Free Speech

Lefties Hate on Liberal Open Letter on Free Speech

But buried beneath the bilious response to the Harper's joint statement is a worthwhile argument about freedom of association.

|

On Tuesday morning, Harper's Magazine published a joint letter from 153 prominent writers, academics, and entertainers, ranging from Noam Chomsky to David Brooks, J.K. Rowling to Wynton Marsalis, Salman Rushdie to Gloria Steinem, expressing concern that "the free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted."

The 532-word document is a direct response to the remarkable past six weeks or so at American media and cultural institutions, which have experienced a wave of firings, resignations, and castigations over purportedly harmful words, deeds, and sometimes costumes.

"It is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought," the signatories contend. "More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms."

The list of writers crosses ideologies and oceans, ethnicities and religions, sexual preferences and genders, though the group tilts decidedly left—Vox's Matthew Yglesias and The Nation's Jeet Heer were the two names that surprised me most. There are also a whole lot of Reason contributors here, including Deirdre McCloskey, Cathy Young, Jonathan Rauch, Jonathan Haidt, Emily Yoffe, Jesse Singal, Kmele Foster, Katie Herzog, John McWhorter, Kat Rosenfield, Nadine Strossen, Laura Kipnis, Wendy Kaminer, Francis Fukuyama, and Malcolm Gladwell. (On it, too, are recent Reason interview subjects Meghan Daum, Coleman Hughes, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Steven Pinker, Bari Weiss, and Garry Kasparov.)

Arguably the most striking feature of the exercise, though, is not the breadth of the participants, nor the urgency of the campaign, but rather how the Very Online Left greeted this anodyne expression of free speech sentiment: with a withering, acidic contempt.

"The letter…is about Open Debate only to the extent that people who make very healthy salaries arguing in public for a living seem to have a bizarre aversion to being argued against," spat Gawker alum Hamilton Nolan at In These Times (other choice Nolan adjectives included "pathetic," and "almost intolerably exasperating"). "We have entered a brave new world in which those waving the banner of 'Free Speech' accuse their opponents of being unable to take criticism while waging a histrionic campaign against anyone who dares to criticize them."

It takes a certain willfulness to ignore the plain words of a statement that's all of three paragraphs long, but judging by the reactions on Twitter, Nolan's pampered-crybabies-whining-about-criticism take was as common as goose turds by a pond. Yes, there are people on the list who are probably agitated at having been the target of public shaming campaigns—the Linguistic Society of America went after Pinker just this month, and Lord knows Rowling has had quite the 2020 arguing with transgender rights activists.

But one clearly stated intent among this comparably affluent, tenured, and independent set was to pry open more expressive space for those with less protection.

"We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement," they write. "The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation." (Emphasis mine.)

In his masterful 1993 book Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought, and especially in his 2013 afterward, Rauch (who is a signatory) made the persuasive point that those in society with the least power have the most to gain from a legally and culturally robust arena for speech and debate.

"For politically weak minorities, the best and often only way to effect wholesale change in the world of politics is by effecting change in the world of ideas," wrote Rauch, citing the long and sometimes hopelessly uphill battle to achieve legal equality for gay Americans. "Our position as beneficiaries of the open society requires us to serve as guardians of it. Playing that role, not seeking government protections or hauling our adversaries before star chambers, is the greater source of our dignity."

In his terrific Clear and Present Danger podcast, Jacob Mchangama hammers home a similar point: Free speech is a potent and historically rare weapon for the powerless; blasphemy and other hate-speech laws are the crutches of authoritarians.

The handful of people on this list who I count as friends are motivated by a sincere worry that the walls of debate are closing in on people who don't have the benefit of their comparative advantages. "Sometimes you author a letter to defend yourself. Sometimes you write a letter to protect others," tweeted my longtime collaborator Kmele Foster. "In this case, I think we're doing a bit of both."

That doesn't mean their assessment of the situation is right, of course. But it does suggest that there are easily accessible avenues for discovering some of the motives of the petitioners, beginning with the language of the petition. So very many critics are just not interested in even that minimal gesture. Instead, it's yet another herding exercise—send these 150 people into the ever-growing "coven of fools," even if we used to like that Zephyr Teachout or whatnot.

"No seriously," wrote Ken "Popehat" White, a longtime critic of the culture-of-free-speech argument that the signatories embrace, "now I wonder if the letter was crafted to make its point not in its text but through the anticipated reactions. Good Lord above people."

The essayist Freddie de Boer had a kind of I-break-with-thee reaction to the negative response. "What does it say when a completely generic endorsement of free speech and open debate is in and of itself immediately diagnosed as anti-progressive, as anti-left?" de Boer wrote.

How can someone object to an endorsement of free speech and open debate without being opposed to those things in and of themselves? You can't. And people are objecting to it because social justice politics are plainly opposed to free speech. That is the most obvious political fact imaginable today. Of course Yelling Woke Twitter hates free speech! Of course social justice liberals would prevent expression they disagree with if they could! How could any honest person observe out political discourse for any length of time and come to any other conclusion?

But there is a more generous and thought-provoking reading, one offered frequently by Popehat, and more extensively in a recent essay by Osita Nwanevu in The New Republic. Which, in a nutshell, is: Freedom of association is crucial, too, man.

As someone who has long been on the opposite side of Popehat in those culture-of-free-speech debates (my best attempts are probably here and here), I nonetheless acknowledge the basic fuzz around the standard. Yes, I want the parameters of expression jimmied open ever wider. No, I don't want to hang out professionally or personally with Nazis and/or race/IQ obsessives. Is there some kind of contradiction there?

I think less so than meets the eye. The problem with the would-you-publish-a-Nazi hypothetical is that it's almost always hypothetical because—happily!—America still hates Nazis after all these years. I can think of exactly one case where a person who is in my professional and ideological orbit—who I once did a paid journalism seminar for—was revealed via thorough reporting in 2019 to have been ringleader of a literally pro-Hitler "Morning Hate" email group in which mostly young Washington types engaged in racist and anti-Semitic one-upmanship.

Here's what happened when Nazi-LARPer John Elliott was unmasked: Every right-of-center organization cut ties with the racist bastard. Honorable conservative commentators like the Washington Examiner's Timothy P. Carney wrote pieces with headlines like, "It's time to create a conservative ecosystem that doesn't welcome racists," arguing that: "Conservatives don't give it enough attention, but one of the greatest evils in the U.S. today is rank racial inequality….Conservatives ought to make it a priority to fight for the fundamental dignity and equality of racial minorities who have been denied that dignity and equality."

So the Nazi hypothetical isn't that hard to work through when the evidence is that thick. How does that compare to the last six weeks of people losing their jobs after their bosses, under duress, chose to no longer associate with them? Let's just look at the comparative wrongdoing and due process in three recent cases Reason has mentioned:

* A 54-year-old government contractor was fired after the Washington Post outed her in a 3,000-word article as having attended a Halloween party two years prior in a blackface costume satirizing Megyn Kelly's racial views.

* A San Diego Gas and Electric Co. employee was fired days after a stranger took a picture of him in his truck making with his fingers an "OK" sign that was interpreted as a white power gesture.

* A 28-year-old political scientist was fired from his Democratic consulting firm days after tweeting respectable research indicating that violent protests are less effective at changing policy in the preferred direction than nonviolent protests.

Were these examples of exercising freedom of association? Well, sure, but—not unlike racist speech!—these are bad exercises of that freedom. If we can be negatively judgmental about speech, surely we can also be negatively judgmental about associative behavior, particularly when it's a panicked attempt to chase off a due process–hating mob.

Look, I get it: Successful people are annoying, particularly on the East Coast. There is something inherently ridiculous about joint statements of concern. If you are a moderately heavy consumer of public discourse it's literally impossible to not have been irritated by several people on this list. I do not doubt some track records here contain personal hypocrisy on the issue in question, and there is no shortage of other malignancies to rally against in July 2020.

But here is where Freddie de Boer and I are close to being on the same page: The vast majority of public-facing writers and intellectuals I see scoffing at "cancel culture" and dismissing as a single tiresome monolith a grouping that includes Katha Pollitt, Martin Amis, Shadi Hamid, Margaret Atwood, Greil Marcus, George Packer, Michelle Goldberg, Randi Weingarten, and Zaid Jilani, are at some point just telling on themselves. You do not want to hear left-of-center thinkers bemoaning the free speech "illiberalism" on the left, and you are not curious whether at least a handful of people you have previously respected might have a legitimate concern or two about an issue you claim to hold dear. Noted.

Advertisement

NEXT: Facebook Civil Rights Audit Signals Bad News for Free Speech

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 you’re telling me Leftists are, in fact, totalitarians? Who knew?

    Narrator: Everyone one knew except the self-righteous totalitarian Leftists themselves.

    1. Hi…..Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page.  ….. Read more  

      1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…VEs after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

        Here’s what I do…………………………..► Click here

    2. Why is Matt Welch such a faggot?
      With the suppression of the Uyghur minority by the government, I would consider the Chinese government a Han supremacist group but I doubt any conservative organization would support a boycott of Chinese goods.

      1. Put down the crackpipe, conservatives are frequently advocating boycotts of China.

        1. Making extra salary every month from home more than $15k just by doing simple copy and paste like online job. I have received $18635 from this easy home job and now I am a good online earner like others. This job is super easy and its earnings are great. rer..Everybody can now makes extra cash online easily

          by just follow the given website………Money90

      2. according to a new report, the Uyghur suppression checks all of the UN’s boxes for what’s considered genocide. Anyone want to bet if the UN has the balls to actually proclaim it as such though?

      3. Always amused at this stupidity as the Right does actively counter China’s multiple threats (its authoritarianism, military, economic, etc).

        The Left, and the Democratic Party on the other hand, seem to bow China. Look at how Biden has little to say on the subject of China (and how his family has profited from the Chinese).

        But you’re a moron, so why bother?

      4. Really bonehead? I couldn’t find a drill press at a price threshold that wasn’t made in China so I bought a used one made by China’s enemy, Taiwan. I spend time to ensure I do not buy products from them. Oh and thank Bill Crinton for giving China ballistic missile technology….that wasn’t kosher.

    3. The irony of complaining about Liberals being intolerant the day after Colonel Vindman was forced into retirement simply for telling the truth about Trump would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. I’ve also noticed there is a pattern of attacking military personnel like Senator McCain, Colonel Vindman, Tammy Duckworth, General Kelly, etc. Apparently Trump and his lackeys find those who place duty, sacrifice, and love of country insufficiently loyal.

    4. The problem I had was the hypocrisy of some of those signing — one in particular who was into cancel culture 25 years ago.

  2. This is confoozing:

    “No seriously,” wrote Ken “Popehat” White, a longtime critic of the culture-of-free-speech argument that the signatories embrace, “now I wonder if the letter was crafted to make its point not in its text but through the anticipated reactions. Good Lord above people.”

    Is this letter in favor of free speech for all, or not? Here it sounds like it is against free speech, yet everything else implies it is in favor of free speech. And for all his other faults, I never thought of Ken White as being against free speech.
    So let’s go to that SoHo forum page.

    Russell argued that corporations that accept tax breaks and public subsidies should be more accountable to the public. White held that social media sites deserve the same set of speech rights and limitations as ordinary citizens.

    It was an Oxford-style debate, in which the audience votes on the resolution before and after the event, and the side that picks up the most votes wins. White won the debate by picking up 20 percent of the votes.

    Yep, sounds like Ken White is in favor of free speech.

    Please clean this up.

    1. As someone who has long been on the opposite side of Popehat in those culture-of-free-speech debates (my best attempts are probably here and here)

      I must be really dense. I see no practical difference between you two. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, same stance.

      Maybe I am just such an absolutist that your differences are invisible to me.

      1. I see a lot of room for difference although the author doesn’t spell out what those differences are. We know two things about White’s opinion of free speech from this article;

        1. That is disagrees that a culture of free speech is needed (i.e. the culture of free speech argument, and

        2. That he thinks social media companies have the same rights as ordinary citizens.

        I don’t see how you can conclude that White supports free speech from those two facts. Maybe there is something that the author is leaving out about White’s views. If so, do tell. Otherwise, I think the author’s point stands, though it could be made in a more thorough manner than it was.

        1. Not sure what White actually believes, but I think I understand his point. I think you and I agree that free speech is needed (or more accurately I would say that it is the ideal we should strive towards). But how does a society accomplish that? It’s one thing to say that we’ll forbid the government from stopping free expression… very few people on this comment section would disagree with that, I think. It is quite a different thing to say that we’ll enforce private entities to somehow respect free speech. That’s the distinction that White is making, I think.

          While you and I can agree that it would be great if cancel culture wouldn’t ruin the lives of people based on their ideas, how do you impose that will onto the people behind cancel culture? They’re just as free to NOT associate with someone as you or I are TO associate with that same person.

          Anyway, I think more letters like the subject of the article are needed. We can’t use the heavy hand of government to ensure free speech in private spheres. We should band together and cancel “cancel culture” through the market of free ideas.

          1. Corporations and government will play a critical role in policing speech. We need to undo the racism, homophobia, and misogyny, which are inherent in Western thought, by altering speech and policing ideas to remove whiteness, hetero-normality, and masculinity as the “normal” in society.

            1. I don’t agree with this at all.

              Individuals should play a critical role in policing speech. Expose all speech to the light of day and let people react accordingly.

              The problem is the market seems to be very imbalanced right now towards censoring speech. It’s hard to disagree that truly bigoted people like say David Duke or Louis Farakhan shouldn’t suffer in the market place for their ideas. But what someone like JK Rowling has said is hardly near Duke or Farakhan level. She doesn’t seem to deserve the same treatment, at least to me. Cancel culture treats all speech as black and white, while everything in reality is gray.

              1. Pretty sure that’s a parody account; like engaging OBL.

                1. Who can tell these days.

              2. Rowling is a billionaire. How is she being canceled? She’s being disagreed with. That’s all.

                1. What the fuck exactly does her financial status have to do with anything? Oh, right, in jackbooted leftist “minds” such as yours, that automatically makes her a bad person…

                  1. I just asked how she is being “canceled.”

                    1. After first pointing out that she’s a billionaire. Again: Why did you do that?

                2. Maybe. It’s hard to tell given that she isn’t publishing anything these days. I’d be curious if Harry Potter sales have dropped off or not.

                  It was just an example. I’m sure I could come up with a better example if I cared more. The point being there is a spectrum of speech between PC Principal and Duke/Farakhan. Treating everything we dislike like it’s the latter isn’t helping society.

                  1. It’s hard to come up with examples because there are precious few of them. I don’t think being passionate in disagreement is bad for free speech. It’s probably even good for it. And as long as government isn’t the canceling authority, nobody here should care much.

                    Of course government is canceling speech in other ways. Medical professionals in its employ are not permitted to go on the news and tell the truth, for example.

                    1. I agree that cancel culture is in itself a market reaction to speech. And there are clear examples where extreme bigots should lose business opportunity, freedom of association and all. My opinion is that it’s going too far. There are several examples in the earlier thread on the same topic that make you really scratch your head.

                    2. I definitely agree that there are overreactions, but perhaps we are not free until we are free to overreact.

              3. Farrakhan. Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam?

                David Duke is a pariah, Farrakhan isn’t – take note of how he appears around so many left-wing activists and politicians (Democrats). He was given front and center billing on national TV at Franklin’s funeral (where he sat next to prominent Democratic politicians).

                David Duke wishes he had the access to the GOP that Farrakhan has to the Democratic Party (and every major left-wing group, including BLM).

                Basically I’m saying David Duke is mocked, ostracized, and so on – Farrakhan is lauded, praised, and given a pass often on the hate he spews.

                I hate to bring up Obama but look at Wright and his association with Obama, same with Bill Ayers. If Trump or any GOP, or other politicians on the right, had those sort of associations they’d be drummed out (by the Party, by the media) and ostracized.

                There’s a glaring double standard when it comes to racism, bigotry in Western society – where the Left is given a pass for their bigotry and race-hate (Omar and her Jew/White-hating comments for example).

            2. Policing ideas? Jesus that is one scary hell of a proposition.

            3. We need to remove liberal self loathing jews who want to tear down this country and remake it in their liberal/satanic view. You are abnormal and whining about the rest of us who don’t know why you’re whacked in the skull isn’t going to make us change, if you don’t like America, buy a bus ticket to Zimbabwe.

          2. Removing Section 230 insures they are only protected from copyright issues if they do not actively censor things.

            Again, STOP GIVING FREE SPEECH HATING TYRANTS PROTECTION.

            1. Removing section 230 ensures that there will be less free speech as social media companies are loathe to be sued for hosting someone’s content.

              You have to think about the unintended consequences.

              1. If it comes to selective free speech that’s biased one way and less free speech for everyone, then I’m in favor of “less free speech for everyone”.

                1. Why is it that you think you are entitled to saying anything you want on Facebook or Twitter? I’ve been told it was only lefties that were entitled little babies.

                  1. No one says you are. WE explain this to you about once a week for going on two years now. You are not entitled to anything. The issue is whether Facebook is allowed to claim it isn’t responsible for whatever you post while at the same time exercising unlimited discretion in censoring what you do. If Facebook wants to not allow you to post, they absolutely can and have that right. No one would ever say otherwise. But if they want to do that, then they are responsible for what they do allow to post on their platform because they are exercising their freedom to control and thus must assume the responsibility that goes with it.

                    Do you not understand that argument? If so, then what don’t you understand? If you do, then why do you continually refuse to engage it in any honest way and continue to spout straw men like the one you have here?

                    1. I understand the argument. Claiming that removing section 230 will resolve anything is asinine. The companies will either change their TOS so that you indemnify them, do massive amounts of censorship, or change their business models entirely. Nobody in their right mind is going to be held potentially liable for the speech of millions of users real-time.

                      No, your side is using Section 230 as a cudgel to get what you want from Facebook and Twitter. Nothing more. That’s worse than entitlement. That’s using government to force your entitlement down our throats.

                    2. And to claim that you’re not for forcing them to not censor is a distinction without a difference. You’re saying that forcing them to not censor is somehow different than telling them if they do censor you will remove the very legal apparatus that allows their business to exist in the first place. Without Section 230, Facebook and Twitter will not exist for very long.

                    3. I understand the argument. Claiming that removing section 230 will resolve anything is asinine. The companies will either change their TOS so that you indemnify them,

                      So what? That sounds reasonable. Why shouldn’t I if I post something illegal that subjects them to damages? Indeed, i can’t imagine anyone who isn’t a criminal who would object to such a thing. And by the way, I am libel anyway. Making Facebook responsible just creates a deep pocket to sue. So your point makes no sense. Moreover, it wouldn’t really save Facebook since they would likely not be any money to get from many of their users.

                      Nobody in their right mind is going to be held potentially liable for the speech of millions of users real-time.

                      You are probably right about that. And that means they can get out of the content censorship business. Indeed, that is the whole point. If they don’t want that, then they need to stop censoring. It is one choice or the other. Why should they get a free ride in avoiding it?

                      No, your side is using Section 230 as a cudgel to get what you want from Facebook and Twitter. Nothing more.

                      So what? And I would be fine if they went out of business or were just honest about their censorship and accepted responsibility. I really don’t care what choice they make.

                      And to claim that you’re not for forcing them to not censor is a distinction without a difference. You’re saying that forcing them to not censor is somehow different than telling them if they do censor you will remove the very legal apparatus that allows their business to exist in the first place.

                      What you are saying is true of every publisher. With the freedom to censor comes the responsibility of being responsible for the resulting content. If they want to censor, they have to take responsibility. All you are doing here is whinning that it is hard. Tough shit. Something being hard doesn’t mean you should get special legal protection from it.

                      The bottom line here is that you and those like you think Facebook and such should be above the law or any accountability. In your world, they should have all the freedom of a property owner and a publisher but no legal accountability that every other property owner and publisher has. You think they are a special case that get special rights and special treatment that no one else in history has ever gotten.

                      Why people like you think that is a mystery. I am not sure even you know. All you know is that they are special and should never face any responsibility for the freedoms they enjoy. They are basically some kind of sacred entity to you. You would never apply such nonsense to any other person or corporation.

                    4. You are probably right about that. And that means they can get out of the content censorship business. Indeed, that is the whole point.

                      You don’t like Facebook and Twitter, and you just admitted that this section 230 thing is nothing but a cudgel for the right to get their way. I really do appreciate your honesty and reasonable discussion on the matter.

                      The problem is that social media is quite popular (I know, I really don’t get it and also don’t use it). This is a losing issue for the right. If Republicans get their way and end Twitter and Facebook as we currently know it, it will certainly cause them to lose the middle and lots of elections.

              2. I notice that it is primarily left wing authoritarians that trot out this argument. Maybe it’s true, maybe not but you can’t get any less free speech than we have today if you disagree with the cultural marxist social justice narrative of the day.

          3. Well, this all boils down to education and an educated populace.

            Today’s youth, for example, hold little value in free speech that doesn’t corresponds with their beliefs. Why is that? Maybe I’m wrong but I attribute it to a culture of illiberal left-wing ideology that has taken over the public education system (from the admin down to the teachers).

            Talk to people about libertarian values, and the dumb response I get is always “Move to Somalia!” (or something dumb along those lines), when they aren’t painting you as a racist (despite saying nothing to do with race). Ugh.

            Personally, I don’t see a good future for this country or the West in general in general – we’re moving towards an authoritarian future, and not on the right. The censorship going on these days is reaching a very bad point.

    2. It sounds like White is not in favor of free speech. If White is in favor of free speech, why would he be critical of the arguments made in the letter? Just what other arguments are their for free speech other than that without it you end up with a culture that won’t tolerate dissent?

      White held that social media sites deserve the same set of speech rights and limitations as ordinary citizens.

      That is an argument for equality not free speech. It says nothing about White’s view of how free speech should be. It only says that White’s social media paymasters should be treated the same as ordinary citizens.

      I guess I missed the part of the law that said ordinary citizens are immune from copyright and slander actions as long as they take the offending material down from whatever platform they put them on. Regardless, the passages you quote indicate that White doesn’t support free speech.

      1. White is a thoroughly terrible person.

    3. Yes, I was confused over that passage. Still am after multiple attempts. It needs re-tooling. Or maybe I do?
      Let’s go with choice “A”.

      1. Welsh throws out names and I’m supposed to have kept track of various degrees of ‘left’ assumed by each of the players.
        Some are given (Chomsky, Rushdie, etc), the rest are known to the insiders of punditry.
        Need that ‘program’ here.

    4. Sites like Facebook and Twitter are glorified Usenet. Individual groups within the site can decide who can join but should the site itself? Bake me a cake.

    5. Agree. This was sloppily and confusingly written. Welch needs to read and emulate Hemingway.

    6. Hi…..Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page. … Click For Full Detail.

  3. It takes a certain willfulness to ignore the plain words of a statement that’s all of three paragraphs long…

    The responses were, from what I could see, mostly aimed at attacking the signatories and completely ignoring that text of the letter.

    Of course, as we have seen over the past decade, some crazy how victimhood comes with it a newfound power over the lives of others. People who have power are usually not willing to give it up. I don’t know if these people believe they are shaping a better world; I’m not usually one to attribute good intentions to such bad behavior. Whatever else, they are caricatures, self-parodies and wholly unserious people who should be ignored not heeded.

    1. it’s sad to watch people who know better pretending like they don’t just to stay on the good side of wrong people.

      1. Enough about the Mt Rushmore speech….

    2. Ad hominems are much easier than intellectual rebuttals.

    3. Whatever else, they are caricatures, self-parodies and wholly unserious people who should be ignored not heeded.

      The problem is that ignoring them is increasingly not an option–by not directly pushing back against their bullshit, you actually empower them to believe that their beliefs are valid, and subsequently enable them to believe that any action they take against you for not adhering to those beliefs is justified. This is why academia became such a cesspool of intellectually inbred filth over the last 30 years or so.

      This isn’t unusual in American history–every few decades we have some kind of Puritan-style witch hunt hysteria. Only this time it’s the white radical left that’s carrying it out. Until these people suffer some real, actual consequences for their actions, something that hasn’t happened their entire life going back to childhood, they’re going to keep pushing their bullshit.

  4. Noam Chomsky was one of the signers of this letter. The left has become so insane, Noam Chomsky is one of the sane ones now. If that doesn’t terrify you, nothing will.

    1. It makes you wonder if Noam Chomsky even read it, or if he will later claim someone tricked him. I never would have guessed him as a signatory.

      1. I would have. Noam Chomsky is a nut who spent his life living in complete denial of the crimes of Communism. Chomsky, however, has never been pro censorship or anti free speech. He is just an naive fool who convinced himself that Communism actually was comparable with those things.

        1. What do you call Noam Chomsky being forced to work in a collective garden? Gnome Chomsky!

        2. I think some of the people who signed it probably only saw the shot at Trump, and they were on board. It will be interesting to see if any of them back off. If I were a betting man, Michelle Goldberg would b the first.

          1. “I think some of the people who signed it probably only saw the shot at Trump, and they were on board.”

            Leave out the obligatory ‘orange man bad’, and I’ll bet the list of names would shrink by a large amount.

    2. Did you read the letter? There’s a lot of attacks on the political right in there. I agree with the basic premises of the letter, but it’s hardly fair to say that the political left doesn’t also want to attack our free speech rights at times as well.

      The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.
      I wonder if any of the signatories would be willing to sign a letter denouncing hate speech legislation?

      1. Any such letter is itself hate speech in their eyes.

    3. He signed it now so when they come to get him he will have a moment to say that he was on the right side (no pun) of free speech. But don’t get fooled by this 534 word slight of hand, the left will win and they will get him and then all of us. The young, who will be in charge of our life support systems some day will happily and easily unplug us and them with it.
      https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=15219

  5. Arguably the most striking feature of the exercise, though, is not the breadth of the participants, nor the urgency of the campaign, but rather how the Very Online Left greeted this anodyne expression of free speech sentiment: with a withering, acidic contempt.

    Striking, but certainly not surprising.

    1. White says that it was just designed to illicit a reaction and make the left look bad. White manages to find new ways of being offensively stupid nearly ever day. The guy is becoming the king of stupid in an age filled with it.

      1. Well yeah, that’s the go to now days. They did it with Minonaplis too. The leftist students weren’t showing their true colors, they were being provoked into this reaction.

      2. As someone who doesn’t loathe White even though I disagree with him frequently, I think it’s possible to give his statement a more charitable reading that still bangs on the haters of free speech. To me, that line sounded more like, “Way to prove their point, guys”.

        YMMV.

  6. Look, I get it: Successful people are annoying, particularly on the East Coasts.

    Fixed

    1. The East Coast hasn’t bought into the general acceptance of socialism. Yet. What you’re seeing at the NYT is that battle.

  7. Reading the letter is not reassuring; it’s a lefty screed, claiming the right has been doing this for years and now the left is catching the flu, as it were.
    Seems more a cat-fight among the punditry than any real effort at change.

    1. These idiots are staying to catch on to what s really happening. The killing of George Floyd was our Franz Ferdinand moment. The civil war has started.

      1. I didn’t know Franz Ferdinand was a degenerate bum who spend his leisure time shooting up fentanyl and robbing pregnant women.

        1. None of that is relevant to my point. His death was the event that has set things off. None of this about him anymore.

          It’s about radical progressives trying to take over.

          1. Only one side is mobilizing though, Shitlord.

            Maybe I’m wrong, and I’m just not connected enough to see the other team getting off the bus?

          2. Initially it was about big city Democrat machine politicians not taking any blame for what they have inflicted upon their citizenry. Which then got co-opted by more radical elements within their coalition.

            Same as when they drew the play up back in the 1960’s.

      2. Unfortunately, I think I’m in agreement. Perhaps the shooting hasn’t really started, but the war has. I do not think there is a way out without violence.

      3. Seems more like George Floyd was a Burning Reichstag fire, Kristal nacht to follow.

  8. [T]he free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted

    Maybe, just maybe, we have reached the maximum amplitude of cancel culture’s insanity and restoring forces are taking over the pendulum’s arc. Once sanity is restored it is going to be fun watching the anti-speech crowd try to deny everything they said and did.

  9. It is time to stop engaging the far left in discussion and start beating the shit out them. They do not respond to logic reason or debate. They respond to violence and shaming.

    1. They’re post modernists. They’ve always believed words are violence because that’s all they have. Let them have what they give.

    2. They don’t even respond to shaming, because they don’t feel shame for anything they do. Violence (of the “non-lethal in Minecraft” type) is seen as a legitimization of their belief system, because they’re the “Anti-Bad Guy Squad” and any resistance is the result of Bad Guys pushing back.

      Considering we’re now in a low-grade civil war, I have a feeling a lot of this burns out when it either has its own Altamont moment, or people at the ground level start aggressively pushing back like that counter-revolutionary protest at Bethel, to the point where we end up seeing blue-collar types actually Mario-stomp white upper middle-class Antifa into the ground if they try to start shit in their community. We’re not getting a Pinochet type because, thanks to Obama, the military is led by globalist generals and colonels who are more invested in keeping their war machine gravy train rolling than rocking the boat.

      One thing for sure is that there is going to be an extremely aggressive reaction to this, because the left is feeling empowered and has gone full tard now in its efforts to suppress wrongthink and make critical theory the law of the land.

      1. Need to get them Under my Thumb!

      2. We’re not getting a Pinochet type

        We’re not getting a Pinochet type because this is America, and we don’t need some strongarm generalissimo to do it for us.

        We’ll use private helicopters to throw commies in the ocean.

    3. The harsh reality: sometimes free speech leads to a free punch in the mouth.

  10. Remember when liberals used to fight The Man? Now they are The Man.

    1. What did you expect would happen to intelligent and motivated people? Too bad most conservatives would rather spend their days drinking in the trailer park listening to country music instead of writing articles for a national journal of conservative thought.

    2. Flagged by mistake, whoops!

      I was gonna say that they don’t want to stop the exploitation, they want to join in on it.

  11. “the free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.”

    However, that exchange is anathema to the socialists.
    Hence the cancel culture.
    They no longer have to send the secret police in the middle of the night to disappear you, they proudly do it in the middle of the day.

    1. Burn a pinch of incense to Saint George of Minneapolis, you racist!

  12. Yeah, somewhere in this article, there are a few useful links about attacks on free speech. Other than that, it’s sadly the same histrionic, outraged screaming that we get from the people attacking free speech.

  13. Welch doesn’t seem capable of getting Freddie’s point, which is that a large fraction, possibly the majority, of the self-identified left openly disagrees with the -idea- of free speech and instead holds that many views are harmful to society and should be punished. They do not believe in a general right to freedom of association or make a significant distinction between punishment inflicted by private actors of the state – Welch is imposing a liberal values framework on an illiberal point of view so it makes sense to -him- because he cannot concieve of a value system that rejects his values.

    1. As surely can attest all those evolutionary biologists at Freedom U. and all those leftists at FOX News.

      Oh wait, rightwingers are simply expected to dismiss all opposing viewpoints and it’s perfectly fine.

      1. Do you ever read things before you respond to them?

        1. I’d humbly request a list of all the right-leaning universities that are by comparison enlightened bastions of free speech.

          1. Wabash College, fucko. The only rule of conduct they have is the Gentleman’s Rule:

            “The student is expected to conduct himself at all times, both on and off the campus, as a gentleman and a responsible citizen.”

            Don’t you ever get tired of being a clueless fuckwit?

            1. A secular liberal arts college founded by Presbyterians? Not the rightwing institution I had in mind.

        2. I’ll take that as a no.

  14. So is Carlos Maza having panic attacks and ordering that his two colleagues be immediately fired for their hateful infringements upon him?

    1. Oh, look! Supporter of mass-murderers is here to make idiotic statements!
      Fuck off and die, slaver.

    2. It wasn’t about his political views. It was against regulations to promote any political views while in uniform
      The Military and the UCMJ are very clear about this, you can belong to any political affiliation you want (albeit, some groups will get you banned from certain jobs because you won’t get security clearance). You can even speak up for them on your own time, but you can’t do so while in uniform or while claiming affiliation with the military. It is to maintain a semblance that the military is officially apolitical. I knew a chaplain in the reserves who was caught on camera entering his church in uniform while his congregation held an anti-abortion rally and the footage was broadcast on the local news. It ended his 20+ year military career. My hospital commander, first sergeant and hospital sergeant major were disciplined in 2003 because they were seen shaking hands with pro-military demonstrators outside the gates of Ft. Lewis while in uniform. The demonstrators were showing their support for the Army but despite this, they all received official reprimands in their official records, and all but one (who was already approved for promotion) none were promoted after that despite most serving another 5-10 years in the military. The military takes this very seriously. I can relate several other similar stories.

      1. AS is a thug lefty who brags about stiffing his bank for the mortgage and, like commies everywhere and always, leaving his pile of shit for decent people to clean up.
        Whiny mommy’s-boy, 35-going-on-5.

  15. speech is light. cannot be stopped.

  16. “What does it say when a completely generic endorsement of free speech and open debate is in and of itself immediately diagnosed as anti-progressive, as anti-left?” de Boer wrote.

    It’s like watching a red-pilling in real time.

  17. I think less so than meets the eye. The problem with the would-you-publish-a-Nazi hypothetical is that it’s almost always hypothetical because—happily!—America still hates Nazis after all these years.

    This has become an interesting rhetorical parlour trick. The Nazi goalposts have moved so dramatically, that what they’re really saying is, “Would you publish someone I disagree with”?

    1. And, strangely, given the relative evil, there seems no equivalent ‘would you publish a commie?’ question.

      1. Perhaps because the right, for all its faults accepts that publishing a commie is perfectly acceptable.

        As Douglas Murray said, most people seem to understand what happens if a society goes too far to the right. But there’s a notion that we can just go further and further to the left, and at the end of it there’s no gulag.

        1. It’s really annoying using American Right-Left on European Right-Left.

          It makes no sense. Nazis (as national socialists) were european right wing because they were aligned with the power control. Communists (as the Resistance in France and the Russian Soviets) were european left-wing from only a WWII/German centric POV as oppositional to Hitler.

          Right wing and left wing in America are not defined along those lines, so trying to line up Nazis and Commies in an American framework is not resulting in consistent analysis. It’s rather annoying, really.

          But I’m a nobody so I yield no power in the political axis formation/alignment. I just think we’re being manipulated by biased academics.

          1. I think more people than you know are keenly aware of that. Not the majority, but I would credit more people in this forum with at least an understanding of that. I’ve spilled a fair amount of pixels right here in this forum explaining “libertarian socialism” and why by its utopian vision is not an oxymoron.

            Regardless, the Nazis were an identifiable group of people with an ideology and economic system. Few on the modern left know what they stood for or anything about their economic system, let alone what motivated them.

            1. Make Germany Great Again, in a nutshell.

                1. From all those oppressed minorities who are somehow also pulling all the puppet strings.

                  1. Taking our jobs and our welfares!

                  2. “From all those oppressed minorities who are somehow also pulling all the puppet strings.”

                    No. From lefty shitbags like you.

                    1. The next four years are gonna be rough for you. I can’t wait.

                    2. Are you hoping Jeff Dunham will prop Biden on his knee and convince enough idiots that he’s still sentient?

                    3. It should cancel out since his opponent has a vocabulary of about 10 words and a demeanor suggesting dementia. But accusing Democrats of the Republicans’ weaknesses is an old Rove strategy, so I can’t say it won’t work.

                  3. From all those oppressed minorities who are somehow also pulling all the puppet strings.

                    Tony forgets Jerry Brown’s presidential run.

          2. The way I understand it is that Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin were all happily left-wing (socialist), until Hitler invaded Russia. Then Hitler (and by implication, Mussolini) had to become not-left-wing (i.e. right-wing) in the eyes of the left-wing historians and academics. See what you can do if you’re an intellectual?

        2. North American gulags would serve poutine and deep dish.

        3. Yes, there are and have been counter balances to rightwing excesses. The media, academia, Hollywood, the intelligentsia. When the right has gone too far (or tried to) – think of the “Moral Majority” in the 1980s – there was push back, institutions that opposed and restrained them.
          We’re starting to see *some* push back now on this “woke” ideology; but it’s nowhere near as numerous as those who were pushing against the right.
          Maybe when Trump leaves it’ll re-emerge. I do think some groups – the ACLU? – don’t wish to push back because they think it might help Trump. We’ll see.

          1. Didn’t the ACLU recently (as in the last few years) abandon classical liberal principles (such as free speech) to push progressive causes? Even wrote a mission statement (or whatever those are called) stating as much.

            Look at NPR, they’re now advocating book burning (“decolonize bookshelves”).

      2. “…there seems no equivalent ‘would you publish a commie?’ question”

        Wearing a Che shirt should be seen in the same light as wearing the Nazi swastika.

        1. Permitted by law but looked down upon by most members of society? People in both camps know they are mostly hated. They think they’re right anyway. If the swastika is somewhat more taboo, maybe that’s because of all the Jew killing.

            1. The 1970s were peak tolerance.

          1. Che just didn’t have the population to kill like Hitler, but do you really think if he had, he wouldn’t have? See Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot for reference.

            1. Read the interview he gave with a French Marxist publication shortly after the missile crisis was resolved. He openly admitted that had he and Fidel had control of the nuclear missiles – the ones in the USSR not the ones in Cuba – that they would have launched them against the US. He said he knew it would be the end of Cuba, and the deaths of millions, but striking a blow against the “capitalist imperialists” justified it.
              Well, that’s nice.

              1. Which was a big reason why the Soviets maintained control of them. They were just looking for leverage and to tweak Kennedy’s nose, they didn’t want a bunch of third-world trash going off the reservation and starting World War 3.

    2. Considering the actual tactics and stances of the antifa movement, I would say most left of center publications are completely happy publishing Nazi commentaries. You just have to use the, by now wholly, oxymoron antifa.

  18. “”What does it say when a completely generic endorsement of free speech and open debate is in and of itself immediately diagnosed as anti-progressive, as anti-left?” de Boer wrote.”

    This is completely wrong. Did he not Read the Letter. It wasn’t generic. It was a Left leaning group, that was explicitly saying the Right is horrible, but just maybe the Left is also doing something wrong?

    Naturally, the Left reacted with outrage, that they could be criticized in the slightest.

    1. Shorter letter: “Don’t shoot me, I’m one of the good guys”

    2. Exactly.
      This would be considered ‘neutral’ in SF, Berkeley, Boston and other centers of US left-wing politics.

    3. Now you’re showing your bias.

      I read it as knowing your audience. It’s been the hallmark of rhetoric since Aristotle. It certainly isn’t a screws against the right.

      They are not wrong in noting that Trump has been highly critical of speech he doesn’t like, even going so far as filing lawsuits against newspapers. They are not wrong in noting that the right does have a history of trying to suppress speech in the form of book banning.

      They are also not wrong in noting that the left (even if only out of political opposition rather than adhering to core principles) has been against those things, at least when politically convenient, and also in noting that the left has for decades publicly supported the idea of free speech as a core principle (again, even if that stance is out of political opposition to the right as opposed to an actual core principle). Some on the left always did and still does believe in those things, even if they were fooled in to believing it was a core principle of the left as a whole.

      They’re actively pointing out the rank hypocrisy in modern cancel culture. This is a letter to the left, from the left. To expect them to write the words you’d rather see is ridiculous.

      1. This guy gets it.

  19. The authors and signatories are just noticing the problem now?

    Oh, my, whatever could be happening that would cause them to be concerned?

    Do people who ignore the stench of burning bodies deserve to die in a fire?

  20. What this sums to is speech plus more speech plus consequences of speech plus speech complaining about those consequences (none of which are imposed by government). I don’t think editors should be fired for running controversial pieces, or academics ostracized for the same. But I can think of maybe less than a handful of cases where this has happened. It’s good to keep things in perspective. This may be a problem by liberals and for liberals (conservatives, the letter notes, are already ass-deep in totalitarian horseshit), but it’s not the ONLY problem in the goddamn world right now. The problem of cancel culture (and can you really name that many people who have actually been canceled?) is being weaponized by the Trumpies to distract from his many truly impressively massive failures. It’s “but her emails” all over again, so this whole conversation is suspect.

  21. My attic only has room for Kmele and Katie H.
    The rest can hit the showers.

  22. “What does it say when a completely generic endorsement of free speech and open debate is in and of itself immediately diagnosed as anti-progressive, as anti-left?”

    It means that Haidt and others are correct, and we have produced a generation of emotionally retarded, hyper-sensitive spoiled brats who think that any sort of challenging opinion is a near-death experience. And they demand a coddling world with all comforts provided.

    Like it or not, we did this.

    1. If you want a taste of what a microaggression feels like, watch a foreign movie that depicts American culture (a cultural appropriation, if you will). See if you aren’t a little uncomfortable by the stereotypes and wrongness of it all. Now multiply that by every day and most people you encounter, and you’ll know sort of what it’s like to be considered an outsider in your own society.

      Liberals working on microaggressions are indeed at the cutting edge of progressive culture. Maybe it’s a drop in the bucket, maybe it’s not, but keep in mind that it’s an academic debate that you don’t have to be involved in if you don’t want to.

      But also keep in mind that nobody even expects the Right to care about free speech. They have churches, a big slice of media, their own universities, and the US federal government. See how much dissent they tolerate.

      1. Lay off the Vin Mariani Tony.

        What planet are you on?

        Liberals control all the ‘mediums is the message’ you sentient paper clip.

        1. Rightwingers control basically all of talk radio and half of cable news. It’s hard to measure the internet, but we agree that they have a robust presence there too.

          Your problem is “libruls control the media” IS a bit of propaganda the right has sold to you using all their sundry media outlets. Irony, table for one. And they tell you that in order to get you believing that all relatively neutral sources of information are in a conspiracy to hurt you. So you should not only be skeptical of the “mainstream media,” you should probably just tune it all out and only listen to us.

          1. Rightwingers control basically all of talk radio and half of cable news.

            Well there’s two things few remaining Americans pay any attention to.

          2. There ABSOLUTELY is a liberal bias. Are you mental?

            Radio and memes are nothing compared to academia, entertainment, and the vast majority of legacy media (eg WaPo, NYT, major cable networks. It’s ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN vs. Fox)

            The Internet presence can easily be squashed by the platforms that allow for it. Youtube, Twitter, Facebook do attempt to censor conservative content.

            And where they go to alternative options like Gab, companies step in and immorally (you heard me. If they want to play faux-righteous games then they’re open to being called immoral assholes) prevent them from doing business.

            1. It isn’t just media, they’re just a small part – its the public education system that has embraced a starkly illiberal left-wing”ism”. This is from the admin down to the teachers themselves – and they mold the minds of millions and millions and millions, the last two generations, with this idiocy that has the last two generations advocating socialism and hating Western Civilization and its values (such as free speech).

      2. Guess what, Mr. Sensitive? There are people who do not like you or your values. And in an open society, we get to express ourselves.

        Now if that gives you a sad, too fucking bad. If you continue to push to censor not just speech but also thought, then at some point there will be some macro aggression. Most people, even the cowardly suburban moms and deluded college students, will at some point get too much of your progressive ideology. Many people already have.

  23. 2019: “What’s the big deal? They’re only Confederate statues!”
    2020: “Is that Frederick Douglas’s head on a spike”?

    The left are basically cancelling America. That’s the end game. Thunder Road. Land of no mercy or forgiveness.

    Didn’t Biden pen an op-ed self-editing the DOI’s opening line, ‘all men are created equally’ to ‘all people are created equally’?

    A Justin Trudeauesque moment for America.

    Actually, America better stop downplaying all this because it’ll be too late by the time they do.

    And when they finally do, they’ll look like Mr. Furley:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDdf5not9ns

    1. We should tear down the Parthenon. Because the Greeks held slaves.

      1. Tear down Rome too.

        American are insufferable with the self-absorbed slavery thing.

        As if it began with them and never ended.

        1. You’re correct.

          Though I would say it isn’t just the Americans (the Left mostly here) but the foreign Left as well who see it as a sword to use against Americans (and Western society in general). What does George Floyd have to do with France? Yet, left-wingers there were protesting (and destroying things). Same with the UK, Italy, Germany, even in China (which was amusing, considering their own egregious human rights abuses that are far worse on orders of magnitude than ours, and obviously instigated by the government there).

          1. George Floyd was a career criminal who ate his stash during an arrest and died of the self caused overdose while he was being restrained, as he did not just quietly get in the car as the police wanted. For someone this inconsequential to cause such a societal disturbance, shows how sick this society is at this point.

  24. Consider this…

    The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation.” (Emphasis mine.)

    followed shortly by:

    “For politically weak minorities,

    This reasoning is incomprehensibly obtuse. Minorities aren’t politically weak, cancel culture is their strength. Every writer cancelled is a chance for them to move up. Those who instead choose to save their careers can only do so by adopting the Approved Minority Framework. Why are we still pretending minorities are politically weak even as we describe the unlimited power these “principles” grant them?

  25. “…”the free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.”

    As we all know Comrades, this is a good thing if we are to live in a free, liberated and tolerant socialist state.

  26. This article is pretty good. The Harper’s letter is lame. They are just posing as defenders of free speech and as this article says, it is anodyne, except for its slanders against Trump and conservatives, tho those too are so commonplace nowadays as to be anodyne.

    See my blog post attacking the people who wrote the Harper’s letter at https://www.rasmusen.org/blog1/h/ .

  27. This is nothing but liberals upset that the crocodile has turned on them. With a gratuitous and incorrect swipe at Trump, they say that they do not want allies from the Right or Center, and that one more virtue signal is more important then gaining allies in the fight.

    This is not a defense of free speech, it is a defense of the liberal chattering class, which is completely different.

  28. Parker Molloy, a writer at Media Matters had the idiocy to state that no one on this list of letter signers had been the subject of real censorship in recent memory. The list includes Salman Rushdie and Gary Kasparov…how stupid and tone deaf can a person in media be?

  29. the Linguistic Society of America went after Pinker just this month,
    Actually, it didn’t. There was a petition circulated calling for LSA to remove Pinker from its list of ‘recommended speakers’ and take away his special honorary status. There was also a couple of counter postings arguing back, at least one of which was publicly endorsed by many famous and not-quite-so-famous linguists (such as yours truly). LSA responded today by rejecting the call, but promising to think about how honors are awarded in the future. Not quite the same thing. Unfortunately, some of the signers of the original letter calling for censuring Pinker were then attacked in the usual way by alt-righters (you know, death threats, extreme language insults from complete strangers who are probably not even linguists). It’s an ugly world out there.

  30. Half the people on this list built the walls that are now closing in on around them. Feeding little monsters gets you big monsters. The rest of us better gear up, because there’s no talking to Marxists. Lenin drove out Trotsky, FFS. You think a letter will save you?

    1. Thank you. And these leftie media fucks only started noticing and caring when they found that suddenly it was members of their “craft” that we’re in the crosshairs.

  31. Very sound, reasoned, cautious… perhaps just a teensy bit mealy-mouthed.
    Just spit it out, son!
    These folks represent the counter-culture cancel-culture offense-ridden gender-smitten color-coded risen and emboldened; the empowered and resentful; the bent bitter and despicable protesters.
    Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  32. Since I started with my online business I earn $90 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out …Click For Full Details.

  33. Everything out of a liberals mouth is the antithesis of freedom and self reliance. They are against everything this country was founded upon and the sooner we realize that we are not dealing with a different opinion but instead a fifth element within, the better off we’ll be. Step #1, recognize the enemy. Step #2, do something about it.

  34. The problem with talking up equality as something to strive for is that it is inherently incompatible with freedom. Why? Because people aren’t equal. So the only way to make them so is to drag the successful down. This makes even the less fit worse off.

    Almost all the stratification one finds in the world is a result of superior native ability and/or superior work ethic and/or superior culture which creates a better functioning person.

    Therefore people on the right need to start making the argument that equality is NOT something to strive for, that equality is NOT a goal to try to achieve… It is like saying we want to strive for all people being 40 feet tall with 6 eyes and 8 arms. It is impossible, so even paying it lip service is bullshit.

    I’m all for equality of opportunity as a theory, but equality of outcome is impossible. I’ve outright made dumb decisions a few times in my life, yet I still make multiple times the national average income, and have a pretty functional and decent life. Better than not only almost everybody on planet earth, but better than almost every person in the USA. Why? Because I have a well above average IQ. So even with my mistakes I naturally have exceeded what most people are capable of with nothing but the best possible decisions and the luck of the devil. If I’d not made mistakes, or had a few strokes of luck, I could be a billionaire. Maybe I still will be someday, but if not I shall certainly die worth several million.

    The fact is black people are where they are because they’re a dysfunctional mess culturally, and there’s the persistent IQ gap that SOMEHOW exists all over the entire earth in every single black community, and SOMEHOW seems to be genetic according to every study ever done that tried to prove it was environment. Even if it is environment, it’s still not white peoples fault. Black people either will or won’t get their shit together, but it isn’t everyone else’s job to tilt all of society their way because they’re fuck ups.

    Libertarians and the right have accepted an incorrect premise that the Marxists drilled into everyone’s heads. We need to STOP playing their game and making arguments inside a false box they created. That’s a real masterstroke of commies, manipulation of language and controlling the Overton window. But if we want freedom we need to stop playing their game.

    No more pushing equality as something to strive for. Call out equality as a nonexistent hypothetical BS concept. That’s the only way to win at the game.

    1. I hate to say it, but you just supported the notion of white privilege.

  35. If it takes a treaty, it’s not free trade, but managed trade.

    To be fair, the treaty could simply prohibit laws that hinder free trade among the signatories.

    1. I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h…VDs someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me, so now i’m hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink…

      strive it, you…………….Home Profit System

Please to post comments