Cancel Culture

Alabama Dean Resigns After Conservative Snowflakes Publicize His Old Tweets

Right-wing cancel culture comes for Jamie Riley, who dared to criticize the American flag.


Fainting-couch conservatism strikes again: A University of Alabama dean of students is out of a job after conservative media dug up some of his old tweets.

Jamie Riley had dared to criticize the American flag and the police, writing in 2017 that they represent "a systemic history of racism for my people."

Breitbart decided that this and other tweets of Riley's merited an article. Reporter Kyle Morris wrote that "a series of resurfaced tweets from Dr. Jamie R. Riley, the University of Alabama's assistant vice president and dean of students, show he once believed the American flag and police in America are racist." But the tweets didn't just resurface on their own—they were publicized by the right-wing news site in order to send a social media mob after Riley.

Just 24 hours later, Riley lost his job. The Crimson White reports:

Jackson Fuentes, press secretary for the UA Student Government Association, confirmed at 4:15 p.m. that Riley is no longer working at the University.

"For us right now, basically all I can tell you is that the University and Dr. Riley have mutually agreed to part ways," Fuentes said. "So yeah, that's true, and we do wish him the best."

In an email at 5:03 p.m., assistant director of the Division of Strategic Communications Chris Bryant released an official statement on behalf of the University confirming Riley's resignation.

"Dr. Jamie Riley has resigned his position at The University of Alabama by mutual agreement," Bryant said in the email. "Neither party will have any further comments."

It seems clear that it was bad publicity from Breitbart that got Riley terminated. This was an entirely foreseeable consequence of writing such an article.

Many pundits on the right constantly inveigh against cancel culture: the drive to shame, punish, and ultimately destroy people for having said something trivially offensive at some point. Comedian Dave Chapelle torched cancel culture in his recent Netflix special, and conservatives applauded. The clip of Chapelle scornfully imitating cancellers has been all over right-leaning media for the last two weeks.

I very much agree that cancel culture is bad. (In fact, it's one of the main themes of my book.) But as long as the right is perfectly willing to enforce its own version of political correctness, it is difficult to to believe that they really agree in principle that you shouldn't do this kind of thing. If you only defend the cancelled when you agree with them, then you're not actually against cancelling. You're just protecting your tribe.

Conservatives, please condemn Breitbart for this hit job and demand the immediate reinstatement of James Riley.


NEXT: Teen Witnesses to 9/11 Reminisce About the Horrors They Saw That Day

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Awe to bad the left can dish it out but they can’t take it. they made these rules that we play by now

    1. Congratulations. You have become that which you hate.

      1. In war one must become a warrior

        1. You are now a warrior in the social justice war.

          1. No, warriors to exterminate SJWs.

            1. Yes, a warrior for justice in the social arena.

              1. No, someone to get rid of them.

        2. I think that this is a tempest in a teapot. There is no doubt that Critical Race Theory and other silly Marxist based theories have dominated the College landscape pretending to be real scholarship which like Climate Change is beyond debate. This academic is just another mediocre talent parading his bankrupt ideology around this campus. Since Colleges/Universities really do not practice free market principles and are largely funded by the taxpayers we should have a right to decide who teaches there and who doesn’t. Again at least for State run schools we are paying the often bloated salaries of these so called scholars. This isn’t a 1st amendment case. Rather it is a case of a professor whose personal philosophy has trumped his ability to remain necessarily neutral in his professional life

          1. That “bankrupt” ideology currently has a lot of influence and political capital right now. As much as I’d like it to learn from it’s mistakes, that’s not how collectives work. Individuals (the smart ones) can learn from their mistakes, but collectives cannot.

        3. Warrior snowflake.

      2. Actually the more this stuff happens the sooner this crap will stop when everyone get sick of it. And when everyone quits using social media, which is a win win for everyone.

        1. Exactly. But Reason writers will only tolerate the intolerance from the left. Never any intolerance inflicted upon the left.

          1. Yes I don’t understand why Reason has no problem with the countless stories of Universities trampling on the rights of those advocating free speech but get their panties in a wad over some mediocre professor who had no problem spreading his silly Critical Race Theory all over Social Media and suddenly had to be held accountable. We are entitled to freedom of speech but as the left reminds us there is always a price to pay and we have to accept responsibility for that.

      3. Nonsense. The Left made the rules; anybody who ever says anything anyone objects to can be lynched. The only way to bring that idiocy to a screeching halt is to play by the same rules, and then mock the Left when they complain.

        1. The left has written articles about it, basically bleating, “Oh no, they are weaponizing our own tactics against us!”

          I didn’t vote for Trump, but I do recall when he won, some on the left panicked and wondered rhetorically, “What if they start doing to us what we did to them?”…now that the power has shifted.

          That suggests they realize it is a dirty tactic, something Reason and many others are against.

    2. “He who fights monsters must take care he does not become a monster.”
      — Nietzsche

      1. A warrior is not a monster he is only one who can do what others are incapable of doing. Copyright Ron

        1. A warrior is not a monster he is only one who can do what others are incapable of doing.

          If the warrior is capable because he has no conscience then the warrior can become a monster.

          See for example Napoleon Bonaparte abandoning his long-suffering troops on their disastrous retreat in Russia & scurrying back to France to arrange more glorious deaths for more French youth.

        2. you’re not fucking odysseus, go to therapy

      2. “You got your pussies, your assholes and your dicks. Sometimes you gotta be a dick.”

      3. He who fights monsters must fight like a monster.


    3. As my mother used to say “and if Jimmie jumped off a bridge would you jump too?”

      Actually I probably woulda. “I don’t know mom. What if I were being chased by a bear? Or the bridge was on fire? I mean how high is the bridge anyway? Jimmie looks ok, see he is swimming to shore and waving to me. I’m going.”

      So maybe that is not the best analogy. The Nietzsche thing was better.

    4. Gosh Robbie since when does holding someone accountable for what they tweeted become such a horrific enterprise. I guess because this Critical Race Theory espousing professor is a Black Marxist that it is okay. I am not sure where Reason is going witrh this but I thought Libertarianism was about accepting personal responsibility. Breitbart had every right to publish the public tweets of an public employee who held a very public position. I guess it must be it offends poor Robbie’s progressive sensitive nature. Since it was a tweet at least we know that Breitbart didn’t go all the back to this guys middle school year book. That is something only a progressive would think of doing. I understand there was no huge campaign to have him fired in fact he resigned… Maybe he was fearful of retribution from the campus police. What a farce!

      1. This seems to be a major temperamental difference between more left libertarianism and right. It’s a selfish desire that oneself or favored people shouldn’t be infringed in what they do nor face the natural consequences thereof. It’s why I think the right is a more natural fit with functional libertarianism because there is a core of personal responsibility and accountability.
        However, this is me giving Robby more credit than he deserves. He’s sympathetic to most leftist causes even if he occasionally shines a little light on some of the wrong things they do

    5. While I agree this is a pleasant turn of events, for real satisfaction we need other leftists inventions – the guillotine, the Gulag, the killing fields – to be visited upon the spiritual descendants of those who invented them.

  2. What goes around, comes around.

    1. As the 70s left used to say “Everything is connected.”

  3. No one here is a snowflake. They just did to him what he would and likely has done to other people. They wanted these rules

    1. So you’re not one of those condemning it when the left does it? I might be able to dig up one of your old posts on the subject.

      1. No, don’t you get it? It’s the left’s fault the right is doing this.

        1. Robert Bork’s nomination was 32 years ago.
          Rs ran out of patience around year 30 of not fighting back

        2. Yeah Chippie, the left can run wild, but got forbid a conservative ever hits back, right?

      2. They DID do it, though. Only way to make changes is to make them suffer under their rules.

        Are these rules idiotic? Yup. Did the Right create them or propogate them? No.

        1. Are you sure the right didn’t start this? Maybe not with tweets but this behavior goes back as far as I can remember (before Internet). It was just harder to do.

          1. Cain was a Left-winger.

            Case closed.

            1. True dat
              He tried a vegan sacrifice, and YHWH was like,”mmmMMMmmm, what is that Abel is burning?”

          2. Yeah, remember, it was “are you now OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN?”

        2. It is just sooooo unfair to hold the left to the same standards they willfully inflict upon everyone else.

          1. In a way, yes. They unabashedly admit they have different standards for different people—or rather, different “identities”—so it would be wrong to accuse them of hypocrisy for having double standards.

      3. He can do it but as the progs remind us you must own it and accept responsibility for it.

    2. They just did to him what he would and likely has done to other people.

      Note how you don’t actually know whether “he would and likely has” done this to other people, yet you are cheering this on anyway.

      1. Notice how you are a fucking moron who completely misses the point.

        You are nothing if not consistent

      2. Notice that he wasn’t fired, he resigned.

        In my book, that makes HIM the “snowflake”. If the old tweets weren’t any big deal, he could have said so and kept his job.

        1. The Reason author and the rest of the progs here apparently believe he left under pressure. All due to Breitbart’s horrific brand of McCarthyism style journalism.

    3. It’s the Golden Rule.

  4. 1) His only job was to be a non-embarassing black guy with a “Dr.” before his name. Of course he can’t keep his job when he’s doing the Sean King thing on twitter.

    2) That picture is the wrong university.

    1. Remember the prime directive at Reason – the picture must NEVER directly relate to the article/opinion/rant.

    2. At least this guy was a POC unlike TalcumX aka Sean (I’m To Fly For A White Guy) King.

  5. On one hand, cancel culture is deeply stupid.

    On the other, play stupid games win stupid prizes. The left made their bed, they can lay in it.

  6. Yes, this sort of thing should not be done.

    However, make both sides live by the same rules may be the effective strategy for getting the progressives to stand down.

    1. That depends on how the progressives this. Some possibilities:

      1) “Black racists are as bad as Donald Trump, so this guy should resign just like Trump should!”

      2) “This is totally different because it shows conservatives are hypocrites,” etc.

      3) “This is totally different because he wasn’t harassing vulnerable populations like trans people or POC”

      4) “This is totally different because the flag and the cops *are* actually racist.”

      And way back at the bottom on the list is option #5:

      5) “Cancel culture has done its work and now that the conservatives are using it, it’s time to put an end to this movement.”

  7. It’s only wrong when the left does it.

    1. Who do you have in mind? I don’t remember conservatives defending white supremacists fired from non-academic, public facing positions.

      1. True enough, but that’s mostly because most conservatives are sackless wonders. If they actually had any principals, and some balls to go with them, they should have.

        1. I don’t recall anyone starting a campaign to sack this guy if I did then you may have a point. The left started these silly “let’s dredge up every detail of your life all the way back to middle school hijinks. Please your phony outrage is really tiresome. This Professor exposed himself as a CRT nitwit not fit for educating.

          1. This wasn’t even middle school. That “old” tweet was from 2017.

    2. Yea, you and Robby would condemn the poor Pole in Auschwitz who shoves a guard into the showers in the strongest possible terms

    3. No, it’s only wrong when the right does it.

      When the left does it, it’s a “shame” and a “misfire.”

      1. Or a ‘counter productive tactic’ because it ‘feeds the Right’s perception that they’re being persecuted’.

  8. Maybe the conservatives simply ran out of patience. Did you consider that?

    For my own part, I wish the whole thing would stop and I would hope that maybe folks on the Left would take this as a learning experience and perhaps revisit the social justice mobbing they love so much. I don’t expect it though. I also don’t expect conservatives to keep meekly taking it without fighting back. The only way this stops is if everybody stops.

    1. Yes. Exactly
      About 30 years after Bork, and 30 years of Bush/McCain/Romney Sit Back and Take It “gentlemanliness”

    2. That is basically Breitbart’s position from the beginning under Andrew. He was very familiar with their tactics; he even set up Huffington Post. Use the Progressives tactics against them instead of whining.

  9. 1) Yeah, principles went out of vogue a long time ago. Identitarians have turned ideology into a war of attrition. The right is just fighting fire with fire.
    2) Fainting-couch conservatism strikes again
    Jesus fucking Christ, Robby…

    1. There certainly are no “to be sures” found in this article.

      1. Heh. True, but he can still choose to forgo the hyperbole.

        1. On these types of articles, Soave invariably describes the conservative, whether target or accuser, in disparaging terms, the progressive in sympathetic or at least neutral terms. It is almost funny.

          1. Well, he wants to get invited to those cocktail parties.

          2. It’s the Shackford style.

      2. Oh, Mickey, Mickey, Mickey. You missed a golden opportunity here.

        You should have wrote “To be sure, there are no ‘to be sures’ found in this article”.

        Now go read every Reason article listed under the “immigration” tag as punishment.

        1. Mea culpa.

          1. I appeal for my 8th Amendment rights on the penance, however.

      3. Both Sides?

    2. Fainting-couch conservatism strikes again
      Jesus fucking Christ, Robby…

      Are you deeply offended? Feeling a bit woozy?

      1. Are your hands tired from clutching those pearls?

        1. They’re called beads and they’re much bigger than pearls. You probably think they’re small because your asshole is so prolapsed.

    3. The thing about wars is that somebody else can involve you in one without your consent. And at that point, you either fight or lose.

      Reason prefers “lose” here.

  10. Jesus, going all the way back to 2017 to dig up some old tweets from when this guy was just some stupid kid spouting some stupid shit? Why can’t we just let ancient history remain ancient history?

    1. +1

    2. I think the words you were looking for were “credible allegations.” I hear that adjective makes everything true.

    3. Damn that wasn’t a drip but a flood of sarcasm!
      Well done!!!

    4. I read that comment with [saracsm][/sarcasm] tags.
      Looking at the stale, ancient tweets …

      Jamie R. Riley, PhD

      Are movies about slavery truly about educating the unaware, or to remind Black people of our place in society?
      12:29 AM – 10/8/16

      The [American] flag represents a systemic history of racism for my people. Police are a part of that system. Is it that hard to see the correlation?
      6:25 AM – 9/26/17

      I’m baffled about how the first thing white people say is, ‘That’s not racist!’ when they can’t even experience racism. You have 0 opinion!
      11:24 PM – 10/11/17

      “It seems clear that it was bad publicity from Breitbart that got Riley terminated.”
      Well, if you have a book to promote on that theme, it might mesh with apriori assumptions.

      Riley’s cv includes stints at Johns Hopkins U; U of California, Berkeley; Longwood U; U of Georgia; Morehouse College; Western Kentucky U; U of Maryland, College Park. Now he’s leaving U of Alabama.

      Maybe there is a reason he never got tenure at any of those places, and the same was the reason he resigned from U of Alabama?

      The tweets are stupid.
      Should I believe Django Unchained 2012 was intended to show black folks their place?
      That white people can’t even experience racism?

      2:00 am, 7 Jul 2016. Upset by news reports of Alton Sterling fatally shot by police in Baton Rouge LA, Lakeem Scott, 37, walked from his Bristol TN apartment to the Volunteer Parkway with two guns and started shooting at random passing motorists. Scott called 911 to get a police response with the intention of ambushing white police officers. He killed a newspaper carrier Jennifer Rooney and injured three other people: a motel clerk, a police officer, and a motorist. Arriving officers sought out and engaged the active shooter. Interviewed at the hospital by TBI, Scott admitted he wanted to hurt responding police officers, if they were white. “I could have ambushed them, but the black officer was there.” As to motive he said: “I was upset at my black people getting killed with no justice. We do everything for this country, every damn thing. We give you all every damn thing, and we can’t get no justice, no justice whatsoever.” I suspect Scott may have been listening to the kind of rhetoric spewed by Riley.

  11. I agree with you that he shouldn’t have lost his job, but you’ve omitted the more troubling quote:

    “I’m baffled about how the 1st thing white people say is, “That’s not racist!” when they can’t even experience racism? You have 0 opinion!”

    Arguing that someone’s race prevents them from having an opinion on a particular topic, or that white people can’t experience racism, is racist. I don’t think he should be fired over it, but calling out blatant racism like this isn’t wrong.

    1. He also insinuated that movies about slavery were designed to reinforce black inferiority (apparently by reminding them of their “place”).

      This would suggest that there’s no real difference between Gone With the Wind and 12 Years a Slave.

      And what about Roots? It wasn’t a movie, but it was certainly about slavery and lots of whites watched it, so much so that it became a punch line (“I watched Roots!”). Maybe white people watched the series out of nostalgia?

    2. If that’s your position (white ppl can’t experience racism) maybe you should be fired from overseeing a diverse student body. But one has to wonder why now and not in 2017?

      1. That raises a good point – if someone’s job duties include making sure students are treated fairly, can he be relied on to put aside his “deeply held personal beliefs” that white people can’t be subject to racism and enforce laws and rules which *do* protect white people against discrimination?

        1. You might think a person with first hand experience of racism would be sensitive to the problem of characterizing people based upon their race.

          This guy needed to go, not because of his racism, but because he is too stupid to have learned the lesson of racism.

      2. For all we know, the tweets were excused at the time, but since then there’s been a pattern of a behavior that is hostile toward students.

        If he was just spouting off at the mouth on Twitter but it didn’t bleed over into his teaching, then yes, this is bullshit. But there’s still the possibility something else is happening here. And I’ve said the same of cases from the other side of the political spectrum, so I consider myself consistent on this issue.

    3. ” I don’t think he should be fired over it, but calling out blatant racism like this isn’t wrong.”

      He wasn’t. He resigned.

    4. There is certainly more to this story. Why this professor? Why not anyone else? We this an excuse to cover up a far more important reason.

      Given such a crazy opinion that white people cannot talk about racism, I’m concerned that he was letting politics seep into grades, which is unacceptable.

      We are seeing the final pages of a larger story. I am going to hold judgement until I see the remainder.

    5. More to the point, it’s fucking stupid, and not being stupid should be a requirement for any faculty position in any university.


  12. “Do unto others as you would have done unto you” is a fine principle, but it cuts both ways. I’m not going to shit on you because I know I certainly wouldn’t like you shitting on me, but you start shitting on me and I’m going to have to assume you like being shit on.

  13. Shikha wrote an article about two months back that sums this up perfectly. The left wing is filled with emotionally driven betas that eat their own and are therefore always divided. The ring wing is a coalition of adults that adhere to reality, a more unified and powerful force that puts the children in their place once they get out of line.

    Whenever Reason wants civility it reaches out the the Right to make it happen. And yet they will take every opportunity to virtue signal to the children… for reasons I do not understand

    1. Reason writers stand on the left and wave a few fingers on the right and claim to be in the middle.

      1. They are largely cultural leftists. They can’t be liberals because they aren’t stupid on economics. But they still hate conservatives.

        1. cultural leftists

          What does this even mean? Not theocratic social conservatives? ok

          1. What does this even mean?

            It means they live in blue areas and largely agree with their approach to life. They simply like leftists better even though they believe they are wrong on many/most political issues. That’s why they are respectful of leftists they disagree with while going out of their way to insult conservatives as Robby has done in this article.

            1. It means they live in blue areas and largely agree with their approach to life.

              What’s the approach to life that’s specific to “blue areas”?

              1. This piece captures “the approach to life that’s specific to ‘blue areas'” brilliantly, with plenty of documentation and insightful observations:

                Alexander describes the sort of libertarians Marshal probably has in mind as “grey tribe,” which he suggests are adjacent to the “blue tribe” culturally, and it’s probably true that Reason writers are culturally more “grey tribe” than “red tribe.”

                Having said all that, I wish we could get past all the stupid tribal signaling, including all the bullshit about “cocktail parties” around here. We can all be sincere (thin) libertarians while leading our own culturally diverse (thick) lifestyles. Purity spirals are stupid virtue signaling everywhere and extra stupid incoherence among libertarians.

                1. Long read, but worthwhile.

              2. What’s the approach to life that’s specific to “blue areas”?

                Why do you pretend something must be exclusive for cultural affinity to be meaningful? Is it because accurately stating reality would not support your point? Doesn’t that suggest your point is not supportable?

        2. Boehm is quite idiotic on economics.

          1. I don’t consider his idiocy to be quite so restricted.

    2. Shikha wrote that?

    3. The ring wing is a coalition of adults that adhere to reality


      1. Compelling argument filled with facts and citations.

        1. LOL

          See? You’re comment is equally amusing. It’s really the fact that you responded at all, but the vexation that you convey is a real hoot.

          1. He conveyed no vexation. You do read into things.

    4. Shiksa eats her own what?

  14. It’s only bad when the other guys do it.
    We’re just getting them back for what they started.


  15. I’m reeeeel low on sympathy when a left wing snowflake gets cancelled by right wing snowflakes. Sauce for good and gander and all that, but more to the point, let the damned snowflakes cancel each other and leave the rest of us alone.

    Left + Right = 0.

  16. I wonder if there might be more to the story here. Strikes me as kind of odd that he was fired for what are actually pretty tame comments. I mean the comments may be offensive to some but it’s not like he’s advocating the lynching of cops and white people. Breitbart is free to publish the quotes but it’s hardly a national scandal. Would have been completely forgotten in a couple of days.

    1. good point considering how few read Breitbart that they may be using Breitbart purely to make claims against conservative “snowlfakes” as an excuse. it wouldn’t be the first time

    2. He wasn’t fired. He resigned.

      1. Resigned is code for resign or your fired with criminal prosecution

        1. Are we back to that “You can say ‘Learn to code.’ to coal miners but you can’t say ‘Learn to code.’ to reporters?

  17. What’s good for one asshole is good for another I suppose. Maybe if enough people get sacrificed on the alter of hurt feelings, people will smarten up and embrace free speach again. Ahhahahaha, who am I kidding?

  18. “conservative” is dead and I wouldn’t want cancel culture to speak for me regardless of who uses it

  19. I think the only thing left to do is shutdown Twitter and burn all the servers that hosted it. It’s the only way to be sure it’s forgotten and we can move forward.

    1. I think we have a quorum present. I’ll second the motion to shut down Twitter. All in favor?

      1. do i have standing if i’ve never used it?

  20. September.6.2019 at 4:34 pm
    Fainting-couch conservatism strikes again:

    Interesting. Let’s see how Robby treats others:

    Some students and alumni of the University of California–Santa Barbara want the administration to fire Laura Tanner, a graduate student in the Department of Feminist Studies who has attracted the ire of the trans community.

    No dismissive insults in this entire article. While critical he’s respectful.

    What about this one?

    Modern activist culture, however, is preoccupied with an ever-expanding definition of safety, which now includes emotional safety.

    Even as he describes “emotional safety” he refuses to call them snowflakes.

    The double standard couldn’t be clearer.

    1. I’m not sure when the rest of you are going to realize that the sole purpose of Reason is to gaslight libertarians.

      1. I think you’re on to something.

        1. I’ve noticed a trend at Reason starting several years ago. As someone mentioned above, Reason writers seem much more sympathetic to those left of center and/or living in blue states.

      2. This reminds me of media who describe a vote with 53 Dems and one Rep as “bipartisan”. There’s a certain type of libertarian so invested in their “both sides do” it mantra reality isn’t important.

  21. If we demand his reinstatement do we have to demand that he return a severance payment that is undoubtedly well into the six figures?

  22. But as long as the right is perfectly willing to enforce its own version of political correctness, it is difficult to to believe that they really agree in principle that you shouldn’t do this kind of thing.

    I agree the country would be better without this. But conservatives not enforcing their own version would ensure the liberal version would not just continue in perpetuity but increase in intensity.

    1. exactly Marshall, bullies never give up their antics with niceness they have to be put in their place always

    2. It mainly comes off as a complaint that conservatives aren’t as dumb as the left loves to believe, and are perfectly capable of adapting to the current social climate in order to serve their own interests.

      Leftists want to pass abortion bills that allow for the procedure up to and including the magic birth canal trip? Fine, the right will pass their own draconian laws limiting it to six weeks. Leftists want to deprive people of their jobs for stupid tweets made several years ago? Guess that applies to the other side, as well–and that includes “journalists” from the Blue Checkmark Brigade who are having their old tweets thrown back in their face.

  23. There’s a lot of unjustified assumptions in this article. State universities usually don’t divulge the reasons for an employee separation; that doesn’t mean whatever the ex-employee says is true. And in this case, even Riley isn’t claiming he was forced to resign over the tweets. That’s pure conjecture. Here are some equally likely conjectures:

    1. Maybe Riley was upset that the university didn’t rush to defend him, and took it as evidence that the University of Alabama was also racist. He resigned because he didn’t want to work for racists, or because his boss declined to publicly defend him.

    2. Maybe a conservative student activist went to his office and got in his face about the tweets, and Riley lost his cool and responded in kind. Responding in kind is not what Deans of Students are supposed to do, and he agreed that he needed to step down from the job.

    3. Maybe there were a whole bunch of other employment issues, and this incident provided good cover for Riley to leave, saving himself embarrassment over the real issues and saving the university the trouble of doing a formal firing.

    4. Maybe Riley, despite his tweets, is a normal person who doesn’t like being the target of a social media mob and he resigned just to get the heat off.

    Regardless of the real reason, my presumption would be that the university’s statement about “mutual agreement” is the actual truth.

    1. Yeah Robbie’s assumptions are not very convincing to me.

    2. Yeah, “resigned” is miles away from fired. Maybe he was “forced” to resign. Who knows. This one is small potatoes…

      But yes… yes. yes.. cancel culture is “bad”. But as I point out below, there’s one way, and one way ONLY to stop it: cut off the reward.

      Stop apologizing. And where applicable, sue them into bankruptcy.

      1. If someone sues them Reason will cry about the authoritarians first amendment rights.

        They are always on the side of authoritarians, and only ever criticize them when it doesnt matter.

        1. The same Reason that suddenly wants a journalist/publication rebuked for going after Riley. Apparently censorship IS good as long as it targets the right people.

  24. I doubt if the students had any clout to get anyone fired. I do suspect the Doctor was a major PITA and gave the administration an opportunity. Look at the bright side, Harvard and Yale will be fighting over which one gives this guy a job.

  25. The Golden Rule does not apply here; but, the Silver Rule does.

    1. Goose and Gander sauce was on the menu.

  26. Rev will be along any minute to say he was actually fired because the inbred hillbillies attending the school don’t like being called out on their racism

    1. Clingers gonna carry on.

    2. They just didn’t recognize their betters.

  27. What does a “dean of students” do?

    For the record, I am a college graduate.

    1. Probably the same thing that the Assistant Vice President of Academic Affairs does, which is just do all the work of the Vice President of Academic Affairs would normally do while that very important person is jetting off on the next overseas fact finding junket. Of course, the Assistant Vice President of Academic Affairs usually just delegates most duties to the Student Affairs Administrative Aid who then dumps it onto the Assistant Administrative Aid in the Office of Diversity and Inclusion. Good thing it’s only answering a few emails every day because the other 10 people in that office are swamped with email-sending and flyer-making duties.

    2. The good ones do nothing.

      The bad ones put their feet in their mouths.

    3. Dean Wormer was Dean of Students at Faber.

  28. I very much agree that cancel culture is bad.

    Bad is a kind way to describe it. Kind of a softball, puff-piece way of describing it.

  29. Alabama Dean

    Blues player or pool shark?

    1. Blues-playing pool shark?

  30. By the way, just so any of y’all who are still trying to figure out the math will know, cancel culture is here to stay– because it works. The way to make it not work is for organizations to stop firing, canceling contracts with and shunning people who are the targets of it. This is on the fucking university, not Breitbart. The fact that conservatives finally figured out that the left’s old, tried and true tactic of rolling around on the ground holding their shin worked is just a side-effect.

    Cancel culture stops when it stops getting rewarded.

    Oh, speaking of the REAL cancel culture (not just some professor who said some shit and lost his cush job), Zoe Quinn may have finally killed someone with cancel culture.

    1. But here is the problem with this type of analysis. Libertarians have been saying for years now that the way to enact social change is via voluntary actions, not via the coercive boot of the state imposing a particular social order on everyone. And “cancel culture” is one manifestation of an attempt to enact social change via voluntary, non-coercive means. It clearly isn’t the best way, and the mob often goes too far in its deplatforming efforts, but I don’t think that libertarians should say that things like voluntary boycotts shouldn’t happen *at all*.

      Is there a libertarian argument for restricting “cancel culture”, beyond of course NAP-violating acts?

      1. Is there a libertarian argument for restricting “cancel culture”, beyond of course NAP-violating acts?

        The exact same arguments that support cancel culture. If you respond to it and fire someone for some innocuous tweet they made 10 years ago, you’ll be savaged for it on Twitter.

        Remember, those “enactments of social change via voluntary, non-coercive means” rub both ways… both good and bad. One of the great Libertarian blind spots is that voluntary, non-coercive means always ends up with good results. Sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes it ends up with a young man being falsely accused of sexual impropriety and he kills himself.

        1. Remember, those “enactments of social change via voluntary, non-coercive means” rub both ways… both good and bad. One of the great Libertarian blind spots is that voluntary, non-coercive means always ends up with good results.

          Perhaps some believe that, but I for one do recognize that voluntary change can sometimes result in negative consequences. It’s just generally better that change be voluntary, whatever it is, instead of coerced.

          It just seems to me that the real problem isn’t the boycotts per se, but the mob behavior.

          1. It just seems to me that the real problem isn’t the boycotts per se, but the mob behavior.

            Yes – it’s the viciousness and driving need to totally annihilate people polluted by the wrong views. I am so often reminded of Rene Girard’s Violence and the Sacred, where our society has gotten so fixated on erasing “bigotry” that it’s become a bona-fide taboo in the old-school tribal sense. It’s no longer ideological, it’s about infection and purification. We cast out “bigots” the way Thebes cast out Oedipus.

            1. That certainly explains much about concerns recently expressed here over dangers of ‘white supremacy.’

              Free minds and free markets my ass.

          2. So it’s not the mob behavior, it’s the mob behavior. Makes perfect sense.

      2. not via the coercive boot of the state imposing

        I think you could have left it at coercion (albeit libertarians have a special hardon for the state and a glaring blindspot for other sources).

        The issue is coercion, regardless of the source, and to frame cancel culture as “voluntary” is eye-brow raising at least, anymore than McCarthyism was “voluntary”.

        Sure, everyone has the right to act like an asshole and only associate with people who share your particular strain of mental illness, but there should be a greater libertarian principle of minding your own fucking business, and not inviting government encroachment because absolute tribalism is unworkable.

        1. Indeed, but Jeff has a long history of espousing political segregation. He only cares about civility when the left is getting a dose.

          1. He pretty much gave his game away when he acted as an apologist for Oberlin after they got their shit pushed in by Gibson’s Bakery.

  31. Robby Soave writes: “It seems clear that it was bad publicity from Breitbart that got Riley terminated. This was an entirely foreseeable consequence of writing such an article.”

    So….it “seems clear” (how I’m not sure) one article from a publication Robby doesn’t like is responsible for this guy resigning. O-K – I mean – it is inevitable (too funny). It might be that he has a history of lame comments like the one he doesn’t want to take responsibility for.

    Additionally, I would suggest that it is not just a “conservative” thing to support the American flag and law enforcement. But hey, whatever fits your narrative….

  32. The comments on here demonstrate why this shit is never going to stop. Each side declines to call out their own for bad behavior, but is happy to criticize the other side for the same bad behavior. But nobody gives a shit about criticism from the other side because the other side are by definition subhuman monsters.

    So we continue to swirl down the bowl…….

    1. You can’t stop it by telling the mob to stop. You can only stop it by getting the people who do the canceling, the firing, the breaking of relationships and associations to quit responding to it. You can’t apologize to a mob.

      Having said that, I agree on further reading, that there’s scant to no evidence that Breitbart cause the dean to resign.

      Basically, a guy we never heard of quit his job and said “’cause cancel culture’ and now it’s international news. We need a little more than that.

      1. Yea drp there is more to this story and cancel culture is being used as cover

    2. The articles on here demonstrate why Robby is such a dishonest hack. Contrast what he passively wrote about Olson just 3 days ago to the outrage today. Both Olson and Riley resigned, so they both “lost” their jobs to the same degree. Olson was smeared for a sarcastic post which was the opposite of what was claimed. That wasn’t the case for Riley. So which of these drew the most harrumphing from Robby? Well, the progressive getting hit of course.

      If you truly gave a rat’s ass about cancel culture you would have been up in arms about Olson. But both you and Robby reserved your outrage until a progressive was impacted. There are lots of words for that. None of them is “principled.”

    3. When James Gunn got fired, they all had the same “well cancelling is bad but the left will only learn once it hurts them too, so i’m happy to see this and that’s not hypocritical at all” hot take

      Lmao that turned out well, didn’t it? They sure learned their lesson didn’t they? Your surefire strategy of getting the left to abandon their favorite victim-mongering tactics by copying them line for line really worked out didn’t it?

      get hype for Guardians of the Galaxy 3 and The Suicide Squad!!!

  33. Conservatives do exactly what they complain about the left doing, with justification because the left did it. I feel like I have seen this special before…

    Stay tuned next hour for their versions of: trillion dollar deficits and an imperial presidency that ignores congressional authority!

    The sad thing is, both sides of extremist snowflakes are dead convinced the other side is the absolute devil, and we are only resorting to these tactics cuz gee golly gosh we are on the right side and THEY would be the end of our country; never realizing they are both garbage and working together to drive this bus off the cliff.

    1. “But nobody gives a shit about criticism from the other side because the other side are by definition subhuman monsters.

      So we continue to swirl down the bowl…….”

      Apparently we were thinking the same thing

    2. The sad thing is, both sides of extremist snowflakes are dead convinced the other side is the absolute devil, and we are only resorting to these tactics cuz gee golly gosh we are on the right side and THEY would be the end of our country; never realizing they are both garbage and working together to drive this bus off the cliff.

      ^ This x 1000

      1. The sad thing is that you resort to the same tired false equivalencies and pretend principles. The “logic” of the supposed libertarian here is that one can never use the same tactics used against themselves. The same logic would say that you can’t defend yourself from someone trying to kill you because murder is bad.

        Were you as concerned when Leif Olson was smeared by a fellow journalist? Strangely enough, I can’t seem to find any remark from you in the comments… An oversight, to be sure.

        And what was Robby’s take:

        Leif Olson, a Trump appointee in the Department of Labor, resigned from the federal government this week after attracting scrutiny from Bloomberg Law reporter Ben Penn,

        “attracting scrutiny”

        Going after Olson for this post was an obvious misfire on Penn’s part, and it’s a shame that Penn seems to have doubled down on his mistake.

        A “misfire” and “it’s a shame.”

        Notably missing is any reference to “snowflakes” or any demands that Penn and/or Bloomberg Law be held accountable. Riley “lost” his job the same way that Olson did. Oddly enough that wasn’t the way that Robby phrased it when he wrote about it. Again, just a coincidence, to be sure. Robby really, really cares about the cancel culture. At least he does when it affects his fellow progressive travelers.

    3. This is stupid. Cancel culture is an effective weapon used predominantly by the left. It will only stop when they have to pay a price for it. You can play the #bothsides game all that you want but that’s simply a reality.

      1. I do play the #bothsides game, but it’s a different one than the media does.

        It’s called both sides are garbage. They don’t know they are garbage, they think they are the angels fighting the good fight against the demons. Never realizing they are just the other side of the same coin, completely oblivious. “It’s always different when my team does it, cuz reasons, cuz false equivalency, blah blah”

        As a non-member of their garbage tribes I am happy to call something bad when anyone does it. It’s just always fun watching the conservatives, ever the persecuted flowers, consistently follow suit and do whatever the left does despite it previously being the worst thing ever that is ruining the country, done by pussy lefty snowflakes.

        1. And you had the opportunity to do so on this very site just days ago. Oddly enough you didn’t. But you’re super cereal about your principles. Really you are.

          Selective outrage *something* *something* revealed preferences.

      2. “It will only stop when they have to pay a price for it” is absolute bullshit and its astonishing that anyone would choose to believe this comforting fantasy rather than simply sticking to the principles they stated the first time

  34. I think hitting someone is bad and we shouldn’t do it. But if someone comes along and starts swinging, I am perfectly justified to respond in kind in order to get them to stop. Sure, I should plead first… and the right has been ringing the alarm about this schtick for a while now. But those pleadings landed on deaf ears. So now they have begun the act if reactive, defensive action.

    If someone shoots at me I am shooting back. My thinking that shooting anyone should not be done went out the window when the other person disagreed. But once they stop… we can go back to being civilized.

    1. to get them to stop

      Here’s where the analogy breaks down.

      1. So obviously the 2A was a dumb idea.

        1. You making that comment was a dumb idea.

          1. So if you punch a bully back, they’ll go on abusing you?

  35. Is it really fainting couch conservatism, or fighting fire with fire? If the left wants to use 20-year old comments and made-up rape allegations to get people fired when they transgress leftists beliefs somehow, why should we expect the right not to eventually pick up on the con and start taking aim at some leftists using similar tactics?

    I doubt anyone truly got the vapors from the dean’s comments.

    Eventually as both sides overuse these tactics, they will become worthless. Just look at the Governor of Virginia: just don’t give in, ignore the complaints, and eventually the furor subsides. Meanwhile, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    1. Is it really fainting couch conservatism, or fighting fire with fire?

      It’s fighting fire with fire, but it doesn’t make it noble. people have to stop, but you can’t “make” the mob stop. Basically hundreds of thousands of individuals need to look inside themselves and commit to not engaging in it. But that won’t happen. The only way it will stop is cut the reward off– for that you need only to appeal to a much smaller subset of people.

      In my opinion, the good news is I think Cancel culture is on the way out. It’s just not easy to tell when you’re still in the storm. But there’s lots of evidence people are beginning to push back.

      1. Cancel culture is on the way out.

        Agreed. I think Sarah Silverman getting canceled is going to be (dare I coin it?) the Al Franken Line.

        1. Naive. Since when has the Left not been willing to sacrifice one of their own once they become a liability? Then again you’re convinced that we’re on the verge of a new conservative theocracy and PC is flaming out…

  36. Putting in another way, the leftists will never recognize the stupidity of some of their actions until the same actions impact them.

    “I’ve got a pen and a phone…” was a great idea until Trump does the same thing.

    “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” also was a great idea until Trump won.

    Going nuclear in the Senate rules was a great idea, until Republicans won a majority.

    Tim Kaine planned to go nuclear on SCOTUS nominations, too, fully expecting to be Hillary’s VP and to have a Dem majority in the Senate. Neither happened, but McConnell went nuclear on SCOTUS too and Tim Kaine suddenly thought that was a horrible idea.

    They’re talking about packing the court. If Trump wins 4 more years, I bet the left will instantly try to silence anyone who talks about packing the court, because Trump might just go ahead and nominate 6 more like Democrats want Bernie or Liz to do if they win.

    Cancellation culture is a great weapon the left has been wielding. They won’t like seeing it turned on them.

    Doxxing people is a great weapon for the left (e.g., Castro) but they hate getting doxxed.

    Red flag laws will give every Democrat with a grudge a weapon to use against neighbors who vote GOP. They won’t like it when people start issuing red flag laws calls against Dem’s bodyguards, cops, etc.

    These are all attacks the left used first, don’t like having them used against themselves, but yet can’t wait to find the next rung lower down the ladder into depravity. They DON’T learn, WON’T learn, and care nothing about civil engagement.

    1. the leftists will never recognize the stupidity of some of their actions until the same actions impact them.

      The problem is, you fundamentally misdiagnose the problem.

      They don’t view their actions as stupid, because they believe that they are operating according to a higher moral purpose. So that Obama’s “pen and a phone” was supposedly justified because the ends (whatever Obama policy) justified the means (ignoring Congress). JUST LIKE Trump’s bogus “national emergency” was supposedly justified because the ends (stopping “the invasion”) justified the means (ignoring Congress). So one side applying the same tactics to the other side will never make either side see their actions as “stupid”, only that the stakes are higher than they previously believed and that even more radical ideas should be entertained in order to carry out the higher moral purpose.

      In other words, “tit for tat” won’t lead to a cease fire, it will only lead to even more severe escalation.

      If you want to stop the escalation, the way forward is not mimicking the same tactics, but to remove the moral basis for whatever supposedly justifies the tactics in the first place. So instead of whining endlessly about Obama’s ‘pen and phone’ decree of DACA, Republicans could have offered something substantive that would have dealt with the issue in some way to remove the claimed moral legitimacy of Obama’s actions. Instead of whining about Trump’s ‘national emergency’, Democrats could have offered something substantive that would have dealt with the issue in some way to remove the claimed moral legitimacy of Trump’s actions.

      But really, the real reason why “tit for tat” is popular now, is not because one side genuinely wants to show the other side that their ideas are “stupid”, but out of sheer schadenfreude.

      1. “So one side applying the same tactics to the other side will never make either side see their actions as “stupid”, only that the stakes are higher than they previously believed and that even more radical ideas should be entertained in order to carry out the higher moral purpose.”

        I thought that’s what I was expressing with “These are all attacks the left used first, don’t like having them used against themselves, but yet can’t wait to find the next rung lower down the ladder into depravity. They DON’T learn, WON’T learn, and care nothing about civil engagement.

      2. Only one side declaring cease fire has another more concise phrase to describe it. Surrender.

      3. The real reason that tit for tat is “popular” forever is that it is near optimal strategy for prisoner’s dilemma. Pretending that we were something more noble is the past leaves you with two choices:

        1) The conservatives are actually on to something because the past was more conservative. Being a progressive you can’t accept that.

        2) This has been human nature since before we were picking lice off of each other.

  37. “Conservatives, please condemn Breitbart for this hit job and demand the immediate reinstatement of James Riley.” That’s a “no” and a “yes” — Breitbart can hand out all the sauce for the goose it likes but encouraging cancelling Cancel Culture will protect both gander and goose.

  38. Left has their own rules applied to them. Outrage ensues.

  39. I’m glad that most people commenting on this subject gets it, unlike Reason writers.

    There is not a single thing wrong with forcing the left to play by their unreasonable rules. I don’t want unions to get exemptions from min wage hikes or other employment regulation after they lobby for that for other businesses. Does that somehow make me a proponent of higher minimum wage?

    If liberals and culture warriors aren’t fired over speech offenses while others are, that’s not some glass is half full situation. “well that’s better than everyone getting fired over that”. Who would think like this? It’s a double standard.

    Cancel culture isn’t a violation of a constitutional right, so we’re not under any moral obligation to support liberal public figures when they lose their jobs over standards created by their team. A taste of your own medicine is often the best way for someone to see the error of their ways.

  40. It’s almost like some of these people don’t have a personal philosophy or ideology, they just root for a football team. But, that can’t be right.

    Ra Ra Team Blue. Ra Ra Team Red.

  41. Plenty of conservatives have spoken out against this type of cancel behavior. But I have not heard many on the left raise similar concerns about the issue. See that is the rub. It is difficult for me to spend the limited time I have on this rock defending people that would cancel me in an instant. Until the left shows some willingness to also engage in de-escalation I see no reason why I should assemble a circular firing squad. In fact, it is likely the only way sanity is reached is by both sides engaging in this until it reaches the obvious logical conclusion of madness.

  42. A couple of thoughts.
    1. You wanted this world, you picked these fights, you said these things, you threw this hate, and now it’s your turn to absorb it. It sucks, it’s not right, and I wish we weren’t here. But every time someone told you to stop you told them to fuck off and kept going. So here we are.
    2. One sided negotiation is surrender. The right did and still does bemoan cancel culture. We bemoaned it 2 years ago when Trump got elected and the left lost it’s mind. We bemoaned it when a high school kid was accused of racism and everything else for smiling. We bemoaned it when accusations from 30+ years ago that consisted of “I think something happened in this state.” were investigated to try and stop a well qualified jurist from being confirmed to the supreme court. We bemoaned it when collusion has been investigated ad nauseam. Now that some people are realizing that the left will NEVER stop and have begun to fight back, leftist shills want to cry hypocrite at us to try and stop us from fighting. Too bad.

  43. This is conservative return fire. The Left has been doing this sort of thing forever and, IIRC, Reason hasn’t said much about it. Defending your beliefs from lies and attacks isn’t in the same league as attacking in the first place, which the Left did.

  44. I want to get off of Mr. Bones’s wild ride.

  45. An innocent man gets burned at the stake for no good reason and I hear people cheering here because “they do it too”.


    1. *cough* Leif Olson *cough*

    2. Um, if you were fired or forced to resign because human resources discovered incendiary remarks you made on Twitter but your coworker who did the exact same thing was spared, you would be OK with that?

      I thought the inequity of double standard was self explanatory.

  46. Would be better if Brietard got cancelled.

  47. Goes to show that conservatives are just as politically correct as liberals. Conservatives engage in outrage and cancel culture just like liberals. But at least liberals don’t deny doing so. I mean.. blaming the left for what conservatives did? It’s almost like the whole ‘personal responsibility’ trite is nothing more than a hollow slogan.

    1. It goes to show conservatives will only sit there and take it for so long before fighting back.

      And good. It’s about god damned time. And if you don’t like it? Think twice in the future before you try to do this again to someone on the right. But the best part is? U won’t lol. You won’t ever think twice. You’ll think you’re morally justified the next time you do it.

      Knowing you’ll fail to learn this simple lesson is funny.

    2. Yeah, that’s logical and poignant and everything, but logic doesn’t apply if I disagree with them and they did it first. It’s like if a leftist rapes my daughter. It’s then OK for me to rape HIS daughter. Since he did it first, the rules go out the window and it’s now morally righteous for me to ‘return fire.’ Even God approves!

      An eye for an eye may leaves us all blind, but that doesn’t matter because once everyone is blind, blindness will become the new 20/20 vision!

  48. The left will not stop, it will not die, until it is forced to abide by the same rules it imposes upon everyone else.

    If you are too stupid to understand this you should keep your mouth shut and leave the reasoning to those who are actually able to accomplish it.

  49. Pay back — she is a bitch

  50. I don’t like it but the progressive left – and them alone – created this mess and toxic atmosphere.

    No one should lose their jobs for fricken opinions but here we are. The left not only goes after wrong think but people who dare to be friends or contribute to ‘wrong think’.

    Maybe a few more of these and perhaps they’ll smarten up. But I won’t hold my breath.

    For every time this happens, how many people who dare to challenge the left-wing narrative get their lives ruined?

    I’m pretty sure the ratio is high. Taste of their own medicine ‘to be sure’.

    It’s like Campus Reform and FIRE don’t exist. Every single video I watch from them points to illiberal progs acting like idiots.

  51. Suddenly Robby is again in favor of censorship of the press. How DARE someone highlight public statements made by a figure of authority! SOMETHING. MUST. BE. DONE!

    Curious how this seems to only come about when an outlet goes after a progressive. Robby certainly hasn’t been shy in the past about smearing those he disagrees with (Sargon of Akkad comes to mind). In fact he’s quite liberal in dishing out the epithets to those he dislikes. But when another journalist dares to do the same to someone from the left, whoa, Nellie!

    The concern is touching. Truly it is. And the consistent and even-handed way it is applied clearly shows that. *You, in the back, stop laughing!*

    Robby is so frustrated that his progressive friends have earned the snowflake hallmark that he pounces on the slightest excuse to accuse the right of doing what the left lives and breathes. The pearls are clutched. The tears are shed at the loss of civility. Won’t someone think of the children?!

    1. I agree.

  52. Is this not the same tactics the left has employed for almost 2 decades? Not really sure why the right wing should apologize for doing to the left, exactly what has been being done to them, successfully, for years.

  53. My music link nobody else cares about.

    Wars culture wars warriors. For some reason got me to think about this song. As I have said I like drums. After Kieth Moon died Townsend went on to some pretty good stuff. This is him with David Gilmore and drummer Simon Phillips. It might not appeal to everyone but Kieth was an explosive drummer and Simon just pours his heart into this.

    So.. give blood.

  54. Tit for tat works.

    It’s that simple.

      1. Thank you.

  55. You know I’ve noticed when articles here are about conservatives doing something “bad” the authors sure do run their mouths about them.

    When liberals do and this site writes about it, it tends to be free of any insults. A coincidence I’m sure.

    Anyways nah, I’m not gonna denounce Breitbart. I don’t like cancel culture, but until it stops it can no longer just be one sided. It can no longer just be conservatives that suffer. Until it ceases all together…the liberals need to deal with it. They had zero issues with Roseanne being cancelled.

    And we warned them. We warned them repeatedly this stuff would backfire. They didn’t listen. Oh well.

    1. That’s a good way to put it.

      They really give that impression.

      Robby insists on using the term ‘snowflakes’ to describe conservatives (who CONSTANTLY get harangued) knowing damn well the term was created to describe soft-headed, triggered, millennials who need safe spaces.

      It’s like how leftists think ‘1984’ is about conservatives.

      1. Yup Rufus you gonna shoot one of my villagers I gonna shoot one of yours .

  56. Oh and why is this professor(heh former professor) not a snowflake for getting triggered over the flag?

    Why is he not a snowflake for refusing to fight for his job? I sure as hell would have refused to resign cuz of something Breitbart did.

    1. In my humble opinion, a dean shouldn’t be saying such stupid things anyway. A Dean is supposed to be a leader of an institution of higher learning.

      They only look idiotic and sound like high school students looking to find an edgy angle to history. Ours was ‘America is a fascist country cloaked in a democracy!’

      Notice, this was the 80s so calling America ‘fascist’ precedes their little retard melt down about Trump. In my lifetime, they’ve had three. Under Reagan, Bush II and now Trump – which is by far the worst one. And possibly the most dangerous given the hyper-hysterical ramblings and gibberish of the DNC.

      But I’m old fashion that way.

      1. I suppose the fact that among Reagan, Bush 2, and Trump, Republican presidents have become increasingly and noticeably more insane and stupid might be relevant to the level of response.

        But Obama did wear that tan suit that one time, so calling him a foreign Muslim traitor homosexual married to a Wookie who should be hung from a tree like a common nigger is the elevated rhetoric of the William F. Buckley school of thought to which you are probably comparing the “hysterical” reaction against Trump.

        1. But Obama did wear that tan suit that one time, so calling him a foreign Muslim traitor homosexual married to a Wookie who should be hung from a tree like a common nigger is the elevated rhetoric of the William F. Buckley school of thought to which you are probably comparing the “hysterical” reaction against Trump.

          Remember this is from a guy who complains non-leftists focus too much on extreme leftists. And he pretends to oppose hypocrisy.

          1. Who are the moderate Trumpists? The ones who want to build a half-wall and ban half of the Muslims?

            1. Who are the moderate Trumpists?

              60 million people voted for Trump dozens of whom referred to Michelle Obama as a wookie. Tony concludes this is representative. The truth is Tony can’t make a decent argument to support his lunacy so he has to resort to this kind of stupidity to foment hate. It’s all the left knows how to do.

              1. Anyone who says “the left” is a sad, uneducated propaganda victim. Whom are you talking about? Politicians who support making the US slightly less the least advanced major nation on earth on a handful of obvious and necessary policy fronts? Ooh, the left. Wanting the same kind of healthcare system enjoyed by everyplace else in the entire goddamn world you’d ever set foot in.

                That is not extreme. Building a Great Wall to keep out the Mexicans is extreme, which is to say stupid.

                That his fans still suck his cock even though he can’t and wont’ deliver on this stupid promise is just pathetic in a sad way.

                1. The guy who pretends enough of his opponents to elect a President called Michelle a wookie then whines that others generalize the left.

                  He’s not just a hypocrite but an idiot.

                  1. The people calling Michelle a wookie are grown-ass, not to say geriatric, men.

                    Meanwhile climate change is a real thing, and the ENTIRE right is more concerned about what 18 year-olds are getting passionate about as they start their college careers.

                    It’s sad. It’s creepy.

                    1. The people calling Michelle a wookie are grown-ass, not to say geriatric, men.

                      Dozens I’m sure.

                      Meanwhile getting people fired is “passionate”. Destroying our economy as virtue signalling is being “concerned”.

                      Not only can’t Tony admit what he really supports he lies about who is doing it. Leftist snowflake culture is driven by faculty and administrator activists, students are just showpieces to prevent the left’s ideas from being judged by the same standards as Tony argues here they shouldn’t be.

              2. Tony is a Reason intern whose responsibilities include making incendiary comments on H&R. ‘He’ doesn’t really believe the things ‘he’ posts.

  57. I earned $4500 last month by working online just for 4 to 6 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this Website. If You too want to earn such a big amount of money then come and join us.

    HERE YOU GO >>> Here Is jobs

  58. > Conservatives, please condemn Breitbart for this hit job and demand the immediate reinstatement of James Riley.

    If you’ve read the comments, you can see that that’s not going to happen.

  59. This fellow worked for a state university. I’d privatize all of those. Firing one administrator is a negligible improvement, when the whole concept of governmentally-run institutions of higher learning is the real problem.

    “Red state” conservatives get sucked into preserving these statism factories out of sentiment for the foo’baw and hoops teams.

  60. Just to clarify, you’d be fine with a White assistant vice president and dean of student openly declared blacks as incapable of understanding certain topics?

  61. Hey, what about the idea that this POS should not have the job he just lost in the first place? He didn’t just criticize the flag, he expressed hostile and stupid opinions that reasonable Americans would not want affirmed and promulgated at their own expense.
    So, what I’m saying is, getting this POS fired is not at all a matter of unjust revenge and retribution, it is representative of what should be done all over America, everyday, until all the America haters are gone from positions of public honor in America.
    Of course, I would not expect a Cuck-Libertarian like Rico Suave to understand this. Rico Suave wants to destroy liberty under the pretense of saving it. Cuck-Libertarians pretend not to understand that ordered liberty for civilized people is not at all a matter of anything goes. Liberty is not the absence of all rules, it is the presence of rules and laws consistent with actual God given rights. Liberty for a civilized person is not license. I hope and pray that the Cuck-Libertarians will figure it out some how, some way, some where, some day.

  62. A celebrity tweeting that transgenders should / should not compete in women’s sports is not news, and the celebrity does not deserve to be raked over the coals.

    A Dean of Students tweeting what Riley did IS news, and deserves, at a minimum, to be reported.

    Conservatives did not hound Riley out of his office. The college and / or Riley made that decision, and I see no evidence that the pressure was so unbearable that they had little choice. All the college had to do was announce that Riley’s views are his own. After a week, it would be old news.

  63. It seems clear that the university asked for Riley’s resignation because they felt his political views were incompatible with the position of Dean of Students.

    Why else would they do so? There was no real public pressure on them. Some irate conservative tweeters is a tempest in tea pot. It would carry next to no weight with a modern university administration, and would dissipate in a blink of an eye.

    You might disagree with the univerisity’s decision. Fine, take it up with THEM.

  64. Robby
    Farmer retires, sells his mule. Tells the buyer “Good animal, obeys commands, don’t need to be hard.” Buyer says “Show me.”
    Farmer hits the mule on the head. Buyer said “Thought he obeys!”
    Farmer replies “Yes, but gotta get his attention first.”
    Same with the left.
    Best regards

  65. Last fall I heard FIRE’s Greg Lukianoff give a talk and a Q and A. He said that at college and university campuses there was more interference with first amendment rights coming from political right than the left. This left me surprised, but he probably has a more complete picture.

    1. Mr. Lukianoff’s perspective appears to have been influenced by the need to flatter certain donors.

      Unless he no longer considers the hundreds of censorship-riddled, viewpoint discriminatory, fourth-tier, conservative-controlled campuses to qualify as “college and university campuses.”

  66. I’m not very sympathetic to retaliation for its own sake, but if the goal is to get the left to stop this nonsense, then I consider it justified. Maybe if enough of people on their side get taken out, the pain will make them back off, and the silly practice can stopped on both sides. I’m not optimistic, but it’s worth a try. Also, in some areas (such as academia, in this case), if non-leftists foreswear this tactic, the ideological balance will get even more skewed than it already is, as non-leftist professors get fired or forced to resign while leftist ones remain immune.

    1. Fuck off, hypocrite.

      1. Fuck off, yourself. You expect your opponents to accept a “heads I win, tails you lose” set of rules? While that would sure be convenient for you, sorry, no. The ideal situation would be one where nobody does this, but if the left keeps doing it, their opponents have two options: allow the left to reap their ill-gotten rewards, or retaliate until the left feels enough pain to back off. If the left stops, and their opponents continue, then we’re hypocrites. Not before.

        1. Be the change you want to see in the world.

  67. It seems clear that it was bad publicity from Breitbart that got Riley terminated. This was an entirely foreseeable consequence of writing such an article.

    So Robby’s vision of journalism is facts shouldn’t be reported if they contradict his political preferences. There isn’t much of a difference between him and mainstream left reporters after all.

  68. Ah, how sweet! Liberal pansies are upset because Conservatives used THEIR favorite tactic and it cost one of their own!!!

    Hypocritical jerks!!

    1. The hypocrites are the ones using the tactic they despise. Not only despise, but spend an inordinate amount of time bitching about relative to the real problems in the world.

      1. When the guy who literally wrote your book of tactics says “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules”, you have zero grounds to be upset when things get turned around on you. There has to be one set of rules, not different ones for each side, and if one side repeatedly and flagrantly cheats and gets away with it, the game has been rigged.

        1. You can sit there and justify hypocrisy all you want. I’ll be having a cocktail.

        2. “When the guy who literally wrote your book of tactics says”

          I do not think that means what you think it means.

          Tony I often disagree with. Not always.

          Literally * I do not think he has book of tactics. Your statement is nonsensical.

          It is a classic red herring or strawman. Tony does not cite a book of tactics. You assign him to a quote from a book written by someone, Saul Alinsky. Tony never said those words and for all we know never read Saul Alinsky. You did obviously.

          Therefore somehow Tony is connected to Rules for Radicals whereas you are not.

          See how that works. Now I could connect what you wrote to the propaganda of Joseph Goebbels. I will not because that would be disingenuous.

          1. Except that the “your” refers to the left in general, not to Tony specifically.

            1. Because I specifically am against “cancel culture” no matter where it’s coming from.

              And the freedom-lovers here are saying it’s OK to do it in retaliation, because, I dunno, I guess this is WAR!

              Remember when I was always lectured at about principles vs. principals? Funny how that line completely fucking disappeared the moment His Orangeness showed up.

  69. Next time a gun-toting home invader invades a libertarian’s house and the libertarian shoots him, expect Robby to write an article calling the libertarian a hypocrite.

  70. Using the tactic of a progressive against them. I like the karma aspect but why stoop to the level of progressive sub-humans?

  71. they were publicized by the right-wing news site in order to send a social media mob after Riley

    Dear Robby,

    After your stance against Brett Kavanaugh, maybe you should assume that more of us are pretty sure that you’re full of shit by default and at least point to some sort of social media mob rather than just assume we believe you. *Especially* after writing a couple articles about how, just because someone uses the phrase ‘social media mob’ doesn’t mean they aren’t full of shit. One has to wonder if this story meets your own shitty standard 2 tweet minimum.

    It seems clear that it was bad publicity from Breitbart that got Riley terminated.

    Speaking of full of shit, he wasn’t terminated, he resigned. I know it’s hard for a millennial journalist such as yourself to read the tea leaves of “Dr. Jamie Riley has resigned his position at The University of Alabama by mutual agreement” but it’s pretty clear that both he and the University were likely none-too-happy with one another and the Breitbart article was the straw that triggered the mutual separation.

  72. Merely using an Alinsky tactic against the enemy – “Force them to live up to their own standards.” And why is this wrong?? Principles go out the window when they are only upheld by one side. War is hell, it’s ugly, but it must be done in order to stomp the opps into the pavement. You can call it “hypocrisy” – I call it “winning.”

    1. That tactic works only against principled people—or at least, those who wish to be perceived as such. The Left freely admits that they don’t hold everyone to the same standards. If you challenge them about having double standards, they can just say, “yeah, of course we do!” without violating their doctrine.

  73. A quick search of the archives shows since Jan 1 2017, Robby has referred to conservative as snowflakes 12 times and leftists as snowflakes just twice, both times in the context of likening conservatives to them.

  74. So long as cancel culture is accepted as a valid political weapon by the greater media, the right must use it. The rules either apply to both sides equally, or else the one side it applies to is subservient to the other.

  75. The only Snowflakes here are the Gary Johnson talking-with-their-tongues-out liberanarchistarians. There is no “reason” at this magazine or among its supporters. And they wonder why they cannot get more than 2% of the vote.

  76. lol “no, the author is wrong. we should be hypocrites and adopt the pathologies of the left. that will show them the error of their ways” lolllllllllll

  77. Yeah! There should be two sets of rules, one for the special woke, and a strict set for everyone else. Sounds fair… ish.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.