your side, but you can’t run around claiming he’s wrong about everything. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

    And Trump’s supporters might be peppered with useful idiots, racists, misogynists and xenophobes, but if they cheer freedom of speech or freedom of association, it doesn’t mean free speech is racist, or free association is xenophobic.

    This is a bedrock issue. There is no middle ground on free speech. Anyone who says “I’m all for free speech, but”… is about to prove to you that they are not all for free speech. And anyone who says a certain type of speech or a certain point of view is not free speech is an enemy of freedom. Full stop. No soft pedaling.

    When I was in high school the ACLU would routinely fight for the right of the KKK to march through predominantly black cities. They were being deliberately provocative, but the ACLU was right. We should maintain this example.

  22. I disagree with Trump supporters on almost everything, including their belief that political-correctness-run-amok is some great national concern.

    Yeah, right? Actively censoring the speech of your political opponents is no great national concern, is it Rico? And calling for opponents of AGW theories to be criminally charged or at a minimum silenced is no great concern either.

    You’re a fucking retard if you don’t think this PC-run-amok is a great national concern. Because stifling dissent by abolishing the 1A is pretty fucking serious. And that’s what the PC Brigade are doing every chance they get.

    Now, should we talk about what the PC crowd are trying to do to the 4th Amendment on college campuses or do you want to leave that for your next piece?

    1. All one need do is glance at the EU to see how PC is utilized to hunt & silence dissidents.

      1. Nazi Pug owners hardest hit.

        1. I had a Nazi pug once, miserable thing couldn’t even do a Hitler salute without wheezing and snorting like he drowning in Jewish snot.

  23. Donald Trump and Milo Yiannopoulos profit from left-wing campus censorship.

    Serious question: would you rather the left-wing censors profit?

    1. There is a rather simple solution to eliminating the profit. But that would require the leftists renounce their only viable tool for enacting desired change,

      Not like they can offer a cohesive or cogent argument

  24. I guess John beat me to the basic point I was trying to make.

    “I disagree with Trump supporters on almost everything, including their belief that political-correctness-run-amok is some great national concern. But the American university is certainly one place where this concern has relevance: it is true that students and faculty members are routinely investigated for merely saying the wrong thing.”

    It’s not a great national concern or anything, but, yes, universities – attendance at which the government is trying to make a standard experience for citizens (regardless of ability to pay) – are teaching by instruction and example that censorship of non-leftist thinking is a Good Thing.

    No biggie, though.

    /sarc

    1. The quote is from Rico Suave, not John, of course. I simply share John’s reaction.

  25. “Students who disagree with Yiannopoulos are welcome to call him out”

    Well. The phrase “call him out” is problematic. And familiar. Didn’t a community organizer use that phrase in a recent speech ?

    1. Call him out for what? Supporting Trump?

      From what I hear, that’s the worst that could be said about him.

      (unless you’re the type of sky daddy bleever who doesn’t think that it’s good to proclaim yourself a “dangerous faggot” who is, shall we say, not into monogamy of any kind, not even the SSM kind)

      1. Eddy, you’re better than that. Nobody insulted your religion.

  26. I think I have made my last Reason donation. Economics and foreign policy have taken a back seat to the culture war, and Reason certainly isn’t fighting the good fight in it.

    1. Eh, I consider my Reason donation price I pay for them hosting H&R and treating with a light hand. If there are actual interesting articles it’s a pleasant bonus.

  27. Milo is hilarious

    His ‘the triggering’ event with Christina Hoff-Somers (sp?) and Crowder was fantastic

    Nothing more ridiculous than seeing SJW’s scream at a gay man who prefers black men as bedroom companions – ‘racist homophobe’

    Also, he brought us Trigglypuff!!!!

    He is literally a creation of the regressive campus left

    He’s very supportive of equity feminists – like Hoff-Somers but loathes , rightly so, third wave SJW feminist supremacists

    Noted he’s largely banned from campuses in the UK

    Our campuses are bad – theirs are far worse

    He tried to have a debate with a feminist on the subject of feminists supporting censorship

    Feminist outrage caused its cancellation

    Just… Lol

    1. Wait, the lead singer from the Bangles is now a political activist ?!

    2. My wife is one of those right wing church ladies, and she was all fired up after seeing a clip from Crowder. So many are so fed up with all this PC bullshit. She doesn’t like Trump, but she loves it when someone, anyone, tells the proggies to STFU.

  28. Robbo,
    Why did you post a picture of yourself for this article? We know what you look like sir.

  29. Milo is fighting the good fight!!!!!

    He first really gained traction during ‘gamer gate’

    Gamergate – where the same people who claimed no way video game violence could contribute to real world violence, suddenly claiming playing video games causes sexism

    This is as inconsistent as the left that (wrongly ) claimed gender is solely socially constructed, now claiming the exact opposite vis a vis transgenders

    It cannot simultaneously be true that gender is only socially constructed AND that a person ‘assigned’ to be a male at birth was actually Born with a gender different from their sex

    Milo correctly blasts the left for this and other scientific paradoxes they embrace

  30. Trump is correct about PC

    for fucks sake – ChrisRovk and Seinfeld won’t even play campuses

    Writing ‘trump 2016’ causes a police investigation and is called a ‘hate crime’

    Etiquette is a good idea –

    Enshrining PC as policy via the barrel of the gun, as noted above, is not

    We do not want to go the way of Europe or Canada where ‘hate speech’ is a crime

    Street preachers have been arrested for daring to say homosexuality is an abomination

    IMO, it’s not. But expressing ideas is actually ILLEGAL and we need not go that way

    Canada has expanded gate speech laws to transsexuals and it’s been claimed that publically proclaiming Caitlyn Jenner is not a woman – could be prosecuted as hate speech

    Reason wrings ita hands over the left enabling Trumps anti – PC rhetoric when the real issue is PC , not enabling criticism of it

  31. Yiannopoulos is a Greek name, so the plural would be Yiannopoulodes.

  32. This kind of concern trolling would be much more appropriate at Slate or Salon.

  33. It’s been what, 3 years already? Can’t Tweedledee and Tweedledum finally move on to Salon and do their “Confessions of a former libertarian” penance pieces?

    1. Don’t you mean Tweedledum and Tweedledumber?

  34. The author is living in a cave if he does not see how anti-libertarian the PC movement is.

  35. Students should definitely have an active political position, they should be educated enough, have their point of view, feel responsibility for the choice and the future of the country. But from the other side, it is important to realize that their main duty right now is studying. Young people are often so busy with struggles and expressing their ideas that the only way for them to cope with college paper is to find some specialist. It is definitely not a big deal to get custom essay writing Australia and sometimes it helps to survive in our tough world, but students need to set the right priorities for this stage of life.

    1. Maybe some kind of test to pass to ensure they’re educated enough?

      Maybe they could spend their time doing that rather than committing academic fraud …

  36. Now a lot of students don’t follow politics at all. Personally I had in my school political classes once a week, It helps me now to understand some of the stuff. But I mean there a lot of Tech kids growing and they don’t like to get in politics, that’s that I heard from my bud that works as resume writters, so I think it personal to each person.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.