Campus Free Speech

Did This 'Triggered' Student Censor a Pro-Trump Display? Nope, Not Even a Little Bit

James O'Keefe video adds nothing to the campus free speech debate

|

O'Keefe
Project Veritas / Youtube

James O'Keefe has been busy since I caught him pretending to be a Hillary Clinton supporter at a rally for Bernie Sanders near the Democratic National Convention headquarters. His latest stunt involved building a fake wall at Columbia University's campus while writing pro-Trump statements in chalk. In the process, he managed to "trigger" a fragile liberal student and make a point about censorship.

Except, no. He really didn't at all.

Watch the video for yourself.

O'Keefe tells the female student that he wants to build a wall to "keep the illegals out" and "make America great again." She responds, slightly tearfully, "I'm so scared that you guys even think this."

The video tries to spin this as yet more evidence that college students are fragile snowflakes who take offense at everything. But is it evidence of that? Like the student, I am also scared of Trump's immigration policies. His policies are horrifying! Why is it objectionable to be disturbed by them?

Eventually, a younger male steps in: he describes himself as "not pro-Trump" but nevertheless thinks that O'Keefe and his crew should be allowed to express their controversial opinion. Okay. The female student agrees! She emphatically explains that she doesn't want to censor anyone—she wants to understand how any sane person could arrive at the idea that "make America great again" is a defensible public policy solution.

"I'm just trying to understand the other side," she says.

"We're just trying to spread our ideas just like you're trying to spread your ideas," O'Keefe retorts.

But that's not really true, I suspect: he's trying to goad students into attacking his free speech rights because they are offended by his (actually offensive) statements. In any case, this student didn't take the bait. I assume no student took the bait—if someone had actually called for O'Keefe to be censored then that person probably would have appeared in the video.

At the end of the video, a security guard does appear to shut O'Keefe down. He shouldn't have bothered. This was a perfect example of why the answer to bad speech is more speech: a provocateur's failure to explain why anyone should support Trump caused a student to feel perfectly reasonable despair.

NEXT: Good News! U.S. Incomes Up; Poverty Levels Down

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. Like the student, I am also scared of Trump’s immigration policies. His policies are horrifying!

    Oh, Robby. I’d put you in a headlock and give you noogies, but the friction would set your product alight.

    1. This kind of thing makes me think Muslims really are the future and the West is doomed. Could Robby or any of the seemingly millions like him in his generation done the things necessary to build this country or Western Civilization in general? I don’t see how. Given that, I don’t see him doing what is necessary to defend it.

      1. Given that, I don’t see him doing what is necessary to defend it.

        When the water and electricity are off for a month, people tend to re-learn grit. Either that or they die.

        1. I think he would die. Or counsel surrender before he did die.

          1. He’ll be offering handjobs to hardened survivalists in exchange for food.

            1. Handjobs to hardened survivalists. Very nice.

            2. Oh shizzle that is funny.

          2. I think there’s a difference today as compared to the past. We have 3-4 generations of people who have become accustomed to “the grid” and 1-2 generations accustomed to 24/7 connectivity. What happens when there is a serious outage of essential services? Not just the power being knocked out for a day, but water/power/communications all being unreliable and/or compromised for months at a time? We live in very stable times, but it doesn’t take too much to destabilize a society.

            1. It depends on the culture much more than the skillset or reliance on tech. When natural disasters hit certain areas, chaos and rampant looting occur. In other equally poor areas, you see people banding together to help save each other, rebuild, and get back on their feet.

            2. So you’re saying I should write my cannibalism for dummies book now?

                1. Exhibit X, that I’ve never had an original idea. Honestly, it takes the pressure off being clever, knowing everything has already been done.

            3. Katrina was just a sampling.

      2. Yeah we really should become more like Iran so we can defeat them when they invade us.

        If only more of us were good hard Americans who are only red meat and wore lots of denim while playing the harmonica to defend this country from the Mohammedans and their scimitars.

        1. Sorry, Mark, but there’s a pretty wide chasm between Iran and being able to tolerate a bad argument without being reduced to tears.

        2. Ah, yes. The old “it’s one or the other” argument. I suppose it’s completely out of the question that we pursue a more liberal society while also defending against it.

          1. DERP: defending against threats to that society.

        3. Yeah we really should become more like Iran

          at least then we’d maybe reap some benefit from our tax dollars

      3. Could Robby or any of the seemingly millions like him in his generation done the things necessary to build this country or Western Civilization in general?

        Well, he doesn’t seem to have responding to a bad argument with a better argument, rather than idiotic emoting down.

      4. “Could Robby or any of the seemingly millions like him in his generation done the things necessary to build this country or Western Civilization in general?”

        Well, you’re doing a hell of a job defending Western Civ here on H&R John. You can take comfort in knowing that on your death bed, you’ll have achieved so very much in life… To go from a Team Red troll on an internet message board, to a true libertarian who argues with other libertarians. Our nation stands strong and proud!

      5. Given that, I don’t see him doing what is necessary to defend it.

        What would you like to see him doing, Red Tony? The guy is a journalist, not an elected official.

    2. Text of Trump’s immigration speech:
      http://dailycaller.com/2016/08…..mmigration

      Take a few minutes to read it directly without having the media and Robby Soave spin it for you as horrifying!!!

      Excerpts:

      The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals:

      To keep immigration levels, measured by population share, within historical norms.
      To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society, and their ability to be financially self-sufficient. We need a system that serves our needs ? remember, it’s America First.
      To choose immigrants based on merit, skill and proficiency.
      And to establish new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure that open jobs are offered to American workers first.
      We want people to come into our country, but they have to come in legally and properly-vetted, and in a manner that serves the national interest.

  2. James O’Keefe has been busy since I caught him pretending to be a Hillary Clinton supporter at a rally

    Yes Robby we know. Didn’t someone give you a gold star for this heroic act of journalism already? If I send you one, will you quit bragging like you uncovered some foul plot?

    1. I doubt it.

      I expect his acquaintances will still be hearing him crow about it into his old age.

    2. This. Why, it’s The Fiendish Plot of James O’Keefe around here.

    3. He’s trying to make everybody forget about fruit sushi.

  3. Like the student, I am also scared of Trump’s immigration policies. His policies are horrifying! Why is it objectionable to be disturbed by them?

    It’s objectionable to be so fragile that you wilt at the utterance of a political opinion that disagrees with yours. I’m not a fan of walling off the southern border, but I don’t pretend that it’s somehow harmful to my emotional wellbeing to discover that somebody disagrees with me.

    1. I’m not a fan of walling off the southern border, but I don’t pretend that it’s somehow harmful to my emotional wellbeing to discover that somebody disagrees with me.

      Exactly.

      “Being disturbed” isn’t an argument. Its pretending that ‘bad ideas hurt my feelings’, and therefore i can’t be expected to actually provide any logical retort.

    2. A wall or fence doesn’t have to stop 100% to be effective. Israel implemented an effective border fence that has diminished its suicide bomber infiltration to almost zero.

      It is difficult to smuggle human beings compared to drugs, guns or other contraband. They require food, water, air to breathe, have to relieve themselves periodically, can’t be kept in hidden compartments for days on end, weigh 130 lbs or more and take up a lot of space.

      If we can reduce the 500,00 illegal border crossers by 95% to (say) 25,000 per year, then the illegal immigration problem is greatly reduced. At that point, the public will be willing to be more generous with the illegals already in the country, especially if criminal aliens are deported.

  4. Troll fails, when trolling goes wrong. A documentary by Robby Soave.

    1. This is the article that’s gonna get him his Pullitzer.

    2. when trolling goes wrong.

      Not as good as When Keepin’ it Real Goes Wrong

  5. So a video of a student dissolving into hysterical tears when confronted with a contrary opinion doesn’t show how pro censorship and anti free expression she is?

    Does Robby think this reflects well on the woman in the video?

    1. Well, if she didn’t try to get him censored, or stop him in any way (and, it appears that she didn’t), then, no.

      And her emotions reflecting badly on her is a bit different than censoring. She strikes me as the original kind of snowflake-someone (usually female, in my experiences) that cries at any frustration or hardship because of some kind of emotional weakness. Not the new kind that flies into a tearful rage when they’re challenged, or have been taught that teh feelz is more important clear thinking.

      1. I think given her reaction, it is a reasonable conclusion that she is both unable to engage in reasoned debate and likely would support censorship.

        1. Must have missed this part of the article:

          She emphatically explains that she doesn’t want to censor anyone?she wants to understand how any sane person could arrive at the idea that “make America great again” is a defensible public policy solution.

          Though with your famed mind-reading powers, you probably know she really supports censorship deep down, because all those weepy college students are all the same, amirite?

          1. Her reaction is good evidence she would. Is it conclusive? No. But it is good evidence such that saying she would is not an unreasonable conclusion.

            In your endless quest to give her the benefit of the doubt, you say otherwise. You might be right but you have no evidence for it beyond hope. I will believe my lying eyes and say she would.

          2. Someone who would be moved to tears in this situation would very likely pay a steep price to make the bad man stop. I don’t particularly care what she says she would or wouldn’t do.

            1. In response to both you and John, I sincerely hope I never see a post about how progressives have to create enemies, or assume the worst about people who aren’t like them,etc.

              Because here you seem to be saying, “I don’t care what the person said their actual position is, I don’t agree with their politics or their behavior in a particular situation, so I will simply assume that they embody all the worst traits of everyone that I perceive to be like them and that they secretly hold views contrary to what they state.”

              I mean holy shit, talk about creating enemies. “I don’t want to censor you, but I do think you’re views are horrible and want to understand why you believe that.”

              “WRONG! Because you find my views offensive, that automatically means you secretly DO want to censor me, regardless of what you say! I can assume the worst about you, because you are liberal, and therefore have the morals of a comic book supervillain! But don’t you dare assume anything about me because that would be stereotyping, which only stupid liberals do!”

              That is a direct quote from your inner monologue. You are also currently holding the 3 of clubs.

              1. I don’t think their thoughts are that blatant. Its basically a feeling that someone crying about your words will go running to Mommy and Daddy to tell on you…. Because that’s what we see from little children.

                Only in the case of college students we see very often that the criers don’t go running to literally mommy and daddy, they go to the mommy state powers that be to complain….

                1. ” Its basically a feeling that someone crying about your words will go running to Mommy and Daddy to tell on you…”

                  And lord knows, most folks here find it perfectly acceptable to make assumptions based on feelings.

                  Here’s the thing: I agree with you. But that makes it another case of double standards. It’s fine for one of us to “feel” that way, and therefore make the assumption, but if a liberal were to make an assumption based on a feeling, sarcasmic would be there in a heartbeat to make a snarky comment about it.

              2. That is a direct quote from your inner monologue.

                I see what you did there.

                Seriously Gojira, is it such a big leap to go from “the idea of Trump makes me weep” to “we need to silence hate speech”? Of course she’s not for censorship, no one is…but a truly woke society cannot abide truly dangerous and hateful rhetoric.

                Censorship is bad. But stopping hate speech is not censorship.

                1. It isn’t a huge leap, but it is a leap. My objection is that plenty of people in here would castigate someone from the other side of the aisle for making random assumptions based on the worst instincts of those they disagree with, but here, where people are supposed to treat others as individuals instead of as representatives of a collective, it’s perfectly fine to simply make broad assumptions about other people which directly contradict what they say just because they fall into a category that is generally disliked.

                  1. You mean we all can’t be nick? I’m disappointed.

          3. Couple of observations:

            The weepy student only opposed censorship after someone cued her.

            On what planet would making your country great, whether again or not, be a anything other than a desirable policy goal?

            1. Other than the fact that “Make America Great Again” is vague to the point of meaninglessness and is as subjective a goal as could possibly exist?

              1. True. But, from the article, “she wants to understand how any sane person could arrive at the idea that “make America great again” is a defensible public policy solution”

                And if she were saying vague, meaningless and subjective, I’d almost certainly agree. But, she’s pretty clearly saying that it isn’t defensible. She’s making a very different criticism. She’s apparently suggesting that greatness is not a defensible goal.

                1. No, she’s saying that “making America great again” is not a defensible public policy goal. And she’s dead on the money.

                  The phrase either means nothing or something quite sinister.

                  1. Why would it have to mean something sinister?

                  2. The phrase either means nothing or something quite sinister.

                    If it means nothing (as you suggested earlier and I agreed), it is neither defensible nor indefensible. It’s no more defensible nor indefensible than saying people should be nice.

                    As to sinister, I’d say it’s a little baffling that you associate great and sinister. But, reading some of your stories, that makes sense. 🙂

                2. She probably understands how evil America is and that it can only be redeemed by giving it to the noble savages and living as one with nature.

                3. No, she’s saying that building a wall, and equating that with making America “great”, is not a defensible policy. Robby seems to skipped over the distinction there, or else he is using the phrase “make America great again” simply as a shorthand to mean all the things that Trump, and O’Keefe (or his character), mean when they use it.

              2. Plus, why do I have this sinking suspicion that the “America” in that slogan refers to all those “others” that just won’t get in line?

                If it were explicitly about shrinking government, or getting it out of the public’s way, that would be one thing. Anything that continues to push government controlling society, or conflating the two is no-go with me.

              3. If it’s vague and subjective, then there is nothing to be offended about. Yet you are still butt hurt and angry about it.

            2. So you can tell from the context of the situation that she was ‘cued’ to supporting free speech, but you can’t tell from context what policies she has in mind when she references Trump’s slogan?

              1. So you can tell from the context of the situation that she was ‘cued’ to supporting free speech

                No, it’s right there in the article:

                Eventually, a younger male steps in: he describes himself as “not pro-Trump” but nevertheless thinks that O’Keefe and his crew should be allowed to express their controversial opinion. Okay. The female student agrees!

        2. For your second point, you may very well be correct. She doesn’t strike me as someone I’d want to hang out with for very long.

          That said, it looks like she had on opportunity to channel Melissa Click on him, but didn’t. Unfortunately, that counts as something to cheer in today’s socio-political climate (or, something like that).

  6. …I suspect: he’s trying to goad students into attacking his free speech rights because they are offended by his (actually offensive) statements.

    It’s clickbait all the way down.

    1. Since when is saying you want to build a wall offensive? Wrong in Robby’s opinion sure. But offensive? The only thing offensive I see is Robby wanting to call any opinion he doesn’t like offensive.

      1. It’s taking offense at someone else taking offense all the way down.

      2. Offensive is in the eye of the beholder. That’s why it’s a bad criteria for pretty much anything outside your own head.

        1. Some views are offensive. Advocating genocide for example is offensive. But not every wrong view is offensive. Robby seems to have forgotten that and things wrong is offensive.

          1. All genocide?

            *looks around*

            You can be honest with me…

            1. All genocide?

              *stomps an entire hill of fire ants to death on driveway*

              1. *stomps an entire hill of fire ants to death on driveway*

                I’m pretty sure that’s less than a micro microcide…

      3. Whether it’s offensive is, like anything, entirely subjective. It is objectively insipid though. My response would be laughter rather than tears.

        1. And you would be an even less serious person than the woman in the video. I can at least sympathize with emotion. Irrational and stupid smugness not so much.

  7. Like the student, I am also scared of Trump’s immigration policies. His policies are horrifying! Why is it objectionable to be disturbed by them?

    Are Trump’s immigration policies so different from enforcing the existing immigration laws? I bet most people wouldn’t be horrified of enforcing the existing laws. The good people of America are perfectly fine with many existing laws that can be much more inhumane than the immigration laws on the books.

    1. This point seems to get lost a lot. Apparently enforcing the laws the people wanted is racism or offensive. Ignoring the will of the people makes you a good authoritarian.

  8. James O’Keefe video adds nothing to the campus free speech debate

    Then why are you trying to rebut it, and asking people to “watch the video”?

    His policies are horrifying! Why is it objectionable to be disturbed by them?

    WTF. Are you 12yrs old?

    Trump has no policies. He’s never been in govt before. He has rhetoric. Being ‘disturbed’ by rhetoric isn’t an argument.

    1. If Robby is so disturbed by words, one wonders how he handles actual horrific acts

  9. Poor Robby hasn’t been this scared since the last time a girl touched him, back when he was in the sixth grade.

  10. Why is it objectionable to be disturbed by them?

    Robby Soave, little girl.

    1. That is offensive.

      To little girls.

  11. Yeah, let’s give this attention seeker plenty of attention.

    That’ll teach him to stop . . . seeking attention.

    I guess the important thing is what this tell us about . . .

    Sorry, can’t think of anything.

  12. Robby Soave is so weak that from now on I am going to call weakness “Soave”, because he is so weak and stuff.

    1. Robby is only weak if you cut his hair, like Samson.

      1. Bitch! You know what I want. I wanna talk to Samson!

    2. He actually has emotional reactions to the popularization of policies he judges as widely oppressive. Like a BITCH.

  13. Hey Robby are Muslims who advocate Sharia law offensive in your view? If so, have you ever said as much?

    1. I presume the rebuttal is, “No because they’d never get it past the constitution”

      Which then makes you wonder why Trump’s own obviously-unconstitutional ideas (or which at the very least would require a universally unified and compliant congress), are suddenly magically self-enforcing and guaranteed to be realized.

      1. A lot of offensive ideas are not Constitutional. That doesn’t make them any less offensive.

    2. Muslims who advocate Sharia law are offensive. There. Said it.

        1. Yes, but he didn’t say they were deplorable.

          Or “deplorables,” like a noun.

      1. Credit where it’s due.

      2. I do appreciate the writers that read the comments and respond.

      3. There goes your career!

      4. Robby Soave: Are you saying that the famous Khizr Khan is offensive?

        Khan has a history of writing favorably about Sharia law and implying that it will supersede the Constitution.

        http://dailycaller.com/2016/08…..haria-law/

        Quote: Khizr Khan … has previously written in a law journal about Islamic law. He specifically wrote about the purity of the Quran and the Sunnah over all other texts and interpretations.

  14. Soav?, when the wall fell.

    1. larf

      I just watched the end of DS9 last night…i love netflix

      1. Does Netflix randomly add and remove series? I amlost joined Amazon Prime just to watch DS9 only to find out they had just dropped it.

  15. “Knock Kock.”

    “Who’s there?”

    “Robby Soave.”

    “Robby Soave who?”

    “Robby Soave the weak pussy face bitchy girl head.”

    1. I think that’s his actual Awoke name.

      1. “Everyone is mean to Robby, you shouldn’t be mean to Robby, he’s gentle and sweet and he’s not like you other boys, also his hair is dreamy”

      2. You wouldn’t. It’s meta, Paul.

        1. Huh, sounded kind of beta to me.

              1. Ugh. This entire exchange. I. CAN’T. EVEN.

    2. Your views are scaring me Crusty. Stop it.

    3. I just…I can’t even. This is NOT OKAY. Not even a little bit woke. Delete your account.

      1. I logged into my Facebook account for the first time in almost a year and I came across an old friend of mine, who considers himself a libertarian talking up SJW causes with all the proper SJW talking points. At first I was going to let it slide and continue on my journey through the derp of my facebook feed. Then I saw him use the word “woke” and “not okay” in one single post non-ironically and non-sarcastically. I immediately unfriended.

        1. You should have had him send his resume to Reason.

  16. The video tries to spin this as yet more evidence that college students are fragile snowflakes who take offense at everything. But is it evidence of that? Like the student, I am also scared of Trump’s immigration policies. His policies are horrifying! Why is it objectionable to be disturbed by them?

    So, tell me, Robby, do you break out bawling whenever someone disagrees with your views? Moreover, are you really saying you actually take offense to political arguments, per se?

    I had an argument with someone this weekend that went along the same lines. I walked away having a lot less respect for her. If you can’t handle the possibility that someone might have a political view you object to, I’d suggest dropping political reporting for a gig at Teen Beat.

    1. Didn’t he already take a job covering the teen beat at Reason?

  17. “The video tries to spin this as yet more evidence that college students are fragile snowflakes who take offense at everything. But is it evidence of that?”

    Yes, as to that one girl.

    Now, for all I know, maybe a wall would be a useless boondoggle. That’s the argument I hear on Reason.

    But Crying Girl isn’t weeping at the idea of useless boondoggles.

    She’s weeping because she thinks a border wall may actually some illegal immigrants out.

    Maybe we can reassure her that the wall won’t work. I hate to see a girl cry.

    1. I want immigration reform, but I’m offended that the idea of enforcing the immigration laws makes some people cry.

  18. Hey girl hair, are you afraid of the dark, too?

    1. I’m going to tell mom

  19. Oh Robby, you had to include that one stinking sentence that makes everyone focus on what a fruit-sushi-eating weak faggy SJW you are, and completely ignore the rest of the article.

    Why, it’s almost enough to make me suspect you do such things on purpose to trigger the usual suspects around here.

    1. I find your views scary and offensive.

      1. Maybe I’ll suggest to the haunts I help work on this season that they include a “Free speech corner on a college campus” room. Should scare the shit out of everybody.

      2. Maybe I’ll suggest to the haunts I help work on this season that they include a “Free speech corner on a college campus” room. Should scare the shit out of everybody.

        1. Huh, that’s only the 2nd time in like 7 years I’ve ever been squirreled.

          1. It’s your squirreling cycle. Beware!

    2. He knows how to bring da clicks.

  20. “We’re just trying to spread our ideas just like you’re trying to spread your ideas,” O’Keefe retorts.

    But that’s not really true, I suspect: he’s trying to goad students into attacking his free speech rights because they are offended by his (actually offensive) statements.”

    Robby presumably knows this is a libertarian website.

    Do you guys think Robby honestly thinks First Amendment free speech is, for reals, on some kind of generational divide?

    As if there are two opposing libertarian arguments over political speech, and he’s on one side?

    Sometimes, reading this stuff almost feels like . . . if Tony were a writer for Reason, this is what he might write.

    1. Surely, it’s not as bad as all that.

      1. I suppose you’re right.

        I guess it’s nice to know that the next time someone shows up on campus trying to expose hypocrisy by hiding behind the First Amendment, Robby will be there to expose the truth!

        Is that what I’m supposed to say?

        If Sullum read this article, the sound of his facepalm might be heard from outer space.

        1. I’m not defending Robby Soave so much as expressing distaste for Tony’s style of argument.

          1. Yeah, there’s none of that.

            It’s not Tony’s style of argument.

            But it’s a lot like what Tony believes.

            I bet Tony would read what Robby is writing about free speech and the First Amendment, here, and, think, “Yup. Somebody around here finally gets it”.

            Tony might say, “We’re not against free speech–just the offensive stuff”.

            1. If Tony wrote for reason, it would be even stupider.

              1. Well, when Robby write it, it comes across as, “We’re not against free speech–just the offensive stuff–and that’s what being a libertarian is all about!”

  21. Robby trolls with a post about a troll and triggers the people who mock the idea of triggers, most of whom support the troll and the troll he’s trolling for, but not the troll reporting about the troll.

    1. #notenoughbridges

    2. If there were a larger point to make somehow, it might be different.

      He isn’t even trying to troll us. It just comes out naturally–in a show about nothing.

      It could have been ironic, somehow. You might think it was meant to show that he doesn’t understand a damn thing about libertarians or the First Amendment, but it isn’t that.

      He was trying to make a point about something, it’s just that when no one can figure out what that point was supposed to be, what’s left to do but wonder about the reason for the trolling?

      And, like I said, I don’t think he’s really trying to troll us. It just spills out like a big fat pig in a tiny little dress.

      1. Robby has found a reliable button to make a certain set of predictable responses occur. Either you think he’s hitting on purpose or keeps stumbling upon it by accident.

        What you think about Robby decides what side he falls on. He’s obviously not some sort of drooling retard so it seems to me he knows exactly what he’s doing.

            1. The irony of you saying that is now burning a hole in the Internet.

              1. Thanks, babe. Keep fighting the righteous fight.

            2. Cash is earned.

              And many of us donate it to Reason.

          1. I think that’s part of it, but that isn’t the primary factor.

            He keeps bumping into it on so many stories in so many ways.

            How many times have you read a Title IX story by him and not been sure at the end whether you’re supposed to be against Title IX because of what it’s making the school do, or whether you’re supposed to be upset about what the school is doing because it violates Title IX?

            I think a lot of us read those stories and think, “Oh, yeah, it’s anti-Title IX” . . . just because it’s a libertarian website. That’s just the way our minds work.

            But looks can be deceiving.

        1. Either that or he means what he says and is wrong. Since you are either his sock puppet or can read his mind I guess you know better. Either that or you are just a sad fan boy butt hurt that anyone comes here that disagrees with you.

    3. We’re being overrun with trolls.

    4. You gotta pay the troll toll.

    5. But, nobody here has ever asked for a TW… We are just laughing at the “hair dude” who is intellectually deficient… Perhaps it is possible that intelligence resides in the pancreas?

      How you doing? /Joey Tribiani

  22. he’s trying to goad students into attacking his free speech rights because they are offended by his (actually offensive) statements

    I am reminded of this

    and this

    and of course, this

    …and am left wondering why, ‘being offended’ invalidates *some people’s* provocative statements, but not others.

    1. IOW,….

      “We’re just trying to spread our ideas just like you’re trying to spread your ideas,” O’Keefe retorts.

      But that’s not really true, I suspect:

      Is it?

      1. O’Keefe believes in what he is doing just like Tony and shrike and american socialist and Jackand Ace and AddictionMyth/dajjal do.

        1. Sure.

          I don’t really see what that has to do with Robby’s pathetic defense of “Reasonable Despair“.

          (*a phrase which is both self-contradictory, and absurd in this particular context)

          1. Anyone who feels anything but despair this election season might be dead in the head.

            1. Not me. I’m gleeful at the prospect of President Hillary. It will be an endless feast.

              1. *well, at least a one-term one

            2. She will be lucky to live until January. She is never going to be President.

  23. And that is not O’K(eefe)!

  24. Wait –

    “At the end of the video, a security guard does appear to shut O’Keefe down.”

    If he’s complaining about censorship, shouldn’t he focus on this?

    (Of course, it’s a private university)

  25. Thank you again for debunking this idiot. Yes it is scary that these people think this. It brings a tear to my eye as well.

    1. I celebrate your brave tears

    2. As always, that book isn’t going to just magically finish itself, fuckface.

      When you’re done crying, you should probably get on that before the publisher finally cuts your dumb ass off.

      1. I’m thinking it will be called “The Chuckles Between the Tears.” Thank you for providing material, though. The publisher says, “Don’t let the Trumpkins get you down.”

  26. OT: how is this not front-page at Reason?

    1. I’m sure it will be in the P.M. links, don’t worry.

        1. That’s funny, my clock must be fast, let me try again…

          1. Wait, the links were there, but that story wasn’t.

      1. If they ever come, that is.

        1. Everyone needs to stop talking to Robby now…he needs to post the links

        2. Godot will come. I’m sure of it.

    2. The partner network includes Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, The New York Times, Washington Post, BuzzFeed News, CNN, ABC News of Australia, ProPublica, AFP, The Telegraph, France Info, Breaking News, Le Monde’s Les Decodeurs, International Business Times UK, Eurovision News Exchange and Al Jazeera Media Network.

      Lol.

    3. That headline sounds like, “Communists, Nazis, Combine to Promote More Responsive Government

  27. Speak emphatically about building a wall is mean, offensive, and psychologically damaging to some people.

    Quietly wielding supreme executive power to break up families and deport people in record numbers is the way to go.

    Message received Robby.

    You know what would actually be more offensive than a 15 or even 150 foot high wall? A 100-mile thick no-man’s-land around any national border where the King’s Men reign supreme over immigrants and civilians alike. Do we get a lot of college students shedding tears over offensive notions like that?

  28. O’Keefe’s giant schnozz keeps triggering me. Why has no one been focusing on the real issue?

  29. Can we knock it off with the ‘I’m scared’ and ‘terrified’ and ‘horrifying’ hysterical adjectives whenever we disagree with something?

    It totally freaks me out to the point of paralysis. I shake and shiver with rage!

    1. You know who else proposed horrifying policies?

    2. STOP PICKING ON ROBBY YOU MONSTER

  30. “O’Keefe and other Project Veritas members replicated their Trump support at University of California, Berkeley and more than a 100 students reportedly showed up to chant “fuck Trump” and “fuck your wall!””

    http://thetab.com/us/uc-berkel…..udent-1621

    The takeaway from this story is that the reaction by students from Columbia was fairly mild compared to other universities.

    1. Huh. I wonder why Robby left that out.

    2. Also, that liberal students find Trump strangely attractive, but are also attracted to simple planar edifices.

  31. THE REAL PROBLEM WITH THE NYT IS THAT IT IS TOO “OBJECTIVE”

    …This false balance problem is really part of a larger problem that says journalists must not have opinions, and this in turn is a problem with the profession’s inability to overcome the oppressive inertial force known as journalistic objectivity…..Why is it desirable for smart, informed people to suppress judgments that have been formed through reporting, study, and observation? Well-informed and thoughtful people are supposed to have actual opinions on current events….

    It serves the public interest for the Times to take an adversarial approach to covering both Clinton and Trump. But it also serves the public interest for the Times to recognize that there is a qualitative difference between digging for evidence of embers and covering the exploits of someone who is actively fanning flames.

    1. sorry, meant this for PM linx

  32. Ever listen to conservative talk radio? I don’t see how this girl is different than the “weepy soccer mom” types who call in and break down sobbing for no apparent reason over whatever they were calling in to complain about.

    1. I don’t see how this girl is different than the “weepy soccer mom” types

      There is no difference whatsoever other than Robby suggesting that “weeping” is somehow a perfectly reasonable response to things, and a valid argument on its own.

      1. There is no difference

        You’ve just proven Robby’s point.

        1. The video tries to spin this as yet more evidence that college students are fragile snowflakes who take offense at everything.

          That’s all he is talking about.

          Nowhere does he characterize the woman’s response as an “argument.” He’s not asking us to side with her or think she’s DESTROYED O’Keefe. He is only arguing that it is an understandable and common response, not a hysterical reaction unique to college students. It’s common to church ladies and soccer moms and Internet commenters who rage at the progressives who want to destroy America.

          1. He is only arguing that it is an understandable and common response,

            Funny that you chose to not use the term Robby did, which was “reasonable”

            He was actually arguing that O’Keefe’s stupid antics ‘added nothing to the debate’.

            Which as i noted above, is a strange assertion given that stupid offensive antics are part of many different forms of political protest – usually considered “legitimate”, and often even endorsed by writers here.

            Then he tried casting the weepy irrationality as a valid-reaction – and that in fact its irrational to expect otherwise. The sentence you quoted left out the second half (again), which was this =

            I am also scared of Trump’s immigration policies. His policies are horrifying! Why is it objectionable to be disturbed by them?

            You can try to sugar-coat this shit all you want and try and make it seem more palatable, but i have no idea why you would want to.

        2. You’ve just proven Robby’s point.

          You just quoted half of a sentence. Are you kidding?

    2. No. In response to the first question.

    3. Stormy-

      Tell me about all the times you listened to “conservative talk radio”- and why I should give a shit… because, you know, I’m a “l”ibertarian?

      “and break down sobbing for no apparent reason”… And again, why should I care?

      But, Robby actually validates this sobbing halfwit’s ignorant concerns.

      1. People have feelings. Get over it.

  33. Clinton has disdain for a quarter of the country and thinks they are irredeemable, supports prosecution of wrong thinkers, wants to jack taxes up over a trillion bucks, wants camps for adults, has contempt for the rule of law, lies like a rug, has committed multiple felonies…

    Yeah, trump is the one that makes me cry.

    Idiots

  34. Like the student, I am also scared of Trump’s immigration policies.

    Just because your schoolmates yanked your underwear up over your ears for you, doesn’t mean you have to leave it there…

  35. I think I would rather see a Fruit Sushi column about which Trump policies are so horrifying and why.

  36. Jesus, Robbie, who fucking cares?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.