Hate Speech

Antifa Wants 'Bleeding Heart Libertarian' Professor Fired. We're Not Exactly Sure Why.

He did make the mistake of having his picture taken with Milo Yiannopoulos.

|

The Eugene, Oregon chapter of Antifa wants Lane Community College philosophy instructor Jeffrey Borrowdale fired. The self-described libertarian's offenses? Borrowdale participated in a discussion of free speech versus hate speech, and he once included a politically incorrect question on a test.

Fliers promoting a November 18 "LCC Speak Out," described the discussion as a "deliberative dialogue discussion addressing issues on free speech versus hate speech," in which students could "explore contemporary topics from both sides." There was no mention of race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, or any of the identity politics issues that typically enrage Antifa and lead them to brand someone attending or speaking a fascist or racist.

Nevertheless, on the day of the event, @EugeneAntifa sent out a tweet, urging students to attend the discussion and "let him [Borrowdale] know it's time for him to go!" The tweet included a photo Borrowdale had previously taken with conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, and described the philosophy instructor as "Young Americans for Liberty sponsor, alt-right, Milo admirer and all around crappy 'instructor'."

Despite protests from Antifa and a few students, Borrowdale tweeted after the event, "I was encouraged by the support I heard for #freespeech at the 'Speak Out' at #Lanecc Huge turn out, too."

Borrowdale is indeed the adviser for the school's Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) chapter. He describes himself as a "bleeding heart libertarian, transhumanist, not a Nazi" and "a trans ally." Antifa never elaborated on what views of Borrowdale's justified its labeling of him as alt-right, other than the Milo photo.

"They've been trying to incite students against me since last fall when someone found the picture I took with Milo on Facebook," he told Campus Reform on November 21.

Since then, Borrowdale said activists have been sending him threatening messages, publishing his personal information on social media, tearing down or defacing fliers for his YAL group and urging students to infiltrate and disrupt YAL meetings.

Photos Borrowdale provided to Reason show YAL posters covered by memes from Antifa members who apparently don't understand the difference between libertarianism and the alt-right. One meme features Sen. Rand Paul with the words "Is Free Market, Dies Anyway." Another is a picture of an Antifa member punching an alt-right figure with the words "Good night, alt-right."

Some students, alleging he is transphobic, have attempted to get him fired, for a multiple choice current events question he asked on one of his midterm exams. "'Did you hear that the leader of this new transgender bathroom ordinance here in Charlotte is a registered sex offender? I'm voting No and so should you.' This argument is an example of:" Students were to choose from three philosophy answers and one clearly sarcastic, wrong answer: "a strong argument that the ordinance will lead to a rise in sexual molestation and assaults.

Borrowdale said he "miskeyed" the clearly sarcastic answer to show up as the correct answer and apologized for the mistake. But that hasn't stopped some students from calling for his head.

One student on the Eugene Antifa Facebook page posted a screenshot, which showed the midterm question with the sarcastic answer marked as "correct," and commented: "I was livid. I brought this to his superiors and filed a formal complaint with the school. The hypocrisy was making me head spin." Another student in the thread argued the school "should address" Borrowdale's "unacceptable and despicable" act. One other expressed regret that he hadn't been fired yet.

If fascism becomes so loosely defined that a "bleeding heart libertarian, transhumanist, not a Nazi" professor can be considered a transphobic fascist and lose his job, then these words have lost their meaning.

NEXT: Former Penn State VP Jailed for Sandusky Child Sex Scandal Gets $300K Annual Pension

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. So engaging in acts of intimidation and threats of violence and vandalism is “overreaching”? Did Al Quada overreach on 911? Did the white nationalists “overreach” when they lunatic ran over those people in Charlottesville?

    These people are fascists and thugs. They didn’t overreach. They did exactly what they always do. Call this stuff what it is. Reason would never soft-peddle these sorts of acts committed by anyone else. So why are they soft peddling it here?

    1. His ideas are violence and it’s reasonable to fight violence with violence.

      1. Antifa are terrorists and fascists. This article sounds like the boyfriend in Forrest Gump. Things just got a little out of hand. It is just with the war and that bastard Trump in the White House things got out of hand.

        What the hell is wrong with Reason some days?

        1. Even worse than fascists. They are communists. Their anti-fascist rhetoric is literally just rehashed Soviet propaganda. Many of them explicitly oppose the concept of private property because it upholds inequality. Not even real fascists go that far.

          1. This, by the way, is why they hate bleeding heart libertarians like this guy. As far as I can tell, a bleeding heart libertarian is one who favors capitalism because it is the best way to improve the welfare of the masses, rather than from principles first. To socialists, this is unthinkable.

            1. Me too. The whole point of classical liberalism is that no one person can ever know what is right or wrong for society. Saying you do is just as bad no matter if your means are government or freedom.

              1. “The whole point of classical liberalism is that no one person can ever know what is right or wrong for society. ”

                Are you fucking nuts? You don’t think that Adam Smith or Thomas Jefferson had strong ideas about what is right and wrong for society? They did, I assure you.

                1. Which part of “the pursuit of happiness” do you not understand? You are missing my point.

                  1. Calm down. Take a stress pill. There have been no antifa perpetrated acts of terror.

                    1. “Calm down. Take a stress pill. There have been no antifa perpetrated acts of terror.” ….because only violence originating the right is an “act of terror”. Antifa will get what it wants, I’m afraid.

                    2. .because only violence originating the right is an “act of terror”.

                      An act of terror is murder of innocents for political reasons. It’s that simple, and has nothing to do with whether you agree with the politics of the perpetrators or not.

              2. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,

                go? to tech tab for work detail,,, http://www.onlinecareer10.com

              3. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

                This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

          2. A Socialist is a Communist is a Fascist is a Nazi. The differences are largely cosmetic. The results are all the same.

      2. If by “his” you mean Prof Barrowdale and not EugeneAntifa, you need a little (or a lot of) education. Ideas are not violence. Neither, on the whole, is speech. The answer to ideas and speech is ideas and speech. If you meant EugeneAntifa, you are still wrong although a little closer to the truth because Antifa does not recognize the difference between speech and violence any more than they recognize the difference between libertarians and the alt.right.

        PS — it is generally a good idea to avoid indefinite antecedents

        1. Your sarcasm meter needs a little tuning. It’s a mockery of the typical left-wing hate speech=violence argument.

        2. I’m pretty sure FoE is mocking the proggy assertion that ideas == violence; that “Anti”fa is using that doublethink as an excuse for actual violence.

      3. His views are valid and need to be heard.

        1. Whether his views are valid or not, they need to be heard.

          1. They don’t need to be heard, but he needs to be free to express them.

    2. It was an odd word choice for the H&R headline. But the actual article doesn’t seem to be “soft-peddling”.

      1. I think it does. Where in the article does the author actually condemn anything Antifa has done other than falsely say this guy is a fascist? The article concludes with

        If fascism becomes so loosely defined that a “bleeding heart libertarian, transhumanist, not a Nazi” professor can be considered a transphobic fascist and lose his job, then these words have lost their meaning.

        Okay. But that seems to be saying that the “overreach” here is calling the wrong guy a fascist. Ah no. The problem here is all of the horrible things that Antifa did to this person. Whether he really is a fascist or not is beside the point.

        1. “The problem here is all of the horrible things that Antifa did to this person. Whether he really is a fascist or not is beside the point.”

          Yep, the implication the author is making is that Antifa’s problem is that they got the wrong guy.

          1. How? How is it possible to come to such a stupid conclusion?

            1. For the ten reasons we just explained. If the author’s objection is what they did, why didn’t he say so? Instead, he wrote a whole article about how they got the wrong guy. It is fair to conclude that he thinks that is the problem here.

        2. I don’t know. I read it as assuming that it goes without saying that Antifa is a bunch of asshole thugs and presenting more evidence that they are also fucking nuts.

          There are two things happening. Andtifa is terrible. And the definitions of the political enemies of the far left are getting ridiculously loose and broad.

          1. the political enemies of the far left are getting ridiculously loose and broad.

            I wish.

          2. Serious, non-conspiratorial question: Who runs Antifa? It’s got to be traceable.

            1. George Soros funds a lot of their activities. I know he throws a lot of coin at Black Lives Matter (about 80% of BLM’s positions are straight from the pages of this magazine. The rest are straight up Commie bullshit).

          3. “ridiculously loose and broad” was my GFs nickname in college.

          4. And the definitions of the political enemies of the far left are getting ridiculously loose and broad.

            And John, of all people, is pointing out that he doesn’t care how ridiculously loose and broad their definitions get.

            Principled vs. Cosmo or bleeding heart libertarianism couldn’t be better crystallized, IMO.

    3. You know who else overreached… into a little girl’s pants?

      1. Whoah, now. That’s a long list these days.

      2. Your boyfriend last night?

      3. Roman Polanski?

      4. Gary Glitter?

        -jcr

    4. > Did Al Quada overreach on 911?

      Al Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11, and there is no physical evidence that indicates that they did.

      Governments lie, did you know that?

  2. Antifa Wants ‘Bleeding Heart Libertarian’ Professor Fired. We’re Not Exactly Sure Why.
    Because he is Libertarian?

    1. Duh, obviously. The left knows who their real enemies are.

  3. Serious question: Did he try taking the Nick Sarwark route and start virtue-signaling or calling other libertarians Nazis?

    He brought it on himself if he won’t even try pandering to the thugs

  4. He did make the mistake of having his picture taken with Milo Yiannopoulos.

    To be sure, that is arguably beyond the pale

    1. If he didn’t want this to happen to him, he should have worn a longer skirt. That is really all the author is saying here.

        1. *sigh*

          No better than yours, I’m afraid

      1. I don’t get the rabid hatred people have for Milo Yiannopoulos. I’ve watched a few of his youtube videos and he seems well spoken and an effective rhetorician, even if he is extremely provocative. I think I’m comparing him to Ann Coulter, who to me seems provocative just for provocation’s sake, and to get Team Red partisans fired up. I feel like Yiannopoulos says provocative things to get people to think.

        If anyone has links that demonstrate he’s clearly LITERALLY HITLER like everyone says, please share. When I searched in the past the best article I found said “well he was at the same speaking event as one very racist guy, therefore, literally hitler”.

        1. He isn’t literally Hitler, but he is, as you say, intensely provocative, so why would you have trouble understanding why some hate him?

          Also, “severe myopia,” which is a hilariously pathetic excuse.

          1. intensely provocative

            Please give an example of ‘intensely provocative’ rather than merely ‘sometimes says things that drives extremely-lefty college kids into conniption’

            (which is obviously “anything”, given their easily-triggered nature)

            for instance: if i were to say
            – “there are only 2 genders”
            – “its okay to be white”

            neither of those statements is objectively even ‘slightly provocative’ among any cross-section of normal-adult, healthy, average people. To claim they justify public outrage would – again, in normal circumstances – be absurd.

            So I’m curious what ranks as “intensely” provocative.

            1. i think the intended listeners for his remarks are extremely-lefty college kids. The intent is to intensely provoke them. That his comments (or your hypotheticals) wouldn’t cause a fit among normal-adult, healthy, average people is irrelevant… because they aren’t the targets of the provocation.

              At the local antifa rallies in SF, suggesting that is perfectly reasonable/acceptable to attack/injure/kill a Trump supporter wouldn’t be terribly provocative. Doing it while a guest on FoxNews would be.

        2. He does a thing I find somewhat annoying where he says very inflammatory things and if someone questions him on it he falls back on the “just joking, have a sense of humor.” It’s just a boring stance to take. Particularly as they often don’t function well as jokes.

          The comparison to Ann Coulter is probably apt, though she might be better informed.

          1. So he does a riff on John Stewart’s “just a comedian” schtick. That never upset anyone before.

        3. They hate him because he’s fairly adept at poking holes in their precious worldview.

          -jcr

    2. Free minds, free markets.

      Free association?

      Notsomuch.


  5. He describes himself as a “bleeding heart libertarian, transhumanist, not a Nazi” and “a trans ally.”

    So, in short, a loony toon?

    1. I am a trans ally. Sorry, being a once loyal member of the party does not mean you can’t be declared an enemy of the people now.

      1. It’s not that, necessarily. In particular I’m looking at the ‘bleeding heart libertarian’ and ‘transhumanist’ bits, which would require more explanation from the guy but at face value could indicate he’s a nutter.

        1. Imagine how confusing it must be for these people to meet someone named Cecily. “You’re a cis ally?! Burn her!” Or if they everbtravel to Sicily. There’s definitely an Abbott and Costello home to be written here.

          1. I’m on it!!

      2. Apostates are always pursued the most vigorously.

        1. +1 Martin Luther Excommunication.

  6. Borrowdale is indeed the adviser for the school’s Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) chapter. He describes himself as a “bleeding heart libertarian, transhumanist, not a Nazi” and “a trans ally.” Antifa never elaborated on what views of Borrowdale’s justified its labeling of him as alt-right, other than the Milo photo

    So if the guy were “alt right”, whatever that is, the things Antifa would be okay? The problem here is that Antifa is terrorizing the wrong guy not that Antifa is terrorizing and trying to destroy the career of someone for thinking the wrong things?

    Really? Is that the official reason libertarian answer?

    1. I’m not sure the author thought through it like that.

      The headline about going too far and the disclaimers about him not being alt right might suggest your interpretation.

      But a charitable interpretation would be that the author is saying “look at these violent crazy antifas, unmoored from reality.”

      I presume if they were attacking an actual Nazi, the author would say “this is the wrong way to deal with offensive speech like that of the Nazi.”

      But here the victim is not a Nazi at all, a point which needs clarifying in order to show how screwed up these so-called antifas are, not only in their zeal for violence and repression, but in their disconnection from reality, as least reality as defined by normal people.

      1. The charitable interpretation would be compelling were it not for the soft peddling headline and the description of his photo with Milo as “a mistake”. At some point, people lose the benefit of the doubt.

        1. I read the word “mistake” as obvious sarcasm.

        2. I read the word “mistake” as obvious sarcasm.

          1. so did the squirrelz

      2. Yeah, I think the right way to interpret it is saying that Antifa are both thuggish assholes and disconnected from reality.

        Also, stating reasons why people might do things is not making excuses for their actions.

        1. Except that the author never bothers to say they are thuggish assholes and only expresses concern over their wrongly calling this guy a Nazi.

        2. The significant story here is the horrible things they did to this guy for the crime of being associated with the wrong person. The author, however, sees this story as being about how Antifa calls anyone and everyone Nazis. No, the problem isn’t’ that Antifa calls everyone Nazis. The problem is they terrorize anyone they don’t like. That is why this article is so bad.

      3. I’m not sure an author who fails think this episode “through like that” has any business writing for an ostensibly libertarian publication.

        Other than as a means to a real gig at Salon or Huffpo, that is.

    2. Is your ass sore after pulling that ridiculous conclusion out of it?

      1. Why is that conclusion ridiculous? If the fact that the guy isn’t Alt Right is not relevant, why mention it? And if it is relevant, why is it relevant other than to say that if he were Antifa’s actions would be more justified?

        What makes you think it is a ridiculous conclusion other than you don’t like it? I understand you are a fan boy. But that doesn’t mean that everything reason publishes is okay.

        1. Damn, dude. The deep end missed you until just now.

          1. Let me ask you again. Where in the article does the author express any objection to the actions of Antifa other than wrongly labeling this guy a Nazi? Tell me where he ever does anything but blandly describe their acts of intimidation and then conclude how the problem here is that they wrongly called this guy a Nazi?

            You want to make a claim explain it. If you can’t explain it, admit you are wrong and move on, Calling me names is just admitting I am right and you don’t like it. I find that flattering but would prefer you would be more polite and just concede the point.

            1. *facepalm*

              Remember last week when you were ranting about how not attacking someone isn’t the same as defending someone? Because people were calling you out for defending Roy Moore? And you flew into a rage defending yourself? And you made a comment which I said was good but you should hold yourself to the same standard? Remember that?

              Your fucking crazy blow-up that “reason” is somehow defending Antifa is ridiculous.

              1. He is attacking antifa here. And his choice of how he attacks says something about what he thinks is wrong with Antifa. As I say below, f the cops shot some unarmed guy and I wrote an article about how the cops need to learn to track down actually guilty people in response, how could you not conclude that I was saying it would have been okay for the cops to shoot the guy if only he had been guilty of something? Same thing here.

                You don’t see that way because there is no doubt you will not give reason. That is nice and it is good they have fans I guess.

                1. No more, I give up. Your hate for them is too overwhelming. You can’t be bothered to give them the benefit of the doubt on anything ever. Enjoy your crazy rants, you clearly have some sympathizers in the audience.

                  1. Yeah sparky, it is just irrational to have a problem with an article that describes Antifa terrorism as “overreach”. One of us is irrational here but it is not who you think.

                  2. I’d believe Antifa doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. In Portland and Seattle they come to metal shows and mace or jump random attendees just for going to a WrongThink show. In their mind they really believe everyone is a secret nazi and the only way to combat that is to beat people up with zero evidence. I had 3 antifa guys try to start a fight with me at a Vektor show, who don’t have any remotely political lyrics or take political stances in their private lives.

              2. Nice strawman you got there.

                Pointing out that Reason is failing to defend freedom of thought and freedom of association from Antifa assault may not exactly be ‘defending Antifa,’ but it’s still a failure to properly address the issue.

                ” Antifa members who apparently don’t understand the difference between libertarianism and the alt-right.”

                As. If. That. Fucking. Matters.

                Calling it mere ‘overreach’ being the jewel in the crown of failure.

        2. If the fact that the guy isn’t Alt Right is not relevant, why mention it?

          Because it provides context and makes Antifa look even more deranged and stupid. The fact that they are so disconnected from reality that their targets aren’t even the sorts of people that they claim to want to target.

          Why do you think they mentioned it?

          1. Because it provides context and makes Antifa look even more deranged and stupid.

            No because it is the entire point of the article. We know that because the author tells us in his conclusion. He states

            If fascism becomes so loosely defined that a “bleeding heart libertarian, transhumanist, not a Nazi” professor can be considered a transphobic fascist and lose his job, then these words have lost their meaning.

            The point here is that Antifa wrongly called this guy a Nazi not that anything they did was necessarily wrong. If the author thought what they did other than wrongly called this guy a Nazi was wrong, then he would have said so. He, however, didn’t do that. He never says their actions were the problem. He just describes them. The problem, as he tells us in both his conclusion and in the headline, is that Antifa, “overreached” by calling the wrong person a Nazi.

            I see no reason to read anything else into the article other than what it says or any reason to think the author has a problem with what Antifa did when he never says so.

            1. I see no reason to read anything else into the article other than what it says or any reason to think the author has a problem with what Antifa did when he never says so.

              Then why are you reading excuses for Antifa into the article?

              1. Because John has so many chips on his shoulder you could build a log cabin with all of them.

      2. It wouldn’t be the first time someone excused antifa’s actions because they were just going after the “wrong person.” It was worth calling out.

        1. THE GUY TOOK A PICTURE WITH SOMEONE! A PICTURE!

          Do I have to spell it out for you: he’s a NAZI!

          He’s probably never even been published in the NYT

          1. I got a letter to the editor published in the NYT back during the Bush administration.

        2. Except no one excused Antifa’s actions. It’s a story about a particular incident. One where their victim wasn’t even what they claimed he was. There is nothing in there to suggest that the same tactics would be just fine if the victim was actually “alt-right” (whatever that is).

          1. Except no one excused Antifa’s actions.

            Other than wrongfully calling this guy a Nazi, none of Antifa’s actions were condemned either. So why do you assume he condemns them? The author wrote an article about Antifa terrorizing some professor and he described it as “Antifa overreaching”, describes how the guy is not a Nazi, and concludes with saying that Antifa is destroying the meaning of fascist.

            If the author’s problem here was with the actions Antifa took rather than with who they took them against, why did he not say so and why did he make his article about how they got the wrong guy?

            Think of it this way, if the cops shot some unarmed guy and I wrote an article about how the cops need to learn to track down actually guilty people in response, how could you not conclude that I was saying it would have been okay for the cops to shoot the guy if only he had been guilty of something? Same thing here.

            1. This is why I knew you wouldn’t be able to follow your own rule. You truly are hopeless.

              1. You are an idiot Sparky. No one is accusing him of defending Antifa. There is no question he is attacking Antifa. What we are accusing him of is excusing Antifa’s violence and thinking that the problem with Antifa is that they attacked the wrong person not that they are violent and nasty.

                I am absolutely abiding by my rule. You are just too dumb or too dishonest to see it. That is your problem, not mine.

              2. You two deserve eachother

            2. Nothing in the article excuses Antifa, though. Why would you assume that not condemning means excusing? Antifa is not a popular group, even among the left. I feel like its a safe assumption that an article published in a libertarian-ish magazine presumes that everyone already knows how awful Antifa is.

              1. Why would I assume that? Because if he did have a problem with it, why would he be so concerned with whether the guy is really a fascist as charged? It goes back to my police example. If someone’s only concern or chief concern when writing about that incident was how the guy was innocent and not how he was unarmed and there was no reason to shoot him, it is fair to say that their problem is that the cops shot the wrong guy not that they shot someone at all.

              2. Consider the following hypothetical Zeb. Police in Cleveland are looking for a robbery suspect and pull over the wrong guy. The guy is unarmed, responds to every command but the cops shoot him and kill him anyway. I then write an article headlined “Police in Cleveland Overreach” and after matter of factly describing the facts and pointing out how the guy wasn’t the robber conclude with saying “If guilt becomes so loosely defined that anyone resembling a suspect is now guilty, then these words have lost their meaning.

                Wouldn’t it be fair to conclude that my problem with the police’s actions is that they pulled over the wrong guy and not with the fact that they shot an unarmed man? I think so. And if it is there, how is it not also fair here?

  7. “a trans ally.”

    That begs the question of how you help out a trans person. If someone you care about insists they’re a different sex and is contemplating some kind of bodily mutilation, what do you say to that person as a friend and ally?

    1. I think it’s the people who care least about “trans persons” who are most inclined to social-signal and protect themselves from charges of “phobia,” even if that means encouraging self-harming and delusional behavior.

      1. Whatever. Next your going to tell me that all those celebrities that call themselves ‘feminist allies’ are really just serial sexual abusers.

    2. “Get psychiatric help.”

    3. Maybe mind your own business unless they are asking you for medical/psychiatric advice and don’t be a dick?

      1. Friends are known for never talking about personal stuff with their friends. Genius play.

        1. Zeb is right, though, in the sense of if you don’t know the person very well. Eddie might be asking about a close friend how do you advise them, which is a different more personal determination.

          Overall, though, it’s best to not impose judgement on people we don’t know. I only wish that the same courtesy would be extended to people who oppose pee pee laws mandating bathroom usage and gender pronoun laws.

      2. I suppose if they don’t bring it up “because I know what *you’d* say,” then yes, maybe don’t mention it.

    4. The same way you are a friend and ally to anyone else. Don’t call them mentally ill body mutilators for starters.

      1. What if you happen to have a friend who *is* mentally ill? In your circles it’s not impossible, you know.

      2. So if one of your dear friends wanted to do something you considered a form of egregious self harm (surely you comprehend why some would see slicing one’s penis in half and inverted, and being pumped full of hormones unnecessarily would qualify), you’d just say, “go for it, to each his own”, and no more?

    5. Provided that this person is a close friend and asked me for my opinion, and I’m not butting in to a situation where I’m not invited, I would counsel this person just like anyone else who is considering making a life-changing decision. Think carefully about it, get many opinions, don’t do this rashly or impulsively, and I’ll support your choice either way.

  8. Antifa never elaborated on what views of Borrowdale’s justified its labeling of him as alt-right, other than the Milo photo.

    He’s not a fascist, so naturally the fascists hate him.

    -jcr

    1. Yup. If the fascist lefties are calling someone a Nazi or fascist, I immediately can conclude that the target person is not what the lefties claim.

  9. Perhaps the most striking difference between social justice warriors and libertarians is that social justice warriors are all about the righteousness of their favorite victims and the awfulness of the their most hated villains.

    Libertarians shouldn’t play by those rules.

    Show me a floppy-eared bunny with big sad eyes, and my position on liberty and justice doesn’t change one iota.

    This professor is being treated unfairly regardless of whether he’s transphobic or fascist. That he’s neither has very little to do with it. Both ethics and justice obligate us to respect other people’s rights, and ganging up on someone to intimidate them because of what they say is both unethical and unjust–regardless of whether the person in question is transphobic or fascist or communist or a heterophobe.

    Let’s stop playing the game by the social justice warrior’s rules. It’s their twisted unethical and unjust rules that are the root of the problem, and when we play by their rules–by pointing out that the person they’re abusing isn’t really guilty–we’re actually vouching for the legitimacy of their sick rules, whether we intend to or not.

    Child murderers have a right to a trial by jury. Despicable jackholes have a right to free speech.

    1. In general absolutely. I would hope that if that white nationalist Spencer guy faced censorship, Reason would be denouncing the censors.

      But if it happens that the victim isn’t a spence and it *is* a bunny with floppy ears whom the antifa targeted…why not capitalize on antifa’s mistake to show the, shall we say, unreliability of their whole worldview?

      1. In fact, I believe I’ve said that universities should *force* students to debate controversial issues, which in some cases would mean inviting Spencer to defend racial separatism. Then the top students and faculty (not the SJWs with their silly slogans) would prepare rebuttals and students would learn how not to freak out when faced with an omg horrible opinion that’s offensive.

        1. Note – since Spencer seems to be a master debater and first-class troll, only the college’s top debate champions should be given the privilege of matching wits with him, otherwise he’d just run circles around a bunch of stuttering sophomores muttering about white privilege.

          Confront him on how “realistic” it is to make the USA white-based – how much of a police state would we need to enslave/deport/degrade the nonwhites? And if different nations deserve their own ethno-states, should the African nations banish or enslave their whites and Asians? How does that work out?

          Don’t forget to draw some subtle contrasts between the intellectual caliber of the Spencerites and the successful nonwhites – and do some research.

          With proper preparation, many of these “dangerous” speakers turn out to be regular, beatable guys (“beat” in the sense of defeat in debate, of course).

          (Then hold a debate on capitalism v. communism, but maybe (no offense) get better capitalist spokespeople than the Reason staff.)

        2. The problem you’d have is that if you got Richard spencer together with leftwing professors and had them talk about racial separatism, they would both agree with eachother.

    2. “Perhaps the most striking difference between social justice warriors and libertarians is that social justice warriors are all about the righteousness of their favorite victims and the awfulness of the their most hated villains.”

      That’s because SJW’s are drama whores with borderline personality disorder or something, while Libertarians are emotionless robots. Which I mean in a good way.

      Though this new generation of “libertarian writers” around here have me concerned, given how they keep getting all outraged at the latest hip outragey topics (like irrelevant stuff Trump said). But I tell myself it’s a cynical ploy to gain readership and ergo $$.

      1. I think the SJWs see the whole world through that lens of righteous victims and the villains who prey upon them. Once they decide which is which, every other consideration does out the window.

        Through that lens, there really is no difference between standing up for free speech and standing up for bigots–which is why reinforcing the view through their lens adds to the problem and breaking that lens is the solution.

        Yeah, SJWs, you are obligated to respect the rights of bunny hating villains. What’s happening to this guy isn’t unjustified because his views aren’t as advertised. It would be unjustified even if his views were exactly as advertised.

        1. One can still see standing up for free speech as standing up for bigots and feel it is the right thing to do.

          But if it isn’t just righteous victims versus villains, but you are projecting your own personal emotional pain and angst, which you cannot control because you are mentally unstable. Then you get the SJW shrieking in rage about someone’s off-color joke.

  10. Not that the following is what’s going on here, necessarily, but free speech warriors who won’t stand up for free speech unless it’s for a falsely accused, floppy eared bunny with big, sad eyes, should be called out as cucks.

    Stand up for your own free speech rights if that’s all you can do, but those are your free speech rights the SJWs are coming after when they go after homophobes and fascists. Contrary to what the social justice warriors believe, there is no difference between the free speech rights of their favorite victims and and the free speech rights of their most hated villains.

    What we say may be different, but our right to say it is all the same thing.

  11. This professor should consider civil action against anyone who’s defamed him with malice and caused him damages.

    The Second Amendment doesn’t protect our right to indiscriminately shoot people. It protects our right to choose to bear arms. We can still be held accountable if we choose to use our gun to violate someone’s rights. The Second Amendment doesn’t protect bank robbery.

    The First Amendment works the same way. The First Amendment doesn’t give us the right to violate someone’s rights through perjury or fraud or any other form of rights violating speech. Demonstrate malice (which amounts to mens rea in defamation) and damages to a jury by a preponderance of the evidence, and getting a remedy in civil court from someone who violated your rights with speech is a perfectly libertarian thing to do.

  12. Antifa should choose their targets more carefully when they threaten them with violence and intimidation.

    1. NYT: “That’s a good point. Print this!”

  13. And I thought “ShaNayNay” and “Keisha” were stupid names.

    Next thing I know, half the inner city girls are going around calling each other “Antifa”.

    What ever happened to normal names like “Mary” and “Sarah”?

  14. “Dan King is an advocate for Young Voices and a journalist living in Arlington, Virginia”

    A journalist? I don’t think so. Journalists present both sides of the issue.

    1. Did you even read the article Trueman? He did present the reasons Antifa are calling for the prof’s head and none of them will make themselves available for an interview since their whole thing is to remain anonymous.

      1. “Did you even read the article Trueman? ”

        Yes. Did you read the part where the writer contacted and interviewed those opposing the professor? There’s nothing new or special for to a journalist to deal with an anonymous source. It’s done all the time. Why you would want to defend the shoddy standards here at Reason, I just don’t know. I’m honestly shocked, NoVaNick. You’ve always struck my as a pseudonymous commenter of unpeckable integrity.

        1. You’ve always struck my as a pseudonymous commenter of unpeckable integrity.

          Thanks and my apologies- I was in a grumpy mood yesterday…

    2. The tone of the article triggering you a little there?

      Maybe Dan doesn’t want to be stalked and terrorized by those assholes.

      1. Shitty journalism is shitty. I’m not interested in why it’s shitty. There are always excuses.

        1. So every story about ISIS or Bin Laden that doesn’t include an interview giving their side is shitty journalism? I mean I guess that would make it a hell of an article and all. But kind of a high standard.

          Face it though, you’re made because libertarian writer sided with libertarian instructor against commies. I’m sure he’s biased too, but it doesn’t bother me quite as much apparently.

          1. “So every story about ISIS or Bin Laden that doesn’t include an interview giving their side is shitty journalism?”

            Yes, isn’t that obvious? This lack accounts in part for the awful coverage of the various wars America is engaged in.

          2. “Face it though, you’re made because libertarian writer sided with libertarian instructor against commies. I’m sure he’s biased too, but it doesn’t bother me quite as much apparently.”

            My emotions don’t play any part of this. The writer doesn’t appear to have contacted any of the parties and relies solely on social media. Too lazy to get on the phone and actually talk to anyone, even though it would add texture and maybe even drama to an otherwise humdrum news story. I don’t ask you be bothered by shitty journalism. I ask that you recognize it.

            1. mtrueman|11.30.17 @ 5:40PM|#
              “My emotions don’t play any part of this….”

              Neither is what is mistaken for your brain, you idiot.

              1. The shitty commenter trying to defend the shitty journalist.

  15. Don’t community colleges have conduct codes where the students who threatened him can be expelled or arrested? Or are these turds not even students but bussed in outside agitators?

    1. Anyone who embarrasses the university is an outside agitator, haven’t you read the manual? It’s never the actual students doing this stuff.

      /sarc

  16. Antifa Wants ‘Bleeding Heart Libertarian’ Professor Fired. We’re Not Exactly Sure Why.

    Huh? Is this meant to be a joke? Since when has antifa not been against “leading heart libertarian[s]”?

    If fascism becomes so loosely defined that a “bleeding heart libertarian, transhumanist, not a Nazi” professor can be considered a transphobic fascist and lose his job, then these words have lost their meaning.

    OK, how long have you been living under that rock?

    While I applaud the sentiment, I’m not sure what the purpose of this piece is except to illustrate your na?vet?. So-callled “antifa”, short for anti-first-amendment, has long called fascism and fascist anything and anyone they don’t like. The reference to “Nazis” is just a demonization tactic, and has nothing to do with actual Nazis.

    Still, I bet it’s nicer and warmer underneath that rock than out here in the real world.

  17. “So-callled “antifa”, short for anti-first-amendment, has long called fascism and fascist anything and anyone they don’t like. The reference to “Nazis” is just a demonization tactic, and has nothing to do with actual Nazis.”

    Exactly.

    1. It’s the Russian nickname given to German National Socialists by Soviet International Socialists. It does help underscore the huge differences between looters who love Jesus (and hate Jews) and looters who doubt Jesus ever existed (but hate Jews just to be on the safe side). Socialists must be really fun people to hang with.

  18. Cosmotarian suddenly realizes that antifa doesn’t like cosmotarians either, no matter how much they virtue signal

  19. re: “If fascism becomes so loosely defined that a “bleeding heart libertarian, transhumanist, not a Nazi” professor can be considered a transphobic fascist and lose his job, then these words have lost their meaning.”

    The *point* of lots of what passes as “anti-fascist” activity these days is precisely to make words lose their meaning.

  20. For starters, the correct expression is “politically communistic.” With that in mind, the motives of bureaucratic socialists who divide all humanity into religious fascists and Soviet good guys become easier to surmise.

  21. Ignore them. Kick them out. Never apologize.

  22. Just spitballing here, but I think it’s because they’re a bunch of fucking shitheads.

  23. Yes, you do know why. The left doesn’t want any political opponents. The left’s philosophy doesn’t even have to make sense. They are what they do, and what they do is fight everything they consider to be a threat.

  24. This is another example of how colleges are making themselves irrelevant to education. The more of this nonsense that occurs, the less interested that serious students will be in “college” education.

    PG

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.