MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Still Fearing Antifa Supersoldiers, Republicans in Congress Declare War on Masks: Reason Roundup

Plus: "acting" is now hate speech (at least if your genitals don't define your roles), Trump thinks Germany is Russia's puppet.

https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts?visibility_check=truehttps://twitter.com/shannonrwatts?visibility_check=trueUnmasking GOP hypocrisy and hysteria. Legislation introduced by three Republican representatives would make it a federal crime to engage in political protest while wearing a mask. Just in case there was any confusion that this is a bill explicitly targeting their political opponents while trashing the Constitution, it's called the Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018.

Technically, the bill makes it a crime—punishable by up to 15 years in prison, plus a fine—to "injure, oppress, threat[en], or intimidate any person" while "in disguise, including while wearing a mask," even if the conduct in question would be legal when undertaken by a non-masked person. The bill specifically notes that it applies "whether or not [a masked person is] acting under color of law," and it does not define "oppress" or "intimidate."

So under the Unmasking Antifa Act, all sorts of acts of legal protest could be considered criminal if someone—be they with Antifa, the NRA, the KKK, or the saving kittens drive—throws on a tutu, tiara, fake mustache, mask, bandanna, or any other sort of costume element.

The bill also creates a statutory enhancement (and a mandatory minimum) for certain acts of vandalism committed while wearing a mask. Anyone found guilty of "destroying property within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction" will automatically be sentenced to two years in prison, in addition to any sentence otherwise imposed, if their act took place while wearing "a disguise, including a mask."

The whole business reeks, of course—things should be criminalized based on the activity in question, not the attire one wears while accomplishing said activity. Republicans rightfully tend to stand against "hate speech" laws and other similar statutes that impose heavier criminal penalties based on subjective states of mind or elements ancillary to the crime. They also frown—or at least once upon a time did—at unnecessary federalization.

But hypocrisy is currency in Washington, so here we are: mandatory minimums for mask wearers, to be monitored by federal agents. Nothing dystopian in that, nosiree…

The bill is being pushed by Reps. Daniel Donovan (R-NY), Reps. Peter King (R-N.Y.), Ted Budd (R-N.C.), and Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.).*

FREE MARKETS

The NATO summit started today in Brussels, and President Trump has wasted no time before insulting U.S. allies and spouting crazy conspiracy theories. America's allies are "delinquent" in covering defense costs, Trump told NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg, and Germany is "captive to Russia."

Meanwhile, back home, the Trump administration is threatening to levy another $200 billion in tariffs on China.

FREE MINDS

Should a non-transgender actor take a role as a transgender character? Business Insider columnist Daniella Greenbaum doesn't see why not, and made her case in a recent column titled "Scarlett Johansson is being unfairly criticized for doing her job after being cast as a transgender man." Despite being labeled a "conservative" argument, Greenbaum's piece merely suggested that "the job of an actor is to represent someone else" and therefore their actual gender identities off-screen are "irrelevant" to the roles they play onscreen.

But the article caused an uproar, and Business Insider simply removed it from the publication's website. The page now says that the article has been removed for not meeting the site's "editorial standards"—standards that apparently don't include standing by work they publish if it pisses off certain orthodoxies.

"Editors should make sure we are not publishing shallow, 'hot takes,' but instead, fully thought-out arguments that reflect and respect the opposing view," global editor-in-chief Nich Carlson told staff in an internal email obtained by The Daily Beast. "There should be no partisan name-calling, e.g. 'social justice warriors,' 'libtards,' or 'rednecks.' Opinion and arguments should feel reported and researched, and not like quick reactions."

FREE MOVEMENT

Judges gives ICE more—and less—time to reunite families.

QUICK HITS

  • "We let someone get naked and have every other part of their body touched and rubbed by a massage therapist. Hell, we let proctologists spend their day fingering men and sticking things up their anus. So if someone wants to yank a guy's crank, I say let 'em." Here, here!
  • Yale law students warn that the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh as a potential Supreme Court justice "presents an emergency."

  • updated to include Rep. Daniel Donovan among the sponsors. Donovan introduced the Antifa bill but was erroneously left off the sponsors list in an earlier version of this post.

Photo Credit: Alex Milan Tracy/Sipa USA/Newscom

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    America's allies are "delinquent" in covering defense costs, Trump told NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg, and Germany is "captive to Russia."

    You know who wasn't captured by Russians?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    (Spoiler alert) Kira Argounova

  • ||

    Hello.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    Rocky Balboa

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Viktor Belenko?

  • juris imprudent||

    A warm water port.

  • JWatts||

    Nyet, Sevastopol is once again Russian.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Mitchell Gant

  • Cynical Asshole||

  • End Child Unemployment||

    +505 dead Russians

  • End Child Unemployment||

    +505 dead Russians

  • Bearded Spock||

    Marshal Ney?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The 1980 Olympic Committee?

  • Martin Brock||

    Anyone on the Contra Cruise?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    But the article caused an uproar, and Business Insider simply removed it from the publication's website.

    The article identifies as unpublished. Respect that.

  • Elizabeth Nolan Brown||

    =)

  • Bee Tagger||

    Yale law students warn that the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh as a potential Supreme Court justice "presents an emergency."

    i much prefer when bjork presents a state of emergency

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    The whole business reeks, of course—things should be criminalized based on the activity in question, not the attire one wears while accomplishing said activity.

    The libertarian case for masked thugs beating up anyone who disagrees with us on immigration or abortion.

  • Shirley Knott||

    The libertarian case that the mask doesn't matter.
    The mask is neither a crime nor a prima facie guarantee of violent behavior.
    The crime is in the act, not the costume. (Sorry coulrophobiacs)

  • Griffin3||

    Will no one think about the Juggalos?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Thankfully not.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    The problem is that the mask makes getting away with the crime easier especially in the context of a large violent protest where multiple people wear masks entirely to provide cover for the bad actors.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Should set up snipers to take down those protesters when they get violent.

  • Citizen X||

    Wishing for state agents to murder your political opponents is libertarian af.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Can you cite the place where 'state agents' were specified?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    They were specifically not specified. I was thinking more of some old Army buddies

    I do want Antifa thugs to be made afraid when they start to riot, rage, and burn.

  • Cathy L||

    Cars make it easier to get away with crimes too, I wonder if those should be banned in public.

  • damikesc||

    If you run over people with a vehicle, you dont tend to get away with it.

    Masked assault? You usually get away with it.

  • jcw||

    I believe Cathy was talking about robberies and what not using the vehicle as a means of easier escape.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Glad to know that hit and run isn't a thing anymore.

  • damikesc||

    We are discussing political protests. Last time a car killed somebody at one, they certainly did not get away with it.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    We are discussing political protests. Last time a car killed somebody at one, they certainly did not get away with it.

    The discussion has to presume Cathy isn't an obtuse, passive-aggressive cretin, which is a Sisyphean task in itself.

  • NashTiger||

    Well, it's illegal to cover your license plate, making it harder to identify the car who runs someone over

  • damikesc||

    Reason seems to think that allowing private actors to utterly and completely stifle free speech isn't a problem because it is not the government doing so.

    I see them as the exact same. My rights are suppressed either way. Either via threat of arrest or threat of anonymous masked thugs ambushing me, running away, and me never being able to get justice.

    When did this insane belief that you have a RIGHT to hide your identity in a public protest come from? No such a right has ever existed. You go outside, your expectation of privacy ends immediately.

  • Cathy L||

    I'm wondering, how much clothing, if any, should be allowed in public? I mean, you have no right to privacy. I assume you have your dick out all the time, right?

  • swain||

    you can wear whatever you want.

  • damikesc||

    Just checking...were you born an idiot or just work really hard at it?

    Yes, walking around naked is identical to not being allowed to wear a mask.

  • BYODB||

    Notably, walking around naked is also illegal. Although I'm pretty sure that's not Federal law either.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Progtards LOVE false equivalence.

  • Azathoth!!||

    I think it's an upcharge.

    IF you're doing violence at a protest AND you're wearing a mask for the purpose of helping you commit crimes THEN you get this extra charge for the mask.

    BUT if you're just wearing a mask for fun or to hide your identity and NOT commit crimes you're fine.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Some state ban wearing masks, except on Halloween.

    They have not really been challenged as unconstitutional bans.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The libertarian case for masked thugs beating up anyone who disagrees with us on immigration or abortion.

    Which is totally the same as what ENB wrote! Right?

    things should be criminalized based on the activity in question, not the attire one wears while accomplishing said activity

    Oh wait

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    The mask is there to aid people in getting away with the assault. It changes the actual crime.

  • Shirley Knott||

    How?
    Masks are not the only possible disguise.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    I like to wear Ace Frehley's KISS makeup when I need to crack some skulls.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    With a Les Paul?

  • damikesc||

    Theyre the most readily used and the masks prevent assault cases from being prosecuted and victims from receiving compensation.

  • BYODB||

    Wearing masks to a protest shouldn't have a mandatory minimum far out of scale of any crimes actually committed, for sure. That said, wearing a mask to a protest could mean that there's some rioting that's being planned.

    Just because some violence could be planned doesn't mean there should be any prior restraint from wearing a mask though. In the U.S. we should probably focus on actual crimes with actual victims. Just the act of wearing a mask is not inherently a crime with an identifiable victim and the cops don't need more laws on the books to harass people and put them in jail for a victimless act of protest.

  • damikesc||

    There will be exceptionally negative repurcussions if it does not end.

    Can you explain why anybody who wants to silence protest shouldnt just wear masks and beat up folks? It is allowed now and we seem to think that one groups desire for privacy in public trumps others desire to be able to openly protest.

  • Cathy L||

    Beating people up is still not allowed.

  • damikesc||

    If you wear a mask, it apparently very much is allowed as nobody is prosecuted for it.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Them tell Antifa to stay home. They like to attack people.

  • damikesc||

    Wearing masks to a protest shouldn't have a mandatory minimum far out of scale of any crimes actually committed, for sure. That said, wearing a mask to a protest could mean that there's some rioting that's being planned.

    I'm not saying punish them excessively. Simply "If you're at this protest, you must remove your mask. If you refuse, you're disturbing the peace".

    Keep in mind, the vast majority of the time, the masked thugs are breaking up assemblies that are completely lawful and went through all of the bureaucratic mumbp-jumbo to occur. They show up illegally, wreck shit, and get away because "Well, we cannot identify them".

    If there is a protest, you cannot wear a mask near the area. Period.

  • BYODB||


    They show up illegally, wreck shit, and get away because "Well, we cannot identify them".

    No offense, but they probably aren't going to identify them in either scenario so this is essentially pearl clutching. I see your point, don't get me wrong, but I have to disagree with this proposed legislation in particular since I'm morally opposed to minimum sentencing.

    Especially for actions with no victim.

    There might be some other theoretical way to write such a law that I would agree with, but this is not that law.

  • Overt||

    I can see why a lot of people would want to wear masks that don't include violence. For example, protesting some government policy and being afraid of losing your job, being targeted by SJWs on social media, or being targeted by the local sheriff for harassment.

    The real problem here is that the police almost always just step back and let these protests turn into riots. Police should show up to these and if they see someone in a mask engaging in violence, they should arrest them, not stand back and watch.

  • swain||

    this doesn't make wearing masks illegal

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If the government just banned protests, then there would be no assaults at protests!

  • swain||

    leave it to you to spout hyperbolic non-sequiturs because the issue is beyond your intellectual ability

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Jeff, if the government banned stupid hyperbolic statements, you would be struck mute.

  • Ron||

    yes and that is how many violent protesters get off because you can't identify them, not because they didn't commit a crime. But everyone yells see they indictment was overturned so no violence occured and they are innocent NOT

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Antifa needs to be destroyed. They are a seditious group, the enemy within.

    This is the sort of thing Joe !McCarthy was trying to prevent.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    You can't destroy an idea. Making martyrs out of terrorists doesn't tend to make anything better.

  • damikesc||

    These are cowardly little shits. I'm all for conservative groups walking around with weapons drawn and loaded for the first time any of them start anything.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Just keep firing into the Antifa crowd until they're all taking naps on the street.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Since masks guns aid in the commission of crimes, let's ban masks guns. Brilliant logic there, champ!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You do realize there are already laws on the books in several states forbidding the wearing of masks to protests, right? The whole point was to prevent groups like the Klan from terrorizing communities and inciting riots without legal repercussions.

  • swain||

    2nd amendment champ.

    i mean god damn man, think before you prove you're an idiot

  • Mickey Rat||

    Barring the issue of whether this should be in federal jurisdiction at all, that should only be ancillary to a violent crime, that is, property destruction, aggressive trespass, assault, and battery. As the masks are being used to hide identification in committing crimes against other people.

    But three cheers for the heckler's veto and the neo-Blackshirts.

  • Citizen X||

    The bill specifically notes that it applies "whether or not [a masked person is] acting under color of law," and it does not define "oppress" or "intimidate."

    Whoa. Does this mean SWAT teams are illegal?

  • Shirley Knott||

    Now that would be epic!
    Unintended consequences for the win!

  • Rich||

    Beautiful.

  • Rich||

    Oops.

    Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to deter any law enforcement officer from lawfully carrying out the duties of his office

  • Shirley Knott||

    Odd. They take much better care of themselves than they do of us.
    Whoda thunk it?

  • Citizen X||

    I figured it was too good to be true. Exceptions must be made for Big Brother's boot, after all.

  • BYODB||

    Seems there could be an equal protection of the law case to be made over such exceptions, but I'm under no illusions such a claim would survive in any court.

  • swain||

    god i hope so

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    President Trump has wasted no time before insulting U.S. allies and spouting crazy conspiracy theories

    Trump gets his CT straight from wingnut.com.

  • Just Say'n||

    This was one of the first times where he wasn't spouting wacky conspiracy theories. Just uncomfortable facts

  • ||

    He's just airing family secrets.

    And that has upset the kids.

  • Just Say'n||

    They're not even secrets. Nearly every American administration since the end of the Cold War have made the same complaints to the Europeans- just not so publicly

  • ||

    Oh dear me yes. I've been reading publications like Foreign Affairs (and Foreign Policy before it all went loopy and downhill) and multiple others since the 1980s and that much is very true. In fact, very little of what Trump says is actually new but just recycled stuff in the annals of American diplomacy and academia.

    That's why the people freaking out on everything single stupid shit he does are either illiterates or just partisan clowns.

  • juris imprudent||

    illiterates or just partisan clowns.

    Pretty sure that "or" is superfluous.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The children do get upset easily these days.

  • damikesc||

    Should a non-transgender actor take a role as a transgender character?

    It IS called acting, you know.

    Legislation introduced by three Republican representatives would make it a federal crime to engage in political protest while wearing a mask.

    Given the repeated violent provocations of antifa while masked, I am perfectly OK with this.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The moment this law would ever be applied against some Tea Party protestor wearing a baseball cap that obscures a clear view of the person's face, you would be the first to scream 'leftist tyranny'

  • damikesc||

    Yes, that is how the law is written.

    This law has zero bearing on your right to protest. In public, you have zero expectation of privacy. You want to wear a mask and protest? Stay at home.

    and, yes, if they use the law to go after people wearing baseball caps but their faces are otherwise uncovered, yes, it would be fascism.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Don't protest if you don't want government thugs harassing you at a later date?

  • damikesc||

    If they do so, it would be a blatant violation of your rights. There are remedies. You assault me and nobody knows who you are...where is MY remedy?

  • Shirley Knott||

    Same place all anonymous crime remedies are.
    There is no state of perfection. Random keying, tire slashing, mugging with no security cams around, etc. The list goes on and on.
    Do we really want to argue for the panopticon? The full security state?

  • Citizen X||

    Your rights end where law enforcement's convenience begins. Didn't you read the fine print on the social contract before you signed it?

  • Cathy L||

    Yes. If damikesc could ever be the victim of a crime that the perpetrator gets away with, it means we need more laws. For freedom.

  • damikesc||

    Yes, mass surveillance is the same thing as "If you want to protest publicly, you cannot wear a mask". Identical really.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Your gun. That's what y'all keep saying anyway.

  • BYODB||

    While I'm pretty sure you disagree with what you said here Escher, you're also not wrong.

  • EscherEnigma||

    While I'm pretty sure you disagree with what you said here Escher [...]


    Well that's because y'all never bother reading what I actually write about gun control and just flip out and make bad assumptions.

  • BYODB||

    Honestly I don't remember what your position on gun control is Escher and it's not relevant here, I'm just pointing out that you're not wrong. One's own personal defense is one's own responsibility.

    When seconds matter, the police are only an hour away after all.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Honestly I don't remember what your position on gun control is Escher and it's not relevant here [...]


    Which is why, of course, you just responded "got it one!" and didn't make any snide comments about my (assumed) position.

    If you don't want me to respond to your pointless dig, don't make the pointless dig.

  • BYODB||

    Again, not relevant Escher but since you want to harp on a minor point I assumed you don't agree because of what you wrote.

    Your gun. That's what y'all keep saying anyway.

    Your phrasing here indicates that you're not a part of the group that agrees. Not my fault. The usage of 'y'all' instead of 'we' being the important bit.

  • damikesc||

    And I'm amused that some feel "don't wear masks" is somehow more of a problem than "just shoot folks".

    If you want vigilantes out in force, fine.

    Do not claim this is unexpected.

  • damikesc||

    You act like stick around.

    They do not.

    You have zero expectation of privacy in public. Masks in protests should have always been illegal.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    This is a direct attack on my deepest beliefs as a fursuiter.

  • Seamus||

    You're right: I would be screaming "leftist tyranny" if someone tried to argue that a cap was actually a mask just so they could fuck over some Tea Partier.

    If, on the other hand, they applied this law to a Tea Partier who was actually wearing, you know, a *mask*, I'd say "It's a fair cop, gov'nor."

  • perlchpr||

    No.

    I would be OK with this as a sentence enhancement for an actual crime.

    Simply "protesting while masked", however, does not harm anyone.

    I, for one, quite wish to retain the option of wearing a mask to a protest, in the event of a 2020 win by Hillary, or Harris, or Gillibrand, or whatever idiot leftist twit the Dems run next.

  • Bee Tagger||

    The "Intellectual Dark Web" crew would like you to know that "toxic masculinity" is just cultural-Marxist mumbo-jumbo

    do we have any sense of how much the vagueries of online thought impact the lives of most people?

  • Maven Houlihan||

    I read the article yesterday. As much as I like ENB, this is a pretty distorted reading of it.

  • Cathy L||

    Meh. It was a trash column and an indication that Heying has overdosed on culture war and crossed the line into being a sloppy suck-up to her rightish sympathizers. The "argument" structure was manipulative and the whole thing conveniently had just about zero references to the arguments and practices she's allegedly objecting to. Anyone who thinks women typically wear makeup to display sexual attractiveness has lost their grip on reality (or perhaps never had a corporate job).

  • BYODB||


    Anyone who thinks women typically wear makeup to display sexual attractiveness has lost their grip on reality (or perhaps never had a corporate job).

    So women don't wear makeup to appear more attractive? What, pray tell, do you believe the reason to be?

  • Cathy L||

    So women don't wear makeup to appear more attractive? What, pray tell, do you believe the reason to be?

    To look professional, affluent, and normal.

  • NashTiger||

    So, the more makeup, the more affluent? Interesting...

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    So, the more makeup, the more affluent? Interesting...

    Strippers are known for their billionaire lifestyles.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "Strippers are known for their billionaire lifestyles."

    At least insofar as their capacity to consume cocaine is concerned.

  • BYODB||

    ...what makes putting on a mask of paint particularly professional, affluent, or normal?

    Why is it not considered professional, affluent, or normal for men to hide their true faces behind paint?

    Social norms. Specifically, social norms left over from when women's primary worthwhile attribute in the workplace was how fuckable they looked.

    Really, the bottom line here is you'd need to stick your head pretty far up your own ass to assume that a practice that is designed to make someone appear more attractive has nothing to do with sexuality. A curious claim indeed.

  • Cathy L||

    Where did I claim it had "nothing to do with sexuality"? I said women weren't trying to display their sexual attractiveness. Which they're not. Because cultural and social norms have grown up around makeup that make it about way more than that. You know, like you described in your comment.

  • BYODB||


    I said women weren't trying to display their sexual attractiveness.


    So, just their 'attractiveness' and not their 'sexual attractiveness'. That...seems like a distinction with very little difference.

    I suppose men don't use Rogaine to appear more sexually virile either. They only do it for their regular attractiveness, not their sexual attractiveness.

    This is a pretty good indicator that Cathy might be a nun, since she appears to believe that women are not sexual beings. Wrong. They are, but other women try to quell that as hard as they can. Women are the biggest oppressors of women that I have yet to encounter in my life.

    At some point Cathy, you might need to acknowledge that different people do the same things for different reasons and pretending that a whole shit ton of young 15-to-30-something women don't wear makeup to attract a mate is hilariously out of touch on your part.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I suppose men don't use Rogaine to appear more sexually virile either.

    They also don't lift to make themselves more sexually attractive, just attractive.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Damn straight. Bitches be strutting their stuffs to get thems some cock.

  • MarkLastname||

    I.e., attractive.

  • Just Say'n||

    "It was a trash column and an indication that Heying has overdosed on culture war"

    The same could be said (more accurately) about others

  • Just Say'n||

    "It was a trash column and an indication that Heying has overdosed on culture war"

    The same could be said (more accurately) about others

  • Just Say'n||

    "It was a trash column and an indication that Heying has overdosed on culture war"

    The same could be said (more accurately) about others

  • Just Say'n||

    "It was a trash column and an indication that Heying has overdosed on culture war"

    The same could be said (more accurately) about others

  • Just Say'n||

    "It was a trash column and an indication that Heying has overdosed on culture war"

    The same could be said (more accurately) about others

  • Just Say'n||

    Damn, squirrels!

  • damikesc||

    Anyone who thinks women typically wear makeup to display sexual attractiveness has lost their grip on reality (or perhaps never had a corporate job).

    Anybody who thinks they don't wear make-up for attractiveness is clearly too stupid to be taken seriously.

    Wear make up and revealing clothes and men will look. That is life. If they do not touch, women have no actual legitimate complaint.

  • Cathy L||

    You sound like someone who's not a woman with a job.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You sound like someone who's not a woman with a job.

    Yeah, there's no line between, "make-up free" and "more makeup than the Joker", and women never wear makeup outside of the workplace.

  • damikesc||

    I know. Ive never seen women outside of my office wearing makeup. Ever.

  • Cathy L||

    Yeah, there's no line between, "make-up free" and "more makeup than the Joker", and women never wear makeup outside of the workplace.

    Take it up with Heying and Jordan P, not me.

  • BYODB||

    My wife pulls down about 70k a year and yet does not wear any makeup. Does this mean she is not professional?

  • BYODB||

    Oh, and it's not like she isn't dealing with the public or clients. She's a fundraiser for a major national organization in fact.

  • damikesc||

    "Why won't men stop gawking at my fake tits in this low cut top! TOXIC MASCULINITY!!!"

  • NashTiger||

    I missed the part with Jordan Peterson's and Sam Harris's takes on this

  • Elias Fakaname||

    That's nicei but what do the millennials think?

  • NashTiger||

    I missed the part with Jordan Peterson's and Sam Harris's takes on this

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Judicial Watch: New HHS Documents Reveal that 'Unaccompanied Alien Children' Processed During Obama Years Included Violent Criminals, Drug Smugglers, and Human Traffickers

    Mutinous migrants threaten to kill Italian crew after rescue
    African migrants threatened to kill the crew of an Italian cargo vessel that had rescued them in the Mediterranean, in an attempt to avoid being returned to detention centres in Libya.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    The FBI would be of the first people to tell you if you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide.

  • Bearded Spock||

    And then they would charge you with a 1001 felony the instant you misremember the smallest detail.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I don't recall.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why would anyone ever talk to police?

    NEVER speak to police, the FBI, or any law enforcement agency unless you know for sure that you are not a potential suspect.

  • damikesc||

    The one plus of this Mueller witch hunt is that the FBI is going to get eaten alive by their not recording interviews.

    In a trial, I wouldn't trust the recollection of an agent at all. If I don't hear the person saying it, I assume the agent is lying.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Everyone is a potential suspect.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You're probably correct about that which is why I never talk to police except to assert my Constitutional rights.

  • Bearded Spock||

    After learning more about Ms. Page I have come to the conclusion that Agent Strzok was either desperate for action, or she is a nasty freak in the sack.

    Because there is nothing about her personality or physical appearance that would induce me to shit-can my marriage, reputation, and career over her. What the hell was he thinking?

  • damikesc||

    No joke. That is one amazingly unattractive woman.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...women wearing makeup is "toxic femininity" and a real threat.

    WRITTEN BY A WOMAN? She's never going to land a man.

  • Jerryskids||

    If wearing make-up is a threat, well, there's the whole lead post dealing with the issue.

  • damikesc||

    One federal judge extends the deadline for the Trump admin to reunite separated migrant families while another rebukes their attempt to indefinitely detain them.

    Another example of why district judges issuing NATIONAL injunctions has zero legal justification.

    Neither judge is more powerful than the other.

  • jcw||

    ever hear of multidistrict litigation? You must be very against it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    In a civil case? If the injury took place in that judicial district then that district court has jurisdiction to hear the case.

    The only court that case issue nationwide directives is the SCOTUS. Circuit courts only have jurisdiction within their circuit region. District courts only within their small district. State courts only within their state.

    These district judges issuing national directives are violating the Constitution. The SCOTUS is the Supreme court of the Land, not some nothing district judge.

  • jcw||

    The Court of Federal Claims has national jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals - Federal Circuit has national jurisdiction. Stop talking about shit you know nothing about.

    Also, MDL only exists in civil cases. Do you know anything that you are talking about?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Nationwide directives or only a directive that limits federal matters? Yeah a directive that limits federal matters.

    You left out the Court of Veterans Appeals, which once again only deals with veterans (federal issue).

    YOU clearly don't know what you are talking about.

    These district courts are trying to expand their jurisdiction to cover the USA which they were not created to do. The Court of federal claims hears all federal claims. The Court of Appeal- Federal Circuit hears federal actions.

    Its not just me. Justice Thomas also mentioned it. You seem to be the one who has no idea what they are talking about.

  • jcw||

    Did you expect me to list all courts with national jurisdiction? I didn't realize that was a requirement in my explanation to you when you claimed that SCOTUS was the only court with national jursidiction. Justice Thomas did not mention anything about SCOTUS issuing any injunctions; he merely criticized the current actions done in some district courts.

    You are arguing with me about stuff that you don't know anything about. Criticize district courts all you want, but don't tell me SCOTUS is the only court "that can issue national directives" and then criticize me when I say that's not true. Because it isn't.

  • damikesc||

    Again, two district judges have two different views.

    Which one is correct?

    A NATIONAL injunction is idiotic. SCOTUS alone should have that power.

    Trump should ignore the claim outside of that judge's district alone and tell him to go fuck himself.

  • jcw||

    SCOTUS alone should have that power

    All these legal scholars in here don't know the different between original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction.

    How would you like SCOTUS to issue injunctions?

  • damikesc||

    Why should a 9th circuit district court have any say over anything in any other district? We have DISTRICT courts for a reason.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Jesus jcw, your law school education is worthless.

    SCOTUS has original jurisdiction in the cases listed below and can issue injunctions as well as appellate jurisdiction.
    Article III, Section 2:
    [...]
    In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
    [...]

    Injunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the [actual] plaintiffs.

  • jcw||

    I don't understand. Are you saying SCOTUS should have filed an injunction in this imaginary case that you are referencing? Stop talking dude.

  • Conchfritters||

    Indianapolis cop says SESTA/FOSTA closure of Backpage has 'blinded' investigators making it impossible to find victims it was suppose to help.

    No, it just means that you pushed them out to the street corner with a pimp, and now you are going to have to get up off your fat ass and away from the computer for the first time in 15 years and go find them.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Yale law students warn that the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh as a potential Supreme Court justice "presents an emergency."

    Red alert! All personnel, man your safe spaces!

  • Shirley Knott||

    Sexist!
    'Occupy your safe spaces!'

  • Bee Tagger||

    Greenbaum's piece merely suggested that "the job of an actor is to represent someone else"

    I THOUGHT THE JOB OF AN ACTOR WAS TO TELL ME WHAT TO THINK ABOUT POLITICS AND MAKE ME ANGRY THUS MAKING THEM AN EXCEPTIONAL ACTOR FOR BEING ABLE TO PULL EMOTION FROM MY OTHERWISE STAGNANT BODY.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    And then move to Canada.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Trud'oh!

  • Rhywun||

    *swooun*

  • Just Say'n||

    When everyone is just cosplaying in real life, it's uncomfortable to view movies as fiction. (insert Harry Potter reference about literally Hitler)

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "We let someone get naked and have every other part of their body touched and rubbed by a massage therapist. Hell, we let proctologists spend their day fingering men and sticking things up their anus. So if someone wants to yank a guy's crank, I say let 'em."

    AS LONG AS IT'S FOR MEDICAL OR THERAPEUTIC REASONS.

  • Citizen X||

    All rub'n'tugs gettin' regulated by the FDA, all taking 10 years and a billion dollars for a prostitute to start working

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Just send in the TSA. They seem to be into that sort of thing.

  • perlchpr||

    And yet, they always glare when I tell them I'm opting for the handjob instead of the microwaving.

  • Bearded Spock||

    There's a business opportunity here. Tired airport travelers can stop by a "massage kiosk" where off- duty TSA agents play "good cop, bad cop" for a fee.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Does Medicare cover that?

  • Bearded Spock||

    If they can cover the full cost of a top-of-the-line Rascal then I don't see why not.

  • General_Tso||

    Hey, my doctor assured me that those 20 inch rims with spinners and the Rolls Royce grill and hood ornament are a medical necessity!

  • damikesc||

    The NATO summit started today in Brussels, and President Trump has wasted no time before insulting U.S. allies and spouting crazy conspiracy theories. America's allies are "delinquent" in covering defense costs, Trump told NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg, and Germany is "captive to Russia."

    What part is the "crazy conspiracy theory"?

    Germany spends nowhere near 2% on defense and has a military incapable of doing anything. NATO, for them, isn't an alliance --- it is fucking welfare. And calling them out on it is necessary.

    And spending millions on Russian oil instead of honoring your own treaty obligations should also be called out.

    NATO is not useful any longer. Few of the countries actually abide by the treaty because they expect US to spend the money to keep it afloat. Times need to change.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    1- Germany is "captive" to Russia

  • John||

    They depend on Russia for their energy and heat. Putin can literally turn off the lights if he chooses to. That is called being captive.

    It is Wednesday so Trump is a crazy warmonger who is going to start World War III with Russia. Thursday he will be back to being Putin's puppet. For once you managed to read and paste the right talking points.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    So the US is "captive" to Mexico, Canada, and the Saudis for that 2.5 million bpd of oil we import, right?

    Same logic.

  • damikesc||

    Under prior admins, yes. We are set to become the largest oil producer on Earth now.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The US was on track to become the largest energy producer while Obama was POTUS.

    Trump inherited a robust economy and massive investment in private industry.

  • DesigNate||

    Hahahahahahahaha

  • damikesc||

    The US was on track to become the largest energy producer while Obama was POTUS.
  • damikesc||

    Fuck this site. Obama threw up roadblocks every step of the way. Hillary promised the same. So, no, this is a Trump thing, not theirs.

    And shame Obama didn't have NINE years for his plans to FINALLY work, huh?

  • ||

    "I JUST NEED ONE MORE MINUTE MOM!'

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I was told I needed a job.

    I decided to become a congressional slob.

    But what I really want is a place to sit.

    Like the face of the waitress, the one with big tits.

    But you can't ask Mom.

    No, you can't ask Mom.

    Mom is dead.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Idiot redneck.

    Obama: America is No. 1 producer of oil, gas
    By Lauren Carroll on Wednesday, January 21st, 2015 at 12:44 a.m.

    The United States is on top of the world in terms of energy production, President Barack Obama said during his sixth State of the Union.

    "We believed we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil and protect our planet," he said during his Jan. 20 address. "And today, America is number one in oil and gas. America is number one in wind power. Every three weeks, we bring online as much solar power as we did in all of 2008."

    We decided to check out the data and see if in fact the United States is the world's top oil and gas producer. As it turns out, the United States passed Saudi Arabia about two years ago in terms of oil production. And we've been the top producer of natural gas for more than two decades.

    https://goo.gl/cxf1Kk

  • damikesc||

    Again, in SPITE of him. Not because of him.

  • ||

    How does a President who sold himself as 'green' actively made oil/gas #1 under his watch? Perhaps he was being two-faced about it or it's as you stipulate - in spite of him and he just took 'credit' like the little weasel he is - see Nobel peace prize.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Good thing George W. Bush's administration permitted all that drilling before Obama came in and stopped handing out permits

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""The US was on track to become the largest energy producer while Obama was POTUS."'

    This is true, and he did it with fracking and shale oil. You know things that environmentalist would go ape shit over, except they didn't call Obama out on it.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

  • Ron||

    Obama was trying to shut down oil production and even the transport of oil, you really are a puppet for the lefts talking points

  • Elias Fakaname||

    PB is the perfect union of stupid, amd disingenuous. Showcasing both, while diminishing neither.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Every time oil costs get high enough where it becomes profitable to pump our own oil, that happens. Then prices drop back down and Texas stops pumping.

    Texas pumping oil is not a sign of a good economy.

  • BYODB||


    Texas pumping oil is not a sign of a good economy.


    It is here in Texas. ^_-

  • EscherEnigma||

    It is here in Texas. ^_-


    I'll give you that.

    Texas pumping oil is not a sign of a good national economy.

  • BYODB||


    Texas pumping oil is not a sign of a good national economy.

    Mmm...I can't say you're necessarily wrong but it's also true that a whole lot of foreign production is produced by a literal cartel that would in fact be patently illegal if it existed within the U.S.

    So really, Texas producing oil is ultimately a good thing since it means we're less beholden to OPEC. If Texas wasn't producing oil, it would be even worse for the national economy.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    God of you to unilaterally decide that without any logic or qualification to back it up.

  • Just Say'n||

    Eh, the US is most definitely captive to the Saudis. But, that has less to do with oil and more to do with dollars. We're not just starving people to death in Yemen for lolz

  • Longtobefree||

    Oh hell yes. That is why we have been a net exporter of refined products since 2011.
    And only Russia and Saudi Arabia exports more oil than we do (2014 data).
    For total energy, we are 86% to 91% independent. (depends on the data you pick, and your definition of independent) (2016)
    Yep, no question we are captive.

  • Just Say'n||

    Re-read

  • JeremyR||

    Well, yeah, we don't want Iran to take over Yemen

  • John||

    Sure. And if we didn't have nuclear weapons and the largest military in the world, that might mean something. Since we do, it doesn't. Germany in contrast can't defend itself and is totally dependent on a hostile and more powerful foreign adversary for energy. And then has the gall to expect the US to defend it. That is a problem. The only people who don't see it as one are Putin and his allies, which includes most of the Democratic party.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Putin and his allies, which includes most of the Democratic party."

    You were sooo close.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Trump is Putin's bitch. Congress voted on sanctions for Russia and Trump ditched them.

    John is just a Trump cumstain marker.

  • Just Say'n||

    I love this "No you're a stooge of Russia", "Nah uh, you love Putin" shit flinging. So stupid and retrograde

  • Citizen X||

    Ironically, bitter disputes over who's been bought by Putin and how cheaply are exactly what any Russian meddling was most likely intended to bring about, so good job, everybody.

  • Just Say'n||

    Only a stooge of Putin would make such a coherent point

  • Citizen X||

    Poloskat' moi yabloki, bratan.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    PB, there should be a Reason convention in Vegas. If there were, my bet is you would be too much a coward to attend. As some of us have long memories.

    If you did show, I imagine you groveling for your life in front of me, and probably many other members of the commentariat.

    You should try being a man sometime in your squid life.

    As it is, you're just some bitch pass around pack. To be slapped around as a joke.

  • perlchpr||

    And then has the gall to expect the US to defend it.

    While they spit on us.

  • DesigNate||

    Isn't our being captive to the Saudis one of the reasons you hated Bush?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    No. I hated Bush primarily for the useless Iraq War and the $2 trillion he wasted on it.

  • Just Say'n||

    Start connecting some of the dots in your thinking here

  • Citizen X||

    "Thinking" is a strong word to use for anything shreek has ever done.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    She mewhere out there is a soundproofed basement with a gimp suit and a box that locks from the outside waiting for him.p

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Butt, What about Obama and the useless Iraq war and trillions he wasted on it?

  • RT||

    Actually, I don't think it is the same logic. Neither Mexico, Canada, or Saudi Arabia are in a position to threaten us militarily, nor are they pining for recently lost territory (or spheres of influence). We aren't in an alliance to deter those countries from aggression, either.

    I don't agree with Trump's tactics, and "captive" is a strong word, but there is a point in there somewhere.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Petroleum can be bought and sold from anyone. Liquified natural gas is damn near impossible to ship and can only be transported with pipes economically in most cases. This makes where the pipelines come from much more important.

    More or less, the logistics are totally different. Petroleum, easy to get a new seller. Maybe will be more expensive, but can get a new seller. Liquified natural gas, pretty much impossible to find a new seller because the seller is tied to infrastructure on the ground that cannot be moved, i.e. pipelines.

  • damikesc||

    No joke. Russia OWNS Germany. Those who keep the lights on call the shots. But idiots like PB call Trump Putin's puppet when Merkel clearly is.

  • ||

    I would also add/argue France has also had a big influence on German diplomacy/politics in the post-war era leveraging Germany's past as a form of power.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Plus the Dotard is shutting down Iran as a source of oil due to his idiotic cancellation of the NNP treaty.

    Germany and all of Europe should go tell the cocksucker to pound sand.

  • damikesc||

    Plus the Dotard is shutting down Iran as a source of oil due to his idiotic cancellation of the NNP treaty.

    Germany and all of Europe should go tell the cocksucker to pound sand.
  • damikesc||

    God damn this site.

    I love watching PB bemoan the undoing of Obamas post-fellatio gift to the mullahs. Poor Iran.

  • juris imprudent||

    Considering how much he received (from PB alone) he had plenty to spare.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Germany and all of Europe should go tell the cocksucker to pound sand.""

    I have no problem with this. I also have no problem with us pulling out of NATO and letting Europe defend themselves without any cost to the American taxpayer. Since they are so "Adult" they can handle it on their own.

  • perlchpr||

    I agree. The USSR is gone. Russia is capitalist now. Our ideological reason for opposing them is over. We won.

    If the European members of NATO want to form a mutual defence agency, more power to them. I don't think we need to be a part of it.

    Of course, I also think we need to pull the fuck out of Afghanistan and everywhere else, too.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Russia is aggressive. Mother Russia has a fundamental ideology that all former Russian territory should be returned to Mother Russia. The snatching of Crimea is an example of that. The pressure to absorb the Ukraine is another example.

    With that being said, Russia is weak militarily and economically. Russia is better off than as the USSR but Russia still needs to use police to silence dissenters.

    The Left does not make any sense when they accuse Trump of being a stooge of Putin but then require the USA to defend Europe from Putin. The real fact is that Russia nor Europe are our friends. They are not our enemies either. Both would love for the USA to fail and then they could return to the big dog. They live in fantasy land.

  • damikesc||

    Indeed. I hope they do. And when Germany's non existent military and even less existent air force need to be used to fight off somebody, I wish them well in their endeavors.

    We should also hope to have the UN kick us out, too.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I am not a fan of how powerful the UN is but having a Worldwide body to publicly discuss disputes is probably a net plus.

    The UN has become a big joke. Rotating tiny nations to head the UN but really the USA, Russia, Britain, France, and China are in charge.

    China still wants to conquer and so does Russia. France and England were ruthless in trying to keep their Empires. The USA has been pretty aggressive in the last 20 years. How is that good representation of an assembly of Worldwide peace?

  • damikesc||

    The UN has any legitimacy SOLELY because we are involved. We leave and it collapses.

    I like the idea of an international group. Just keep out all one-party states. That will cut down the membership nicely and will produce useful things.

  • ||

    Doesn't Germany import energy (nuclear?) from Denmark too?

  • Citizen X||

    Once you pay the Danegeld...

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    And Trump lied about "60-70% of Germany's energy comes from Russia"


    The claim: Germany imports 60% to 70% of its energy from Russia.

    Reality Check verdict: Germany relies on Russia for most of its imports of natural gas. But gas makes up less than 20% of Germany's energy mix for power production.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44794688

  • John||

    Power production isn't the only use for natural gas you mendacious retard. They use the gas to heat their homes. It may only be 20% of power production, but it is a much higher percentage of their energy use.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Trump lied about Germany, you idiot.

    RTFA.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    from the fucking article:

    "Eurostat estimates that Russia is responsible for between 50% and 75% of Germany's gas imports."

    fuck off you fucking fuck

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Butt lies constantly.

    I would not take its word for anything.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    RTFA.

    This from the most worthless human being on the planet who never reads through the shit he links to.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    PB, learn to obey.

  • Juice||

    Germany spends nowhere near 2% on defense and has a military incapable of doing anything.

    Which may not be such a bad thing after all.

  • Shirley Knott||

    And yet Theresa May capitulates to them on Brexit.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Republicans rightfully tend to stand against "hate speech" laws and other similar statutes that impose heavier criminal penalties based on subjective states of mind or elements ancillary to the crime.

    Yeah, tell that to the cops.

  • Rhywun||

    Pardon me for raising a fairly obvious point that the author seems to be glossing over, but... how is "wearing masks" - a tactic used to conceal one's identity, i.e. not get caught committing a crime - in any way an issue of "state of mind" or "free speech"?

    I don't *necessarily* agree or disagree with this idea - yet - but the logic behind her condemnation of it seems wafer-thin to me.

  • John||

    It is. As someone pointed out below, you have no expectation of privacy in public. So, what liberty interest is being infringed by making you take off the mask? You still can march and say anything you like. And to the extent you have lost your privacy, you never had it in the first place since you were in a public place.

  • perlchpr||

    So, what liberty interest is being infringed by making you take off the mask?

    Do you really think that President Kamala Harris wouldn't happily use facial recognition software to identify hostile protestors and make it known that those people were "subject to harrassment"?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No no, you don't understand how the Republican "New Rules" works.

    The idea is to throw away all principles and use any tactic whatsoever, no matter how authoritarian, to "defeat the Left".

    If those same tactics are used by the Left against Republicans, then Republicans get to scream "victim! victim! look at those violent lefty fascists! They are no different than Stalin!" and gin up support that way.

    Either way, it's a win-win! For them.

    For everyone else who has to endure their authoritarian tactics being used by the state against everyone, it's a lose-lose.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    If those same tactics are used by the Left against Republicans,

    Those same tactics have been used by the Left against Republicans since World War II ended. But keep on trying to figure out why left-wing dogma on both cultural and economic issues is considered conventional wisdom now.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Given the prosecution of inauguration protestors, I would hope that libertarians would see the inherent value of masks while protesting a hostile government.

  • John||

    The inaugural "protestors" assaulted dozens of people and destroy hundreds of thousands of dollars of property. Under what principle of Libertarianism is that okay?

  • lafe.long||

    Seriously... WTF, John?

    The original principal of liberty.

    While Samuel Adams tried to reassert control of the meeting, people poured out of the Old South Meeting House to prepare to take action. In some cases, this involved donning what may have been elaborately prepared Mohawk costumes. While disguising their individual faces was imperative, because of the illegality of their protest, dressing as Mohawk warriors was a specific and symbolic choice. It showed that the Sons of Liberty identified with America, over their official status as subjects of Great Britain.

    No property damage there?

  • Citizen X||

    If the current socio-political climate existed in 1773, about half of the population would condemn the founders as unwoke cis-het white patriarchal shitlords and the other half would condemn them as anarchistic threats to law and order. Actually, there'd probably be some overlap between the groups.

  • lafe.long||

    Truth.

    I'll take, "What it's like to be a libertarian in 2018?" for 200, Alex.

  • Citizen X||

    It's like there's a guy in the street in front of your house waiting to whip you on the nuts with a car antenna if you try to go anywhere, and he never, ever leaves.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You're seriously equating Antifa with the colonist revolutionaries?

    Fuckin' LOL.

  • lafe.long||

    Not hardly.
    Antifa are mostly thugs who should probly be severely beaten down when they commit violence. You don't need a fucking law that WILL be abused by those that wield it for that.

    But I guess AM equating some of the commenters on here with the colonial Tories:

    "I say, King George is passing a law to ban dressing up like indians? Good. We NEED that. For security reasons."

    I am amazed at the commenters who are basically fine with this bullshit. They probly want safe spaces at protests too.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "Antifa" are actual fascists which is rarely thrown back in their faces.

    Its the same tactic of lying where Socialists stole the term "Liberals" from Founding Father Classic Liberals.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I'm equating Antifa with communist subversives.

  • ||

    It has nothing to do with free speech or expression.

    It's to conceal in order to not get caught committing a crime.

    Now whether to ban it tramples civil liberties where protesting and the right to assembly are concerned, is up for debate. But it is to commit a crime. Why else do it then?

    Also, out of curiosity and as an example, when a bank robber robs a bank and gets caught. Does him or her (or it) wearing a mask carry an extra charge? I don't believe it does.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Pardon me for raising a fairly obvious point that the author seems to be glossing over, but... how is "wearing masks" - a tactic used to conceal one's identity, ""

    IIRC, anti-mask laws were started to prevent the KKK from concealing their identity in public.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Well first there's religious liberty. Many Muslims (and some fundamentalist Christians) have views about covering your hair/face/etc.

    Then there's the simple fact that some stuff that isn't a mask can legally qualify if a cop feels like being a prick. Dying your hair and wearing colored contacts, or dramatic make-up that makes you look entirely different. Drag queens and trans folk often get caught in these sorts of things.

    Then of course there's perfectly legit non-criminal reasons to wear a "mask" or "disguise". Halloween, costume party, Anime/comic conventions, "it's fucking cold outside, of course I'm wearing a ski mask" along with "sunglasses, a beanie, and a scarf around my face isn't a mask, it's just fucking cold!", motorcycle helmets (again, even after you take the helmet off, you might still have bandana (to control your helmet hair), sunglasses and scarf (possibly up around your nose. Cold and bugs need to be kept out of your mouth and beard).

    For that matter, someone without a prescription putting on 0-prescription glasses could be considered a "mask" if a cop wants an excuse.

    If an activity is criminal (assault), then it's criminal with or without a mask. But if you make a "mask" criminal in-and-of-itself, a lot of previously acceptable behavior is suddenly criminal.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    I wrapped my scarf up over my nose and mouth when it was about 5 below and got abuse hurled at me by some douchebag in a car, and some pretty weird reactions from people. This has to be about 10-11 years ago now. It doesn't seem that weird to me. I remember I had a cold and it seemed like a good idea, but just doing that apparently made me look very alarming.

  • Happy Chandler||

    McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commission:

    Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Meanwhile, back home, the Trump administration is threatening to levy another $200 billion in tariffs on China.

    When Andy Levy runs on the platform of "the only levy i support is andy", that is when the libertarian party will finally be taken seriously.

  • Just Say'n||

    The Ku Klux Klan Act was ruled unconstitutional in the 1880's

  • Just Say'n||

    "History repeats itself, first as tragedy- then as farce"

  • Just Say'n||

    I suppose. Although, federal action against the Ku Klux Klan after the end of the Civil War (though, illegal) had more merit than legislating against effeminate soy boys

  • Bee Tagger||

    ut hypocrisy is currency in Washington, so here we are: mandatory minimums for mask wearers, to be monitored by federal agents. Nothing dystopian in that, nosiree…

    Sounds like the people who tweet things like "the mask is slipping..." are going to be called to court in defense of the mask wearers.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Anatomy of a Trump rally: 76 percent of claims are false, misleading or lacking evidence

    According to The Fact Checker's database, the president had made 3,251 false or misleading claims at the end of May, and his average daily rate was climbing.

    This side of Trump really comes alive during campaign rallies, so we wanted to do the math and find out whether the president speaks more fictions or facts in front of his crowds.

    https://goo.gl/ZPTtzi

    Liar-In-Chief at his best.

  • damikesc||

    Oooh, the WaPo. Truly a solid source these days...

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    What do you use? Redneck AM radio? Bratfart?

    Washington Post lists every lie he told in the Montana propaganda rally for retard Trump idiots.

  • Just Say'n||

    WaPo fact checking is notoriously bad.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Bullshit.

    Go back to Bratfart. Is that motherfucker still dead?

  • damikesc||

    WaPo is a shit show, son.

  • Just Say'n||

  • loveconstitution1789||

    WaPo is a socialist propaganda rag.

    I honestly don't let Butt wipe my dogs ass with the WaPo.

  • Just Say'n||

    All presidents lie, but somehow people take more offense at the fact that this president lies in a childish way. I suppose people are more comfortable with lies couched with superlatives.

  • Ron||

    I knwo a few people who lie all the time and after a while you learn to decifer and/or ignore what they say.

  • ||

    lol. All of a sudden they're trying to apply 'objective' criteria to lies.

    TDS is one helluva virus.

  • Ron||

    Name a president who hasn't lied. thats not whataboutism thats why nowism

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Liar-In-Chief at his best."'

    The sad part is they are all liars. Bill Clinton was one of the biggest liars out there. It seems some people are fine with it when it's done to your face with a smile, opposed to someone being obvious about it.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    There is a big difference between 3000 lies/year vs a lie about getting your cock sucked by a chubby intern.

  • damikesc||

    Do you REALLY want people to go through every word uttered by Clinton or Obama?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump doesnt lie as much as you Lefties say.

    Obama lied constantly, like you do.

  • damikesc||

    Are you implying he didn't have the most transparent administration in history?

  • Bee Tagger||

    and Germany is "captive to Russia."

    if the argument works here, why not there?

  • Just Say'n||

    Except it makes more sense there and is just batshit crazy here. Especially when people like Glenn Greenwald are accused by supposed "journalists" of being Russian operatives for not promoting modern day McCarthyism

    Meanwhile, in Germany: www.politico.eu/article/german.....gn-policy/

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Trump told NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg, and Germany is "captive to Russia."

    It would be cool if he'd just call them a bunch of worthless pussies then storm out of the meeting.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The bill specifically notes that it applies "whether or not [a masked person is] acting under color of law," and it does not define "oppress" or "intimidate."

    Whoa.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Sounds like fascism is truly blossoming.

  • Rich||

    Muslim women hardest hit.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Andrea Mitchell: Can only imagine what @SecPompeo, COS Kelly, US NATO Ambassador Hutchison thinking watching them look down awkwardly as @realDonaldTrump harangues NATO Secretary General saying Germany is captive to Russia. Unreal. Putin wins

    Putin. Wins. AGAIN.

    I have the utmost respect for Robert Mueller, but why is he taking so long? Knowledgeable observers have understood Drumpf is Putin's Puppet since before the election, and that was almost two years ago. Hurry up and remove him from office!

    #TrumpRussia

  • John||

    When you show up at a rally with a mask on, what purpose is there for wearing it other than to get away with a crime? Unless the rally is at Comicon, there is no other reason to do it. If banning the wearing of a mask is too much for Libertarians, how about this; wearing a mask in public gives the people around you the legal right to assume you are there to assault them and strike first in self defense. Make wearing a mask an invitation to an ass kicking. That will solve the problem without any government involvement at all.

  • Zeb||

    Seems to me it should be protected by the first amendment. Especially if it's at a protest or rally.

    You may be right about the reasons for wearing a mask. But there are the free expression issues and I'm not sure how the Feds have authority here anyway (unless it only applies in DC or something).

  • John||

    It is all about circumstances. I don't know that we need a law necessarily. If by the totality of the circumstances, the cops reasonably conclude you are up to no good, the cops have a right to tell you to move along. When a bunch of people show up at a rally wearing masks, I think the cops can reasonably conclude that they are there to do engage in illegal activity and can rightfully tell them to lose the masks or go home. There is a difference between that and someone who is walking down the street wearing a mask. I think the law as it is can make that distinction.

    These Antifa mobs are a real problem. They are a direct assault on our freedom and they are going to produce a reaction from the other side and we are going to end up with riots and real political violence if something isn't done. Reason dismisses these concerns because they have like the left and can't really believe anyone on the left could be worse than the right. They are fools to do so. This is not something that we should tolerate or mess around with.

  • Ron||

    its already illegal to wear a mask in a bank its the same idea at a protest. that said If i see a person with a mask on anywhere but comicon then i know to leave or get ready for trouble. I like knowing who my enemy is.

  • JoeBlow123||

    What if I wear a mask on Halloween?

    You can take our lives, you can take our dignity, but goddamnit if you take our slutty police officers away from us on Halloween there will be hell to pay!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Making masks illegal is unconstitutional. The government needs to alter the state of federal constitutions to ban products or services. Even the Prohibitionists knew that.

    Masks on Halloween are always listed as an exception which shows that the law is a joke because its not the masks that are the problem but the underlying protesting or violent action while wearing a mask.

  • damikesc||

    Seems to me it should be protected by the first amendment. Especially if it's at a protest or rally.

    In public, there is literally zero expectation of privacy. Protest all you want. Anybody you assault will now have the ability to go after you for damages.

    Want to wear a mask and bitch? Stay home.

  • Zeb||

    You can say that. It might be good advice. But it doesn't mean a law is constitutional or necessary.

  • John||

    Okay Zeb, then what about the issue of the violence these people do? It is very hard to prosecute someone in a mass mele to begin with. Put a mask on them and it becomes virtually impossible. They wear these masks because they know that. I understand there is some constitutional interest in being able to wear a mask. But isn't there also an interest in people not being assaulted and victimized and the police being able to prosecute and deter those who do? If I can't walk down the street or have a protest of my own without some masked thug showing up and beating the shit out of me, do I have freedom of speech in any meaningful way then? And isn't it the government's duty to protect my rights as well as the guy wearing the mask?

    The choices are let the guy wear the mask and have the effect of him having vitual immunity to attack me or tell him not to and infringe on his rights a small amount but in return protect my rights to peaceful assembly and free speech. That is an easy choice. But no one around here seems to consider any interest other than the leftist' thugs.

  • Jerryskids||

    Lick that badge, John!

    Just kidding, I know you're not seriously arguing that "if it makes the cops' jobs harder, it should be illegal", you're just arguing for your TEAM! As long as it's an anti-Antifa bill you're fine with that.

  • Ron||

    who on the right is wearing mask? and don't give me that skin head and KKK shit because they belong to no party except themselves, the left just puts them on the right to degrade the right

  • Cathy L||

    who on the right is wearing mask?

    Here you go

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Okay Zeb, then what about the issue of the violence these people do? "'

    I get your point, but wearing a mask in public and doing violence are two very different things. As a supporter of freedom, I would say the government shouldn't ban masks in public. To me, it's akin to the argument that if you have a gun in public, the reason is to commit violence. While there is some rare crossover, it's not great enough to ban them in public. Too many law abiding people could be swept up in overzealous or political prosecutions.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    John, it might be hard to identify a violent person but that does not get around the fact that police work is supposed to be hard. Police just have to try harder. They need to infiltrate the violent group and grab those people committing crimes.

    Police tend to be pussies though and only engage criminals with overwhelming force. They are being defeated by masks.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    How about if we call the mask a burqa?

  • Just Say'n||

    Stop it. John only likes the proposal more now

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Now do guns

  • John||

    Sure. Guns can be used in self-defense. Guns have a peaceful purpose. Masks at a political rally do not.

    You do understand the peaceful purposes for guns, don't you? It is kind of sad you thought a softball like that was clever.

  • Shirley Knott||

    So the 'V for Vendetta' mask, for instance, could have no other purpose at a public gathering than to get away with a crime?
    You need to take your imagination into the shop for a tune-up.
    Or maybe your hypothesis generator.

  • John||

    No purpose that can't also be accomplished by wearing a t-shirt or holding a sign. You have no right to privacy in public. So, being told you can't be anonymous doesn't infringe on your rights. You still are free to say or do whatever you like. You just can't hide behind a mask to do it.

  • Bubba Jones||

    This administration prosecuted protestors.

  • John||

    They prosecuted people who attacked people and destroyed property. They were not protestors. They were rioters.

  • damikesc||

    Yeah, they have been quite non prosecutorial for peaceful protestors. Rioters? Why should they not be prosecuted?

  • Ron||

    and many got off because they were wearing mask

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    *terrorists

  • Jerryskids||

    John, your TEAM! is showing. No right to privacy in public - so you support stop-and-frisk laws that include inspecting the contents of your cellphone? No possible need for a mask? How about a pro-Trump rally in Portland or Seattle where you might want to wear a Trump mask along with your MAGA hat lest you be doxxed on social media and get your ass fired at your progressive place of employment for wrongthink? When masks are outlawed, only outlaws will wear masks. There's something very statist about supporting criminalizing otherwise innocent behavior and then using the criminalization of the behavior as proof that these innocents are in fact criminals.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Don't forget the classic argument of authoritarians everywhere... only the criminals need to worry. You're not a criminal are you?

    That's essentially what he's arguing in saying, "what purpose is there for wearing it other than to get away with a crime?"

  • John||

    No right to privacy in public - so you support stop-and-frisk laws that include inspecting the contents of your cellphone?

    No right to privacy about your identity or the things which you readily expose to the public. That doesn't include the shit in your pockets or your cell phone. You don't understand the point. When you go in public, you have no right to privacy about your appearence not everything about you.

    And as far as the Turmp mask goes, too bad for me. If I want to remain anonymous, I shouldn't march down the street in public.

    Your team is showing here. You don't mind Antifa and hate the people they are assaulting. So, you invent ways to ensure Antifa can get away with doing it and object to anyone trying to stop it. That is foolish. I don't care who the people being assaulted are. They deserve protection under the law. I get it Antifa is all cool and groovy and can't be that bad and certainly not as bad as the evil Trump people. Well, that may be true but that doesn't give Antifa the right to assault people with impunity. And that is all letting them wear masks does.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""No right to privacy about your identity or the things which you readily expose to the public. "'

    You have no problem with the government using facial recognition to track your coming and going in public spaces?

  • Jerryskids||

    No right to privacy about your identity or the things which you readily expose to the public.

    Wearing a mask is the exact opposite of readily exposing things to the public.

    And I note you and I both are anonymously posting shit on a public forum - we're both wearing masks right now. Why aren't we posting under our real names and providing links to our real identities? Do we necessarily have something to hide?

  • Michael S. Langston||

    No right to privacy about your identity or the things which you readily expose to the public.

    So what church I go to or don't go to, the types of doctors or lawyers I might seek out, none of that is private?

  • damikesc||

    Jerrys, right to privacy and right to no search and seizure are thoroughly different concepts.

    Public has a right to see your face at a public protest. They have far less of one to the contents of your pockets.

  • Zeb||

    Public has a right to see your face at a public protest.

    I'm not entirely convinced that is true. You don't have a right to anonymity in public. That doesn't mean you don't have a right to try to maintain anonymity in public.

    But the main thing for me is that I don't like criminalizing behavior that is non-harmful to make it easier to catch people who engage in that behavior while also committing real crimes. Wearing a mask in public is harmless by itself. Laws should not criminalize harmless behavior.

    And where is the line? Can wearing a hat or sunglasses in public be banned? Face painting? Those things can help obscure identity as well.

  • juris imprudent||

    I may have no right to privacy, that doesn't mean the govt can dictate my attire.

    And how did EVERYONE miss the obvious "Michael Myers hit hardest" joke?

  • John||

    I may have no right to privacy, that doesn't mean the govt can dictate my attire.

    Yes, it does to the extent that your attire is allowing you to get away with a crime. You can't carry burglary tools around in public either.

  • SQRLSY One||

    I agree with John on this one... Just sayin'...

  • Shirley Knott||

    But you don't know that any particular person in any particular attire will or has committed a crime.
    You're assuming a premise that does not and can not hold.

  • Shirley Knott||

    You're goalpost-shifting. Your stance was 'the only purpose...'
    I pointed out other purposes . So now you're suggesting alternative means to accomplish a purpose your original stance denied existed. While asserting your "right" to determine for others how they may achieve those presumptive purposes.
    Nice work.

  • Azathoth!!||

    You have no right to expect privacy in public.

    If you WANT privacy, you're going to have to do something to ensure it yourself.

    Like wearing a mask or a disguise.

    Being told that you can't make yourself anonymous infringes DIRECTLY on your First Amendment rights.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Guns don't kill people, masks do.

    Libertarians for banning masks unite!

  • John||

    You completely miss the point. And that is intentional since you don't have a response to mine. So you just revert to snark. I will ask you the same thing as Zeb, do not the people assaulted by Antifa have rights as well? It is really an issue of whose interests do you value more. You value the right of Antifa to wear a mask more than you value the right of everyone else to peaceably assemble without being assaulted. It is really that simple. Moreover, you don't even value that right at all. It never occurs to you that the ability of people to attack others with impunity might be a freedom issue. This is because you are incapable of understanding that something other than the government could be a threat to your freedom. You think this because you live in a free society where government generally is the greatest or only threat to your freedom. If you didn't, you would understand that the mob is just as big or often a bigger threat to your freedom.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I value the freedom to wear a mask in public AND the right to assemble. You wrongly assume that wearing a mask is a threat to your right to assemble. It's the same as gun control advocates who argue that private gun ownership is a threat to your right to life.

    Using a gun or a mask in the commission of the crime against you or your property is the infringement on your rights, not simply bearing either.

    Just because Antifa wears masks doesn't mean we should ban them. Just because psychos shoot firearms into crowds at concerts doesn't mean we should ban them.

  • damikesc||

    Antifa infringes thoroughly on others right to speech and masks are the main means of doing so.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Antifa infringes thoroughly on others right to speech and masks are the main means of doing so."'

    I would say their freedom of association is a greater means of ability than that mask. Should we go after that?

    One day masks may be the only way to protest government without retribution from the government.

  • John||

    ou wrongly assume that wearing a mask is a threat to your right to assemble.

    Yes it is. You wrongly assume that anyone wearing a mask must mean well or that the fact that not everyone wearing a mask doesn't mean ill somehow negates the damage done by the ones who do. Wearing a mask in public allows me to assualt you with much less chance of being caught and convicted. It basically gives me a free reign to assault you in these circumstances. My being able to assault you without much worry or any worry of being caught absolutely infringes on your freedom. And that is what is happening all over the country. And just because you don't like the peoiple getting beat up doesn't mean it isn't a big problem and a hell of a lot more important than your ability to wear a mask in public.

  • DesigNate||

    Just because some people might not mean well while exercising their rights that doesn't mean you should infringe on everyone else's rights to try and stop them.*

    *This is the exact same argument we all make when there is a mass shooting.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "Wearing a mask in public allows me to assualt you with much less chance of being caught and convicted."

    Carrying a gun allows you to more easily kill me, take my stuff, and get away. See how easy this is?

  • Azathoth!!||

    "the right of everyone else to peaceably assemble without being assaulted"

    You don't HAVE a right to not be assaulted. That's a positive right.

    It is accomplished in the other direction--you DO NOT have the right to initiate assault against anyone.

    See?

  • damikesc||

    They can also test your for gunshot residue, etc. You can be caught, even masked, if using a gun in a crime.

  • ||

    Maybe you've got terrible facial scarring that scares children.

    Maybe you think your mask is a terrific fashion accessory that accents the new belt you're wearing.

    Maybe you're an albino, and don't want to risk sun exposure.

    Maybe it's a surgical mask, because you pathologically fear airborne illness.

    Could be lots of honest reasons.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Oh, but john knows better.

  • Sevo||

    Maybe you need no reason at all; anonymity is a rreedom like any other.

  • Stilgar||

    You are a dolt. Suppose you want to attend a protest that if your presence/support became known it could lead to harrassment at your place of work, or worse? Anonymous protest is the only way to protect your rights against such a situation where others can actively seek to curtail said right by threat of loss of income, assault and possibly battery.

  • John||

    Suppose you want to attend a protest that if your presence/support became known it could lead to harrassment at your place of work, or worse?

    Then don't attend. Make your point in a way that keeps your anonymity. You are a fucking dolt. All you are sayign is "what if you want to parade around in public and keep people from knowing who you are?" What if you do? That is not possible. That is why it is called public.

    Like everyone else on this board, you seem incapable of understanding that people other than Antifa have rights as well and those rights are infringed upon when Antifa is able to assault people with little worry of being prosecuted for it. When someone puts a bat upside your head, you are harmed just as much whether it is a cop or some Antifa thug or some KKK guy.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Antifa has no rights. Antifa has no moral agency. Antifa does not fact.
    Only individuals do.
    You slip far too readily into casual collectivism when it suits you.
    I believe this is the fallacy of composition.

  • perlchpr||

    Then don't attend.

    Oh, OK. Fuck you.

  • DesigNate||

    But those rights aren't infringed just because they were wearing a mask John.

  • damikesc||

    When you are in public, there is zero right to an expectation to privacy. Sorry, but that is reality. Want to protest anonymously? Do not go out in public.

    My right to speech without being assaulted by untraceable thugs trumps your concerns.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Cool story.

    I don't want to hear y'all complaining about cameras on every street corner again.

  • Cathy L||

    Something tells me they never were.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Nah. Every time we get a news story that mentions the ubiquitous CC cameras in London, there's a lot of folks that freak out about how horrible it is that the cops can track your every movement so easily.

    It's not specific to libertarians/Libertarians, mind you, such discomfort with constant surveillance is pretty common throughout the political spectrum. But there are many here who in most contexts are very uncomfortable with the idea that the government can easily figure out where you've been. Look at any thread about cash or bitcoin and you'll see similar themes.

  • EscherEnigma||

    So if I'm on my way to San Diego Comic Con, if I wear my costume in the car I'm a criminal, if I change in the car and walk over to the convention (probably a 10 minute walk) I'm a criminal, and I don't stop being a criminal until I'm through the convention hall doors?

    All 'cause I decided to dress up like Nightwing?

    Yeah. That sounds on the level.

  • Rhywun||

    Do you even selective enforcement, bruh?

  • EscherEnigma||

    If a law has to be selectively enforced to be just, it's obviously an unjust law.

  • Rhywun||

    Yep, and that's a better indictment against this proposal than ENB's weak sauce.

  • JoeBlow123||

    You should dress up as a socially responsible hero like Superman who shows his face then!

  • EscherEnigma||

    ... the illegal alien who got a social security card under a false identity?

  • JoeBlow123||

    OK yeah you are right we should have deported him.

  • perlchpr||

    When you show up at a rally with a mask on, what purpose is there for wearing it other than to get away with a crime?

    "Avoiding being harrassed later."

  • damikesc||

    Which, again, there are legal remedies for harassment.

    You assault me while masked, my ability to be compensated is nullified.

    But, hey, good to see so many pro-heckler's veto types.

  • Cathy L||

    When you show up at a rally with a mask on, what purpose is there for wearing it other than to get away with a crime?

    To protect you from being fired for your political beliefs.

  • damikesc||

    So, only conservatives can wear masks then. You win.

  • lap83||

    "Scarlett Johansson is being unfairly criticized for doing her job after being cast as a transgender man."

    Pretending to be a fake man?!? How dare she?!

  • Citizen X||

    -1 Crying Game

  • Rhywun||

    We've really gone down the rabbit hole, haven't we.

  • ||

    You had to know when Joel Kinnaman and Scarlett Johansson were getting criticized for white-washing parts written for caucasian "sleeves" in post-racial societies wholly occupied by trans-racial and a-racial entities, we've given up on caring about having tumbled down a rabbit hole and are just consuming the shrooms with vigor.

  • Zeb||

    The "Intellectual Dark Web" crew would like you to know that "toxic masculinity" is just cultural-Marxist mumbo-jumbo but women wearing makeup is "toxic femininity" and a real threat.

    Not sure how you could read that article and reach that conclusion. It's saying that (some) women want it both ways: to be able to signal their sexuality in public, but still to be able to complain when that attracts attention they don't want. No one is saying that women should not wear revealing clothes or makeup (though the author doesn't seem to think it's always the best way to display yourself in the world), just that if they are honest they need to acknowledge and own what they are doing. She also says explicitly that toxic masculinity does in fact exist.

  • Just Say'n||

    You broke the cardinal rule of never reading an article in good faith, Zeb. GTFO

  • John||

    The greatly missed commenter Fluffy summed up all of this nonsense perfectly a few years ago. The entire feminist movement is just an extension of an 8th Grade Girl telling her boyfriend "that nerd talked to me". And that is really all it is as your post makes clear Zeb. The whole thing is a bunch of women who think that only men they like should ever approach them or hit on them. In many ways, it is just women trying to get society to punish socially awkward men.

  • ||

    I was going to read it later mostly to see if the point of the article was missed. Reason dropped the ball with Jordan Peterson completely (I don't see how you can because it's pretty bloody easy to understand) and seem to have a weird problem with the IDW.

  • John||

    Peterson is a classical liberal who basically tells people the same thing that ethicists have been telling them for centuries; that morality is a habit and that being moral is the way to a happy and content life. The Left hates Peterson because he tells people to think for themselves and see reality as it is not as whatever ideology tells them it is. The fact that Reason doesn't side with Peterson and instead let Welch slander him as some kind of cult leader is pretty disgraceful.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    When you're a fucking libertine degenerate like Welchie Boy and his minions of Reason, anyone who even suggests that living a moral, decent life might be a good way to go is a mortal threat and an enemy.

  • Citizen X||

    Guy Who Goes By "Cock Ring" Blasts Libertines, Defends Morals, Decency; Alanis Morrisette Gets New Idea For Shitty Song

  • ||

    When you're a fucking libertine degenerate like Welchie Boy and his minions of Reason, anyone who even suggests that living a moral, decent life might be a good way to go is a mortal threat and an enemy.

    I don't even know that Welch is that respectable. Charlie Sheen, Hugh Hefner, Jim Morrison, John Delorean; those guys were libertine degenerates. Welch is more of a milquetoast degenerate who likes to think and act like he's libertine-friendly so that other people will like him.

  • ||

    I was very disappointed with Welch.

  • Cathy L||

    Yes, Reason, which is well-known for promoting traditional family values and not individualism, should have sided with Jordan fucking Peterson. Right.

  • Zeb||

    Peterson is very much an individualist and I see very little that Reason has to disagree with him over.

    He's also an accomplished psychologist who thinks he has some good ideas about what makes people live good, meaningful lives. Maybe he's wrong, but he's no ideologue. He's telling people how he thinks human psychology works and how he thinks they can become better, happier people.

  • NashTiger||

    What's not Individualistic about JP? he hates Identity Politics, blaming others or "society", etc

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, I don't know where people get the idea that he's any kind of authoritarian. He's come to an empirical conclusion that people are best able to find meaning and happiness in life if they live according to certain values. If he's wrong about that, prove him wrong. But you need to actually understand what he's saying first.

  • MarkLastname||

    Individuals can choose to abide by traditional family values. Peterson isn't trying to force anything on anyone so this doesn't make him not an individualist.

    Unless your definition of individualism is you have to hate 'traditional family values.'

  • John||

    Toxic masculinity does exist. Sadly, it exists mostly among minority men. Young black and Hispanic men joining gangs and killing each other over perceived "disrespect" is toxic masculinity. Trayvon Martin is a perfect example of toxic masculinity. Some doofus follows him and pisses him off and his solution was to circle back and attack the guy because he felt disrespected. Well, his luck ran out and he ran into a guy who had a gun and was scared enough to use it. That kind of attitude can only end in two ways; either the person finally really hurts or kills someone and ends up in prison for the rest of their lives or they run into someone who kills them and they end up dead. That is toxic masculinity and it is rampant and costs thousands of young lives a year to death or prison. But we never talk about it because that would be racist. Better to talk about some poor bastard at Google who thinks women might not be in STEM because they are different and have different preferences.

  • DesigNate||

    Obviously thinking women are different is the real toxic masculinity and a serious problem facing our society.

  • ||

    Also, despite the existence of all-female and female-instigated mob action, women are immune to toxic masculinity.

  • lap83||

    And don't forget Muslim countries, where it makes international news when women are allowed to drive or go to soccer matches

  • John||

    And child brides and rape are acceptable in the culture.

  • lap83||

    Well, if the women and girls aren't covering themselves in blankets 24/7 then they're just asking for it

  • NashTiger||

    Well, at least Trayvon didn't allow his eyes to wander to a pushup lowcut boustierre

  • ||

    Okay. Read it. I agree with Zeb. Not sure how she came away with that either.

    Honestly, ENB. If you're going to disparage a group calling them 'a crew' as if they're a ragtime bunch of know-nothings, I submit you need to enhance your game and give us a lucid rebuttal.

    I think the message of the article was clearly conveyed and it carried salient points worth discussing.

  • Cathy L||

    The word is "ragtag."

  • ||

    I was waiting for you.

    Fine. Ragtag. You got me.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Hello my baby. Hello my darling. Hello my ragtime gal.

  • NashTiger||

    Just use the Edit function

  • MarkLastname||

    ENB is still a feminist and, as such, cannot always be expected to excel at reason.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Trump's escalation of the trade war is by far the biggest story of the day.

    I'm reading all sorts of comments by the Trump administration about how they're open to negotiating with China on a comprehensive agreement to address trade imbalances with the U.S., but I don't see that as cause for even cautious optimism.

    The agreement the Trump administration wants seems to be about imposing tariffs to address trade imbalances, which appears to be no different from the tariffs Trump is imposing. Perhaps the Trump administration would agree not to impose any new tariffs for some period of time if there were an agreement?

    Has anyone seen any indication that the Trump administration is willing to lower tariffs in exchange for other countries lowering their own? Gotta link for it?

    I want to believe.

    Said it a dozen times before, Trump gambling with our economy on a hand of blackjack is a stupid thing to do, but if that's what he's doing, then I hope he wins--for the sake of the U.S., the economy, etc. That assumed that winning was about getting China and other countries to lower their trade barriers. What is Trump isn't trying to win? What if (in those terms), he's trying to lose?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Dairies getting killed:

    The estimated economic loss to U.S. dairy producers due to Mexico's retaliatory tariffs is around $578 million. Cheese exports to Mexico have plummeted with their 10 to 15-percent tariff on various U.S. cheeses on June 5, which was raised to 20 to 25-percent on July 5. South Dakota Dairy Producers Association President Marv Post says the trade war includes several countries and various dairy products, but it is hitting all facets of U.S. agriculture.

    He says U.S. dairy producers and many other farmers are already dealing with a depressed ag economy and the tariffs just make it worse.

    Post says the trade war needs to be settled so U.S. dairy producers and the entire ag industry don't have to deal with the uncertainty and market losses.

    http://wnax.com/news/180081-ta.....stry-hard/

    I hope these dumb fucking rednecks that voted for the slimeball lose their farms.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I hope these dumb fucking rednecks that voted for the slimeball lose their farms."

    That's a stupid way to look at things--which isn't unexpected coming from Shrike.

    People in the Rustbelt voted for Trump, in part, because they wanted someone to stand up to China. They didn't necessarily think that there wouldn't be any casualties in the war.

    Do you imagine that people who wanted the U.S. to go to war with the Nazis would give up as soon as some American soldiers were killed? Would you hope that the American soldiers who wanted to go to war with the Nazis would be killed first?

    I suppose the problem is that you have no integrity or character, so you imagine that everyone else is like you--and they arne't willing to pay a short terms price to achieve their long term goals. I assure you that isn't the case.

    In the meantime, we're never going to persuade people to change their ideas about trade policy by hoping that they're economically destroyed. In addition to being unpatriotic and psychopathic, hoping swing voters in swing states are economically destroyed makes it harder to get them to listen to us.*

    *"Us" is first person plural in the accusative. None of this was meant for Shrike, who doesn't merit a response. I'm holding this comment for everyone else to see, like a petrified piece of dinosaur crap. Look what I found!

  • juris imprudent||

    "stand up to China"

    Peter Navarro is that you?

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm describing other people's views rather than my own.

    And I don't know who Peter Navarro is. Isn't he the guitarist from Jane's Addiction?

  • DesigNate||

    Opinions like shrike's are doubly shitty because he would inflict this shit on the rest of the country to spite his political enemies.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Exactly.

    He should be ashamed of his irrational hatred. Instead, he seems to think it persuasively justifies policy.

  • Nardz||

    Godamnit Ken!
    It's not f*ing blackjack!
    That makes no sense. Trade war isn't based on counting cards, it's leveraging chips.
    Saying it's gambling and analogy to a card game is appropriate, but pick the right one.
    It's poker.

    Unless you can explain to us how the dynamics of blackjack fit...

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    And Trump is a pretty damn good poker player. His dopey-ass enemies never have the first clue of what he's holding.

  • Jerryskids||

    LOL - Trump bankrupted a fucking casino!

  • Citizen X||

    This sounds impressive until you realize it was a casino he owned.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Didn't multiple casinos go under during the Great Recession?

    Trump is being held to standard that does not exist in America. Businesses go under. Trump has been very successful in business and made bad business deals.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Almost all of Atlantic City went under! And it wasn't because of Trump, it was because all of their neighboring states got smart and legalized casino gaming of their own.

    You can get away with being a shitty dump when you're a virtual regional monopoly, but as soon as the competition comes around you're going to be royally fucked.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I for one am glad that the Lefties never focused on Trump being such a crony capitalist during the election. He might have lost if the Democrats ran a better person. Trump knew how to play the game in NY and NJ and the Left loves crony capitalism which is probably why they didnt want to attack him on it.

    It turns out that private businessman Trump is very different than President Trump. Luckily, president Trump wants to rollback as much government as her can.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The analogy isn't comparing blackjack and trade.

    The analogy is between gambling with cards or gambling with the economy--both are stupid.

    Gambling your life savings on a game of blackjack is a stupid thing to do--even if you win.

    Gambling with the economy on a trade war is a stupid thing to do--even if you win.

    That's the analogy, and there's nothing wrong with it.

    I was hoping Trump would win the game of blackjack--even though I opposed what he was doing because it was stupid. Now, I'm no longer convinced that he's even trying to win--if winning is about lowering trade barriers.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "Now, I'm no longer convinced that he's even trying to win--if winning is about lowering trade barriers."

    Oh he's trying to win, for sure. We'll know what he's trying to win once he's told us that he's won it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    China has already run out of ways to hurt U.S. exporters without dramatically hurting Chinese consumers. They've already been forced to slap things like basic food staples.

    What Trump is doing could help certain segments of our population for ten or twenty years--while hurting the rest of the economy. In that sense, he could "win" a trade war for the people who supported him.

    If we're going to influence swing voters in swing states (in the rust belt) that things are far worse for them because of Trump's policies, we may have to contend with the reality they see around them.

    Rising wages among unskilled workers are a real thing. The unemployment rate was up last month--because there are so many good paying opportunities for unskilled workers that they're drawing more people back into the workforce, who had given up on finding a job before.

    Not everyone wins when inefficient businesses are shut down because of foreign competition, and not everyone loses when efficient businesses in other countries are shut out because of a trade war.

  • Nardz||

    1. Is any gambling at all necessarily gambling with out life savings? There's no lesser degree of gambling possible? How does this single factor of the economy = life savings?
    2. Blackjack is a stupid game, 90% based on chance. There's very little skill involved and the player is extremely limited in how he can play his hand. You get A-K, blackjack, great! You've done nothing to influence that outcome. You get K-Q and the deal gets A-Q, or the dealer gets K-8-3, you lose. Too bad, but there's nothing you can do about it. So yes, being a game entirely of luck, gambling it all on a single hand of blackjack is stupid.
    3. Poker involves a great deal more self-determination. You can raise, fold, but importantly - you're playing your stack against the stacks of other players (not a dealer who has nothing at stake). You consider your hand, you consider the possible hands opponents might have, you consider your position, you consider the size of your stack and that of others. There's a shitload more going on than in blackjack, just as there's a lot going on in trade negotiations.
    *Note: Vanessa [something] wins online poker tournaments playing with her cards covered the whole time. She puts black tape over her screen where her hand is shown. She wins because she knows how to play.

  • Nardz||

    In poker you can be holding a shit hand and still win. Can't do that in blackjack. You can be holding a great hand and lose because you don't know how to play it right.

    Trump thinks his hand and his stack is better than that of the EU and China. He thinks that he can make them "fold". Maybe he's right, maybe he's not.
    I like it better than the previous 25 years of trade agreements (bend the American people over so our "elites" can take bribes from foreign countries - I believe the metaphor of strip mining the US was used, and is apt), but that's just my opinion.

    Either way, blackjack is a stupid fucking analogy when poker would be much better placed.

    No offense Ken, but your insistence on calling it blackjack is fucking infuriating and idiotic. Surprising that you insist on doing so considering that your other comments are usually very thoughtful.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You're still comparing things that I'm not comparing.

    The fact is that gambling with trade policy is stupid--even if Trump were to somehow win, the risks do not justify making the bet.

    I oppose gambling with trade policy for that reason. Even when Trump was apparently pressuring the Chinese to intervene with North Korea, I opposed gambling with trade policy that way.

    It would have been a bad idea, even if it worked. Even if it worked, it was a bad idea.

    Because someone bets their whole life savings on a single hand of blackjack and wins, that does not mean that what they did was smart. What they did was stupid--regardless of whether they won.

    What Trump is doing on trade is stupid--I was saying that back when I was hoping he might somehow win. Now that I'm not sure he's even trying to win (bring down trade barriers), what he's doing is even worse.

    There's nothing wrong with that analogy, and you torturing it into saying something I'm not even addressing doesn't make it a bad analogy. In the ways I was saying they're analogous, they are! That's what makes it a good analogy.

    Gambling with the economy this way is stupid--even if we somehow get a desirable outcome, gambling that way is stupid--just like betting it all on a hand of blackjack is a stupid thing to do, even if you win.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    I like it better than the previous 25 years of trade agreements (bend the American people over so our "elites" can take bribes from foreign countries - I believe the metaphor of strip mining the US was used, and is apt), but that's just my opinion.

    It's not just your opinion, it's my opinion and the opinion of many millions of Americans, which of course is why he got elected president in the first place.

    The preferred leftard narrative of course is that Trump is starting a global trade war. There's another equally valid narrative that much of the world (including many of our so-called "friends" and "allies") have been waging a trade war against America for many years, and Trump is deciding that it's about time that we fought back.

  • NashTiger||

    anti-gambling crusaders on a "Libertarian" site, now I've seen it all

  • Ken Shultz||

    Actually, being a libertarian doesn't mean you have to support people taking stupid risks with the economy at all--certainly not in the name of gambling legalization.

    There is something to the suggestion that libertarianism is about how people should be free to do stupid things, but even if I think they should be free to do stupid things, that doesn't mean those things aren't stupid.

  • Shirley Knott||

    There is no winning.
    Everybody loses. Trade wars historically do not make things better.
    Or are there actual factual examples of what we, or you, would consider 'winning'?

  • JoeBlow123||

    *snore* go read your Bible, I mean, Rothbard gospels. You are boring.

  • Jerryskids||

    Has anyone seen any indication that the Trump administration is willing to lower tariffs in exchange for other countries lowering their own? Gotta link for it?

    If you're convinced that Trump's a master negotiator playing 7-D chess, you don't need no stinking evidence that his tariff talk is merely a negotiating tactic on the way to making a great deal you're going to love. Anything he says that you don't agree with can just as easily be dismissed as "negotiating". How exactly you can tell negotiating talk from mental retardation is beyond me, you just have to have faith.

    Of course, there's a name for having an unshakeable faith immune to all reason, logic and contrary evidence.

  • MWG||

    Trump has, at least, a 30 years history of commenting on trade. The earliest comments I've seen were regarding the Japanese back in the 80s. So his views should really come as no surprise. He sees trade as a zero-sum game and thinks that between two countries exports should essentially = imports (which would be bizarre if it actually happened in practice given the complex nature of trade flows) or a country is 'winning' if their exports are greater than their imports. So in this sense, he's not really 'gambling', he's playing the game the way he thinks it should be played; Increase exports to China and decrease imports.

    Not sure why Trump's idiocy regarding trade is a hotly debated topic among the commentariat, but thus are the crazy times we're living in.

  • Shirley Knott||

    TDS is not limited to his opponents. Fanboys suffer it, too.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Trade is not zero sum but you goofs continue to ignore relative gains. I do not know how many times this must be pointed out, relative gains relative gains relative gains. Go google the words for fucks sake.

    It is possible to think trade is good and to think trading with someone who might want to fuck you over (China) in a way that is making them way more relatively rich and powerful is maybe not such a good idea in the long term.

    Hey libertarians, you know China is a totalitarian country too right? Keep shuffling those greenbacks to them!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You are completely misstating what Trump knows about trade policy.

    The USA has managed trade and it was that way before Trump. Trump offered to end all trade restrictions if our trading partners needed their trade restrictions. Our trading partners declined.

    But Trump is the bad guy here? This is why we say that people like you have TDS.

    If our trading partners had ended their trade restrictions the USA and our trading partners would have free trade. They declined.

  • Cathy L||

    What is Trump isn't trying to win? What if (in those terms), he's trying to lose?

    I mean...this is what libertarians have been trying to tell you?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    LINOs are certainly wanting the USA to lose.

  • Juice||

    America's allies are "delinquent" in covering defense costs

    Is he wrong about that?

  • Just Say'n||

    Shhhhh....we love NATO here for reasons that I can't even begin to understand

  • damikesc||

    Reason hates welfare...except to fund Europe's defense.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    He's 100% correct.

  • Ken Shultz||

    No.

    NATO allies are required to spend (I think it's 2% of GDP) a certain amount on their own defense.

    Only the UK, Poland, Estonia, and Greece are meeting their commitments.

    The rest of them are free riders.

  • Juice||

    If there must be a requirement to spend on "defense" I'd prefer it to be more like 0.2% or something.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Military alliances have been among the best ways to avoid wars since forever, and NATO was effective in preventing a direct military confrontation between the west and the USSR. I won't argue with success.

    Out military threats have changed and so should our model. It took generations to assemble our coalitions during the Cold War, and those alliances don't simply disappear over night. Our relationships with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, and Pakistan are further indications of that.

    I don't think we should leave western Europe to flail in the wind should Putin start pressing his case westward into Eastern Europe, and considering that Poland and Estonia are both vulnerable to that sort of encroachment and have met their NATO commitments, I think we need to live by our agreements with them.

    If the other members want out of NATO in exchange for us forgiving their free ride status, we should minimize our commitments to those countries. Poland might be happy to have us more our bases there from Germany.

    P.S. This is typical in world history. The closer you get to Athens, the more city states were likely to complain about paying Athens for their defense and Athens hegemony. The city states that were right up against Persia, on the other hand, were Athens greatest supporters. Hegemony? We don't care about no stinkin' hegemony? You want to station a navy here in our harbor? Great! We'll move the local fisherman out of the way to make that happen!

  • Longtobefree||

    How do you know that it was NATO preventing a direct military confrontation, and not the Warsaw Pact?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Are you denying that the USSR was expansionist?

  • juris imprudent||

    Trotsky died in exile. Russia has wanted a warm water port for centuries.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Russia was trying to get a warm water port in Syria.

    Russia is trying to work Iran to get a warm water port.

    Russia kept Kaliningrad for decades after WWII as a semi-warm water port.

    The USSR invaded Afghanistan to move onto Pakistan to obtain warm water ports.

  • NashTiger||

    Warm port is not nearly as satisfying as a room-temp sherry

  • JoeBlow123||

    I do not understand this comment either. Bolshevism by nature was expansionist.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    COMINTERN

    Communist International.

    Literally was the effort to expand Communism around the World.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Here's a link:

    http://www.defensenews.com/glo.....n-defense/

    Use the pull down menu to find 2017.

    The default view shows 2010.

    P.S. The reason Germany had so much money to pursue the resettlement of refugees, bail out Greece, and fund green energy is partly because the U.S. is providing for their defense.

    The reason Greece is within compliance is because being required to spend 2% of your GDP is easy when your GDP has fallen so far so fast. Also, when the Europeans and others required Greece to cut their government spending in exchange for bailouts, Greece could argue that their defense spending was necessary in order to meet their NATO obligations.

  • Just Say'n||

    My favorite thing about European hypocrisy is how fast they drop the "America is a danger to the world" talking point as soon as someone proposes that the US close its bases in Europe or that the Europeans should defend themselves.

  • John||

    When I was living in Europe and my European friends would start bitching about the US, I would just tell them that nothing lasts forever and that someday the US won't be the most powerful country on earth and China or India or someone else will be and I don't think you are going to like it very much. None of them ever had an answer to that other than silence and to change the subject.

  • Just Say'n||

    I was in Italy once talking foreign affairs with some Italians. I agreed with them when they talked about how the US shouldn't interfere in the rest of the world (they were specifically referring to Iraq and Afghanistan), but they changed their tune real fast when I brought it to the logical conclusion: "and that's why we should also close our bases in Europe". Well, that's different, they insisted. Those bases are a massive welfare program for the Europeans. They provide free defense and economic activity in the areas where they are located. Screw the Europeans

  • ||

    The Europeans don't want to spend on their militaries because they know they'll go to war with each other given their history.

    Just an informal theory.

  • Longtobefree||

    You went to college a long time ago, didn't you?
    Back when the history books were about history and not sociology.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think that's their justification.

    In reality, Germany is probably the most pacifist country in Europe.

  • John||

    We had to defend them in the Cold War, but it has just made them resentful welfare queens. We did the right thing but like usually happens when you do the right thing, it doesn't earn you any friends or much of anything beyond jealousy and contempt.

  • mtrueman||

    I blame Hitler.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Italians are scared of being invaded by Austrians and Tunisians again.

  • ||

    And the biggest shit disturbing yappers - France and Germany - are below it.

    Canada is especially disappointing for me. Another 'all talk' country with no bite.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    America's allies are "delinquent" in covering defense costs,

    Uhhhh, this isn't a "conspiracy theory", it's an absolute fact.

    Germany's military is so pathetic that many of their soldiers have to use broomsticks in place of rifles. Good fucking luck staving of a Russian invasion with a broomstick!

  • NashTiger||

  • Juice||

    Here, here!

    Hey, I'm not your lapdog.

  • Rich||

    Should a non-transgender actor take a role as a transgender character?

    Well, does xi *self-identify* as a non-transgender actor taking a role as a transgender character?

  • John||

    All it takes to be transgender is to think you are. In that sense, isn't Johansson transgender when she is acting the part? I don't see why not.

  • Mickey Rat||

    This may end up destroying acting as a profession. The logical endpoint of this is that the only person you are qualified to portray is yourself.

  • John||

    Unless you are playing a group lower on the pecking order. The same people who are bitching about this would think a trans woman playing a woman or even playing a man would be a triumph. Just like they would think casting a black person to play a white figure in history would be great.

    As with everything involving the left, it is just about power.

  • Rhywun||

    These days you're hard-pressed to find a performance of Shakespeare where anyone has the sex or race that was originally intended.

  • John||

    A black man can play Henry V because that is different or something. It is pathetic.

  • Rich||

    Acting is obsolescent anyway, what with AI and CGI.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Seeing as Carrie Fisher will be appearing in Star Wars IX as Princess Leia, that is correct.

  • Bearded Spock||

    The play "Hamilton" would instantly transform into a boring historical documentary if this were the rule.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    FISAGate conspirator Lisa Page apparently intends to commit contempt of congress.

    I hope they grab her, clap her ass in irons, and drag her in there screaming if need be.

  • Rich||

    several of the members have quite a few questions about Page's text messaging history with her illicit lover, Peter Strzok.

    If aliens are not illegal, then lovers are not illicit.

  • ||

    then lovers are not illicit.

    +1 presenting papers at port of entry.

  • Longtobefree||

    Where are the US Marshals when you need them?

  • End Child Unemployment||

    to "injure, oppress, threat[en], or intimidate any person"

    Help help I'm being oppressed! Did you see him oppress me? Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
    (yeah I know it was repressed in the film, not oppressed).

  • lafe.long||

    Should a non-transgender actor take a role as a transgender character? Business Insider columnist Daniella Greenbaum doesn't see why not, and made her case in a recent column titled "Scarlett Johansson is being unfairly criticized for doing her job after being cast as a transgender man."

    It looks like they pulled it solely based on the first paragraph:

    Scarlett Johansson is the latest target of the social-justice warrior mob. The actress is being chastised for, well, acting.


    Apparently, the term "social-justice warrior mob" is triggering to some.

    Full original article here.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Wasn't Juliet traditionally played by a boy?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    The bill is being pushed by Reps. Peter King (R-N.Y.) [and 2 other douchebags]

    Someone should ask Mr. King if the law would also apply to members of the IRA. For the lulz.

  • Stilgar||

    There is a special chipper reserved just for Peter King and those who continue to vote him back in. The IRA connection is just a cherry on top.

  • Sevo||

    "Friend or foe at Nato? Who knows when Trump comes to dinner"
    [...]
    "The dynamics between Trump and heads of government with their own predilections could create some volatile chemistry at the two-day summit"
    https://gulfnews.com/news/americas/usa/
    friend-or-foe-at-nato-who-knows-when-
    trump-comes-to-dinner-1.2249371

    Right.
    The lot of them rely on Uncle Sugar to provide their defense so they can continue to hand out free shit to their populations, all the while whining about how uncivilized the US is.
    Rick Atkinson got it right regarding the French forces attitude to being supplied by the US in Europe; they relied on the US "with all the pathologies that dependency engenders". It now applies to all of Europe.

  • Sevo||

    Don't care.
    Reason can fix their website; I'm not coding for them.

  • Jerryskids||

    Technically, the bill makes it a crime—punishable by up to 15 years in prison, plus a fine—to "injure, oppress, threat[en], or intimidate any person" while "in disguise, including while wearing a mask," even if the conduct in question would be legal when undertaken by a non-masked person.

    Which part of "Trick or Treat" didn't you understand was a threat?

  • Jerryskids||

    Back in the resurgent KKK days, a lot of places enacted these sorts of anti-mask laws which had to be broadly written so as to avoid the charge that they were specifically targeting the KKK (which would be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination) but were unfortunately so broadly written that they had to go back and specifically exempt trick-or-treaters. Good times.

  • John||

    They had to draft the laws correctly, but there was good reason to have them. Wearing the mask makes it virtually impossible to prosecute someone who commits an assault. This allowed the KKK to go around and terrorize people with virtual immunity. I can't for the life of me understand why people think that groups of masked terrorists assaulting people with impunity is not a freedom issue or something the government has both a legitimate interest and duty to stop.

  • Longtobefree||

    "Wearing the mask makes it virtually impossible to prosecute someone who commits an assault."

    All you have to do is take the mask off the body - - - - - - -

  • John||

    Only if you can catch them. Sure, if the guy commits the assault and the police grab him right then, you can convict him. But that is hard to do and rarely happens. Usually, the guy is going to run off and blend into the crowd making it impossible to find him much less prove it was him even if you do. They don't wear masks for fun. They wear them because it allows them to get away with assault.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Anonymous crimes really suck. We need to get that panopticon and full tracking of all persons and property in play ASAP.
    Otherwise somebody might get away with something and John would have a sad.
    Something about those who would trade liberty for security keeps coming to mind.

  • Longtobefree||

    What's to catch? He is lying there on the ground, having bled profusely from the double tap.

  • perlchpr||

    This is my thought. If some masked pantifa thug comes up and swings a pipe at my head and I put a pair of 10mm in his chest for the effort, I think unmasking him will shortly become very simple.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    These dipshits bring pipes to a gunfight.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Birdbrain from Alaska said Borat duped her:

    Needless to say, after this incident, Sarah Palin is probably not a fan of comedian Sacha Baron Cohen.

    The former vice presidential candidate posted on her Facebook that she was unknowingly involved in Cohen's new show Who Is America?

    Palin wrote that she initially agreed to sit down with the comedian, known for creating the characters Ali G and Borat, when she was told she would be speaking to an American veteran. Cohen, in his new CBS/Showtime show, allegedly poses as a disabled U.S. veteran and has tricked some politicians, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, whom he asked to sign his "waterboard kit."

    Yahoo News

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    he asked to sign his "waterboard kit.

    That is funny, admit it.

    And I may be old but this fucking site is filled with dudes my age.

  • damikesc||

    Impractical Jokers is Borat except with talent and comedy.

  • Tony||

    We have no choice but to amend the 1st Amendment because Sarah Palin was embarrassed.

    --Reason libertarians, I bet

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You would be hard pressed to find Libertarians on Reason staff.

  • Tony||

    There's a couple I wouldn't mind being hard pressed by.

  • MarkLastname||

    With you we don't need to speculate. You're on record wanting to tear up the first amendment so a gay couple can force anyone they want to decorate they're cake. Then again you don't even purport to think people have rights.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    NARAL DESTROYS Brett Kavanaugh!

    We'll be DAMNED if we're going to let five MEN—including some frat boy named Brett—strip us of our hard-won bodily autonomy and reproductive rights. #StopKavanaugh #SaveRoe

    LOL! His first name is Brett!

    #StandWithPP
    #Resist

    PS — If any of you conservative wiseguys point out it was seven cis-males who decided Roe in the first place, then you're totally missing the point.

  • ||

    "@torytho
    10h10 hours ago
    More
    He denied an undocumented woman held in custody the right to go to a hospital for an abortion calling it "abortion on demand". That's pretty freaking extreme, horrific, and clearly not a defender of reproductive rights.
    0 replies 1 retweet 3 likes"

    I don't get it.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Somebody say something witty about banning masks and Muslim women. I'm drawing a blank.

  • Longtobefree||

    There is nothing witty about Muslim women.
    There is nothing witty about banning masks (or being 'in disguise'). Think of the damage to the economy when all make up manufacturers and distributors are put out of business.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Christians hardest hit. (Yes, Halloween is a Christian thing.)

  • lap83||

    ban masks for everyone except the men who identify as Muslim women?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    +1 Don Pardo
    +3 Ray White

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    +1 Don Pardo
    +3 Ray White

  • Ron||

    its about time they came up with a law against mask. Most everyone I know thinks it should be illegal. the only problem being is it will be thrown out as a 1st amendment right to cover ones face. note its only been Antifa and KKK wearing mask no body else is.

    those who wear mask only prove their cowardice and lets the rest of know to be wary of them

  • Longtobefree||

    The Incredibles wear masks.
    Nancy Pelosi wears a mask

  • lap83||

    That's her face! She stole it from the first human she encountered fair and s

  • Tony||

    Sean Hannity is the president of the United States.

  • geo1113||

    Der fuhrer has a better ring.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Unfortunately, it's even worse than that. I don't like Hannity, but there's not much evidence he's been a Russian intelligence asset since 1987. Whereas Drumpf might have been compromised for at least that long.

  • Tony||

    I believe you. You have some talent. Nobody who actually likes Hannity has anything other than basic motor skills.

  • Longtobefree||

    Some kind of fun; Yale students say Yale graduates are idiots.

    Even more fun; are actors exempt from the 'no mask' thing? (regardless of anatomy and/or mindset)

    I got whiplash here - Business Insider doing commentary on casting, then yanking the truth for being 'conservative' with a straight face.

    Who is the science denier; the one who ignores DNA, or the one who pretends ignoring DNA is a good thing?

    Has anybody seen my meds?

  • John Thacker||

    Quite a few states, mostly Southern, have long standing anti-mask laws, aimed at the KKK. Virginia does (and was in the news recently) as does North Carolina. Not really enforced, North Carolina's statute makes it illegal for anyone over 16 to wear a mask or hood at any time on any public property or public roads.

    § 14-12.7. Wearing of masks, hoods, etc., on public ways.
    No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, be or appear upon any lane, walkway, alley, street, road, highway or other public way in this State. (1953, c. 1193, s. 6; 1983, c. 175, ss. 1, 10; c. 720, s. 4.)
    § 14-12.8. Wearing of masks, hoods, etc., on public property.
    No person or persons shall in this State, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the State, or of the State of North Carolina. (1953, c. 1193, s. 7.)
  • John Thacker||

    It's not enforced, but it occasionally comes up in the context of "hey, adults trick or treating is technically illegal in NC."

  • Longtobefree||

    No exception for women wearing wigs?
    No exception for women wearing makeup?
    No exception for women wearing heels to disguise their height?
    No exception for women wearing tinted contacts to disguise their eye color?
    No exception for women wearing (well, you go from here)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yeah, there are a millions holes in the mask laws and are unconstitutional.

    Nobody really gets arrested for them, so nobody really has standing to challenge them up to the SCOTUS.

  • NashTiger||

    Well, they finally got something on that Jason Voorhees fella

  • Vernon Depner||

    Minnesota has had such a law for a long time. It is widely ignored in the winter when it's 20 below and everyone covers their faces.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Despite being labeled a "conservative" argument, Greenbaum's piece merely suggested that "the job of an actor is to represent someone else" and therefore their actual gender identities off-screen are "irrelevant" to the roles they play onscreen.


    Which is why, of course, out gay and trans actors and actresses don't have problems starting their careers (if out before they're famous) or take hits to their careers (if coming out after they're famous).

    I mean, it's a nice idea and all, but it's pretty obvious that only works for straight/cis folk. If you're not, then you get pigeon-holed much more easily.

  • John||

    To some degree. But to the extent that it is true that is a bad thing not an excuse to apply to everyone else. And plenty of gay actors have had great careers playing straight people. Kevin Spacey is queer as hell.

  • lafe.long||

    Where's all the outrage over Eric Stonestreet and Eric McCormack taking teh jerbz from teh gayz?

  • Shirley Knott||

    Probably hiding behind a mask somewhere.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    +1 Roy Dennis

  • Rhywun||

    I don't know who the former is but there was definitely (minor) outrage over the latter. It's just that the vast majority of folks didn't give a crap about that stuff back then.

  • EscherEnigma||

    In case you didn't notice, no one here is outraged over Scarlet Johansen either (not even me).

    I was just pointing out that the argument ("the actor doesn't matter, it's acting!") is obviously a double standard. That's not outrage, that's side-line snarking.

  • lafe.long||

    In case you didn't notice, no one here is outraged over Scarlet Johansen either (not even me).


    Oh, I know.

    My "outrage" comment was based on the fact that the story got memory holed presumably in part out of respect for the the transgendered who were outraged at Johansson's portrayal... and pointing out the hypocrisy.

  • MarkLastname||

    Um, there is no double standard. You're making that up. Who is getting upset when gay actors play straight characters? What outcry is there over that?

    You just need to manufacture bullshit so you can be perpetually indignant about what you do with your penis. Sounds pretty pathetic, doesn't it?

  • Mickey Rat||

    So instead of something that may happen due to the hiring preferences of moviemakers, you want to make it a hard and fast rule applied universally, so as to be "fair"?

  • EscherEnigma||

    [...] you want to make it a hard and fast rule applied universally, so as to be "fair"?


    [Citation Needed]

    You can be critical of an obvious double-standard without trying to force people to do anything, you know. I shouldn't have to explain that to supposed "libertarians".

  • Mickey Rat||

    Ok, if you don't, but I think you are making dome large assumptions about the prevalence of a double standard.

  • MarkLastname||

    No one here is talking about forcing anyone to do anything. It's 'norms' we're talking about.

    Just say it, you object to cis people playing trans characters. Or, you think it's "problematic" as people like you are fond of saying these days.

  • perlchpr||

    "ScarJo isn't Trans!"

    Yeah, here's a fucking clue: She's not actually Black Widow either.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Would it be better if they simply allowed the masks but then arrested everyone wearing a mask once the violence started at any particular protest?

    At that point they're effectively giving cover to the bad actors by allowing them to hide them among the crowd and to my mind are really acting little different from someone taking someone running from the cops after committing a crime. The first few times I didn't think this but at this point it's SOP for those looking to create problems to show up armed and in disguise as well as public knowledge that such attire is effectively the violent protesters "uniform".

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Mayor Bill de Blasio's visit to the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas violated both Mexican and U.S. immigration laws when he and his security detail illegally crossed the border, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection said in a letter.
    NYC mayor says he told president-elect about New Yorkers' fears over his White House policies in 'candid,' 'respectful' meeting. 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' takes a closer look at the immigration debate #Tucker Video
    De Blasio to Trump: NYC will protect illegal immigrants
    The letter, obtained by The Associated Press and sent June 25, said de Blasio and his security detail, run by the New York Police Department, were denied entrance to a holding facility for immigrant children. Aaron Hull, the chief patrol agent for the Border Patrol's El Paso Sector, had sent the letter to NYPD Commissioner James O'Neill.
    [...]
    De Blasio was visiting the U.S.-Mexico border with about 20 other mayors from across the nation when the alleged incident occurred.

    NYC Mayor violates federal law

    If they violated US federal law, fine all the mayors and their security details.

    The Mayor of NY needs a security detail in Mexico. I thought the Mexicans were a peaceful peoples?

  • Rhywun||

    Deblasio probably violates more US federal laws than that in course of a single day when he can be bothered to do the job he was elected by a tiny percentage of us to do. (He is notoriously lazy and shows little interest in anything other than self-promotion.)

  • jcw||

    I thought the Mexicans were a peaceful peoples?>/i>

    Only the ones with face covering sombreros

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Oh, caballeros?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Nothing more scary than an upper middle class tween with an airsoft rifle.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    On the bright side, it took Trump to finally get Democrats to want to abolish a Federal Agency.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    This is a big COMMENTS and I got bored. Where's my crayons?

  • Citizen X||

    Shreek ate them. Sorry, bro.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    :( perhaps I'll get them back in a day or so.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Masks are for law enforcement agents only. Nevermind that you won't know who they are when they unlawfully enter your home and trash it.

  • Martin Brock||

    According to the article, only a few lines below the headline, the bill actually covers law enforcement, "whether or not [a masked person is] acting under color of law". Definitely seems to rule out undercover cops posing as protesters wearing masks.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Hey, that save the cuddly animals drive can get intense.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Seriously, though, that law against masks is silly and unjust.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    "We let someone get naked and have every other part of their body touched and rubbed by a massage therapist. Hell, we let proctologists spend their day fingering men and sticking things up their anus. So if someone wants to yank a guy's crank, I say let 'em." Here, here!

    That reminds me of the time I argued against LA's condom mandate for porn movies at a local county freeholder meeting.

  • gphx||

    Wait. This covers masks but not hoods, right?
    No reason.

  • Martin Brock||

    Seems deliberately to invite a bill of attainder challenge.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online