ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

The threat to free speech

While Milogate has dominated the news, the flamboyant ex-Breitbart editor is far from the only observer concerned about the future of free speech across the West. Military historian and Castalia House author Martin van Creveld has observed as much as well:
Freedom of speech is in trouble—and the only ones who do not know it are those who will soon find out. The idea of free speech is a recent one. It first emerged during the eighteenth century when Voltaire, the great French writer, said that while he might not agree with someone’s ideas he would fight to the utmost to protect that person’s right to express them. Like Assange and Snowden Voltaire paid the penalty, spending time in jail for his pains. Later, to prevent a recurrence, he went to live at Frenay, just a few hundred yards from Geneva. There he had a team or horses ready to carry him across the border should the need arise. Good for him.

To return to modern times, this is not the place to trace the stages by which freedom of speech was hemmed in in any detail. Looking back, it all started during the second half of the 1960s when it was forbidden to say, or think, or believe, that first blacks, then women, then gays, then transgender people, might in some ways be different from others. As time went on this prohibition came to be known as political correctness. Like an inkstain it spread, covering more and more domains and polluting them. This has now been carried to the point where anything that may offend anyone in some way is banned—with the result that, as Alan Bloom in The Closing of the American Mind has shown, in many fields it has become almost impossible to say anything at all.

Let me give you just one example of what I mean. Years ago, at my alma mater in Jerusalem, I taught a course on military history. The class consisted of foreign, mostly American, students. At one point I used the germ Gook. No sooner had the word left my mouth than a student rose and, accused me of racism. I did my best to explain that, by deliberately using the term, I did not mean to imply that, in my view, the Vietnamese were in any way inferior. To the contrary, I meant to express my admiration for them for having defeated the Americans who did think so. To no avail, of course.

And so it goes. When the Internet first appeared on the scene I, along with a great many other people, assumed that any attempt to limit freedom of speech had now been definitely defeated. Instead, the opposite is beginning to happen. Techniques such as “data mining” made their appearance, allowing anything anyone said about anything to be instantly monitored and recorded, forever. All over Europe, the thought police is in the process of being established. Sometimes it is corporations such as Facebook which, on pain of government intervention, are told to “clean up” their act by suppressing all kinds of speech or, at the very least, marking it as “offensive,” “untrue,” and “fake.” In others it is the governments themselves that take the bit between their teeth.
When people as diverse as Roosh, Milo, and MvC are speaking out about the danger to free speech, you can be certain that it is a serious problem. And, of course, this threat is only one aspect of the larger, existential threat to Western civilization itself.

On a related note, a visual guide to how social justice warriors coopt organizations and communities.

Labels: ,

147 Comments:

Blogger RE February 22, 2017 5:35 AM  

We have to stand by Milo more than ever. The progressives in my Facebook regulary post attacks on the altright but they always seem to avoid Milo.Now that this has happen they have started posting on him because instead of having to deal with his arguments they just call him a pedophile.

Blogger Matt February 22, 2017 5:46 AM  

Is there a creature more worthless than a leftist?

Blogger Lazarus February 22, 2017 5:56 AM  

And, of course, this threat is only one aspect of the larger, existential threat to Western civilization itself.

Can't say that.

Blogger The Kurgan February 22, 2017 6:08 AM  

Good. Now all the left are pedophiles. Make them choke on the statistics of LGBTs being sexual abusers. Link them directly to NAMBLA. Set fire to their crappy narratives. Only Crusaders willing to charge into battle need apply.

Blogger Lovekraft February 22, 2017 6:18 AM  

Not sure how much we should care in terms of leftists having to work under the same standards they expect of us.

The opinion-police used various tools to discredit, silence and intimidate, so what comes around goes around.

If an SJW approaches me claiming to want a reasoned debate, out comes my recording device and a search for a witness.

I think free speech can still be honored under this scenario, just that we are going to reject 'SJW speech'.

Blogger Lazarus February 22, 2017 6:25 AM  

The Kurgan wrote:Good. Now all the left are pedophiles.

That strategy has been in effect for some time now, with little apparent result. The only casualty I can recall off the top of my head is Milo.

Blogger Antony February 22, 2017 6:26 AM  

Just remind the leftists of their total silence, and indeed covering up, of the muslim grooming gang scandals in Britain.

Blogger John Wright February 22, 2017 6:28 AM  

Political correctness in the attempt to reintroduce moral norms governing speech that were rejected from polite Society in polite Society rejected religion as a standard. The problem is the new polite Society takes as its standard the opposite of the old standard. Political correctness is fundamentally and ultimately satanic.

PC opposes God first, then the Ten Commandments, then the US Constitution, then marriage. Art becomes politicized, then science, then all aspects of rational thoight.
...and then PC works its way finally to euthanasia for the weak, and abortion for the unborn.

The very heart of political correctness is what I call the unreality principle.

That's the principle that says whatever is untrue should be proclaimed and met with Applause. And the less truth it contains, the more the Applause.

Blogger Lazarus February 22, 2017 6:35 AM  

John Wright wrote:The very heart of political correctness is what I call the unreality principle.

The first thing that I thought of upon reading that was Alister Crowley.

Anonymous Rocklea February 22, 2017 6:40 AM  

It seems as though many people across the world don't actually like free speech. It's easy to understand why.

Governments don't like free speech. Not just individual politicians, who may be destroyed in a news cycle, but the entire apparatus. Bureaucrats, teachers, government funded scientists, social workers, anyone involved in the western worlds fetish for governments to implement positive obligations at our expense. Free speech exposes their livelihood to criticism.

Big businesses don't like free speech. Corporations, particularly those that operate in multiple jurisdictions, will normalize products and messages in order to appeal to the widest possible market, cut down on manufacturing costs and take market share from competitors. A world that questions free trade, interrupts their programs of 'harmonization'. Free speech exposes their greed and institutional psychopathy.

Minorities don't like free speech. They stand out from the cultural norms, and are critically scrutinized by the wider community, and rightly so. A functioning high trust society needs its participants to operate in predictable and beneficial ways to themselves and their community. If minority actions are discordant or antithetical to the host culture, trust is lost and chaos ensues. Free speech exposes the minorities differences and threatens their ability to take advantage of the host society.

A triumvirate. I am sure their are more free speech haters, and I look forward to everyones comments. But this Triumvirate, Government, Corporations and Minorities, are natural bed fellows and mutually reinforcing under globalism. It's no accident that this is where the fight is.

OT, Vox I missed GabTV today, could you post a link please?

Blogger David Power February 22, 2017 6:45 AM  

The reason the Liberal hate-mob have it in for Milo in particular, isn't just because he
decimates them in debate but because they believe, as a gay man, he should be on their side not ours.

And with some justification:

It is an observable fact that...

a) Masculine Men and Feminine Women, generally tend towards the political Right.

b) Effeminate Men and Masculinised Women, generally tend towards the political Left.

As the exception that proves the rule, the Left view Milo as a political traitor.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer February 22, 2017 6:53 AM  

Disappointed that we have come to this state. Very disappointed that the media's tactics still largely work. Why the average person cares what Slate or Solon or Huffpo says about social justice I can not say. I was surprised that the NBC radio news actually ran a top of the hour news segment where they talked about Milo resigning. My first thought was "this is the first time I have heard his name on a mainstream outlet". I am betting half the boomer listening were thinking "Who?".

The only solutions I can come up with are keep demonetizing them in every way possible, support the alternatives that crop up and spread the message among friends and family.

Blogger Silly But True February 22, 2017 6:57 AM  

The left disrupts the very core of a society: removing, or controlling the ability to communicate. Where it doesn't seek to control speech on its own terms, it seeks to so warp language itself so as to render words meaningless. Marriage. No such thing, in its simple term. Gender? What is the thing that can now be anything? Or change to anything from moment to moment.

The plan is to force the inability to tell the truth on to everyone. If you can make people lie for you, well then...
https://youtu.be/o_eSwq1ewsU

Blogger OGRE February 22, 2017 6:58 AM  

@8 that might be the most accurate description of political correctness I've ever heard

Blogger Phillip George February 22, 2017 7:00 AM  

There's never been freedom of speech.
You could never make threats to kill, blaspheme, lie, insult.
That's the Common Law.
It's ludicrous to even have to mention it here but a Jury is perfectly capable of differentiating between consensual sexual contact between a "young adult" and

Imprisonment, rape, torture, diasappeared, organ harvested, satanic nut jobs.

Here, here, and hear hear is a breath of fresh air.

I can up the ante only by saying. Without God you will always, always, never fails, get
Bat Shit Crazy.

Milo was foot faulted. That's all. Foot faulted. Shoot the bastards, who assign all the foot faults to one team. It's this simple. In their application of the greater laws, they were and are perfect hypocrites. Which is why they lose.

Blogger Cataline Sergius February 22, 2017 7:01 AM  

@Matt

Is there a creature more worthless than a leftist?

Egg McMuffin

Blogger Stilicho February 22, 2017 7:11 AM  

@Cataline yup. Right now, Egg McMuffin thinks he'll be able to un-suck that Soros.

The O'keefes out there should focus on cucks. Fertile ground for exposes of leftist infiltration.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer February 22, 2017 7:12 AM  

Cataline Sergius wrote:@Matt

Is there a creature more worthless than a leftist?

Egg McMuffin


Bingo. The cucks need to be purged from our side. They can join their friends on the side they truly support. "Oh, they will eat you alive if we force you over there? We. don't. care."

Anonymous W. Lindsay Wheeler February 22, 2017 7:13 AM  

Well, I consider Free Speech as one of the factors of the fall of America. It is Free Speech that led to the Marxist control of the culture and educational institutions of America! Free Speech, as Crevald shows, is from an atheist and a hater of Christianity.

The virtue of Prudence itself denies the validity of Free Speech.

Blogger Cataline Sergius February 22, 2017 7:14 AM  

Free Speech was never under serious threat until the rise of social media.

The thing to remember is that as Van Crevald has said in the past, "history isn't decided by majorities, it's decided by minorities who fight."

And the mentally unbalanced SJWs are a minority who fighting against free speech.

They are also, annoyingly, pussies about who scream they are being raped at the slightest sign of any push back against them.

Blogger Ken Prescott February 22, 2017 7:15 AM  

@16 Egg McMuffin is an interesting character. He's an allegedly former CIA cover operator. But there's enough High Weirdness in his employment history that leads me to believe he's still on the Langley payroll.

Blogger Cataline Sergius February 22, 2017 7:34 AM  

I propose a new term for the NeoCons.

The "McMuffinettes."

Is this effective rhetoric?

Blogger VD February 22, 2017 7:35 AM  

Is this effective rhetoric?

No, because no one has any idea who you're talking about.

Anonymous Vin February 22, 2017 7:39 AM  

Fighting political correctness had been* my #1 cause since that garbage came on the scene in full in the early 90's. Silence the opposition and you can get away with anything. That's why I fell in with Milo the first time I heard him, despite the flamboyant gay stuff. He fights & wins like nobody else has/is.

*Demographic replacement has superseded PC in priority. Milo doesn't help there but doesn't hurt either. He rejects identity politics but wants to boot kebob out & is not open borders. A wash.

McMuffin: plays the Cuck but not convinced it's genuine or he cares (CIA/NeverTrump tool)

Blogger Cataline Sergius February 22, 2017 7:48 AM  

No, because no one has any idea who you're talking about.

Damn.

And "Egg McMuffin and the McMuffinettes" is too unwieldy for the rapier like thrust.

Blogger Cail Corishev February 22, 2017 8:01 AM  

You can't shame leftists by connecting them to groups like NAMBLA. If you could, NAMBLA wouldn't exist openly in the first place. NAMBLA exists, and people like Lena Dunham and Roman Polanski are still honored, because leftists don't feel any shame about that. That's because, in truth, they don't have a problem with adult-child sex; they just pretend to because they know society considers it a taboo.

Calling a leftist a pedophile personally can be effective rhetoric, because that taboo is still strong enough that he doesn't want the direct label. But nothing short of that will have any more effect than "Dems R the Real Racists."

Blogger Harris February 22, 2017 8:03 AM  

I have a gut level problem with a gay man leading the movement to retake our country from barbarians. It is similar to the problem I have with you women in leadership in the Church, or women who lead the men's rights movement. When are real men going to stand up and take the lead?

Relying on women to speak for men, or a gay man to speak for Western, Christian culture seems self-defeating to me. You can argue that they are the only ones who get heard, or that they are being effective. But if that is true, then the battle is already lost. On the other hand, Donald Trump had proven that it is NOT true. A real man CAN stand up and make a difference. A realing man CAN defend western society and culture.

The problem I have with guys like Evan McMullen (and John McCain, John Kasich, Lindsay Graham, etc. is that they spend all their time policing their own ranks instead of recognizing the other side for who they are - the enemy. They shoot at undesirables who actually help the cause instead of at the enemy who seeks to destroy us. They are overly concerned with being stained by the tint of an hypocrisy charge, which is ultimately a sign of their own selfish narcissism.

I NEVER liked Milo. Never. But I refrained from taking shots at him because it was much more important to keep shooting at the other side. The "Right" needs to purge traitors like McMullen, McCain, Kasich, and Graham much more urgently than they need to "purify" themselves from the stain of perverts like Milo, no matter how much his perversion disgusts and repulses me...or you. So while on an individual level, I am not particularly sad to see Milo go (if he in fact does, which is not a foregone conclusion), the way he was taken down by those on the right who made common cause with the enemy is a grave danger to our movement, our society, and our future viability as a nation.

Blogger dc.sunsets February 22, 2017 8:05 AM  

Also on a related note:
http://i.magaimg.net/img/3ro.jpg

Perspective matters.

Anonymous Mark Auld February 22, 2017 8:05 AM  

This is an interesting discussion about free speech, my knee jerk response was its fundamental to western civ.Not so apparently.

Blogger VD February 22, 2017 8:08 AM  

Free speech is a consequence of Western civilization, not a cause.

Blogger dc.sunsets February 22, 2017 8:08 AM  

The war on some speech is simply part of the attempt to prevent a change in "idea trend."

Those pushing it must believe that ideas never changed prior to relatively free speech.

Huh. One more absurd thing the people of the Looking Glass (Mirror) believe before breakfast.

Anonymous Rocklea February 22, 2017 8:18 AM  

@dc.sunsets
Salon is so racist, NABPALT

Blogger Justin C February 22, 2017 8:18 AM  

I don't see the threat to free speech as a problem. Free speech is a means to an end, it shouldn't be seen as an end in itself, at least not in Christendom. That's how Western civilization has been subverted and perverted, under the guise of free speech. If our enemies don't want to allow free speech, then that negates being on the wrong side of the moral level of war when we come to power and don't permit them free speech.

Blogger Orville February 22, 2017 8:21 AM  

The O'keefes out there should focus on cucks. Fertile ground for exposes of leftist infiltration.

Ask and ye shall receive on Thursday. CNN has a mole. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-21/james-okeefe-about-smoke-cnn-tells-hannity-hes-set-release-hundreds-hours-newsroom-f

Blogger Gaiseric February 22, 2017 8:22 AM  

Cataline Sergius wrote:I propose a new term for the NeoCons.

The "McMuffinettes."

Is this effective rhetoric?

Depends on the audience. You can't use it generally, but against people who are sympathetic to the McMuffin agenda, or who were burned by the McMuffin agenda, it would work.

I have lots of acquaintances with whom it would be effective. But I wouldn't pull it out on just anyone and expect it to work.

Blogger Orville February 22, 2017 8:34 AM  

Fuckersperg funded CPAC. CuckPAC is now an official enemy.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/21/why-is-facebook-helping-fund-cpac.html

Anonymous trogs February 22, 2017 8:41 AM  

@36: excellent point.

Blogger Cail Corishev February 22, 2017 8:47 AM  

Fuckersperg funded CPAC.

A globalist funded a globalist organization.

Anonymous Dr. Havens February 22, 2017 8:48 AM  

"when it was forbidden to say, or think, or believe, that first blacks, then women, then gays, then transgender people, might in some ways be different from others."

I'm a bit surprised the MvC would be so very imprecise and so utterly hyperbolic in his claim.

Nobody is forbidden from saying out loud or in print that blacks, women, gays or transgendered are different. They aren't even forbidden from saying they are inferior.

MvC just doesn't seem to like the fact that blacks, women, gays and transgendered now have vocal allies who are willing to stand up and shout back at people who are willing to disparage blacks, women, gays and transgendered.

Until a law is passed that makes it a crime to disparage blacks, women, gays and transgendered, there will be free speech.

The irony is that those who, for whatever reason, publicly disparage blacks, women, gays and transgendered do so to make a point of some sort in order to advance the acceptance of an idea. Those who speak up in in defense of blacks, women, gays and transgendered are certainly doing the same thing.

It appears the MvC is concerned that some ideas are embraced more urgently than others. That's not a limit on free speech. That's free speech working better than other free speech.

Blogger Cail Corishev February 22, 2017 8:55 AM  

Dr. Havens, no one's buying that lie anymore.

Anonymous Dr. Havens February 22, 2017 8:56 AM  

"Dr. Havens, no one's buying that lie anymore."

If not, then we can easily understand why and how they've misinterpreted the situation, let alone the culture.

Anonymous Reenay February 22, 2017 9:01 AM  

How do you defend free speech from people who want to do away with it? While I do like freedom of speech, its one major flaw is that it promises a voice to these who would slowly erode away freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is only useful to political minorities, insofar as it allows their opinions to infiltrate the political majority. So then, what if a minority believes in doing away with freedom of speech: what effective defensive mechanism exists that would protect freedom of speech for when the majority who believe in it either stop believing or simply became exhausted from constantly having to defend it?

And before someone says "the tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of tyrants and patriots", note well that the blood of tyrants isn't flowing.

Blogger Lazarus February 22, 2017 9:05 AM  

Dr. Havens wrote:If not, then we can easily understand why and how they've misinterpreted the situation, let alone the culture.

Tell that to the hate speech laws.

Anonymous Rocklea February 22, 2017 9:06 AM  

@Dr Haven
People speaking up Blacks are poverty pimps.
People speaking up for women want to destroy the family unit.
And people speaking up for gays and transgendered want to have sex with your children.

Blogger DemonicProfessorEl February 22, 2017 9:06 AM  

@39 "That's free speech working better than other free speech."

Not really, when it's punished or censured by organizations that are neither representative of people nor democratically elected. Institutions like the MSM or universities, as well as some nonprofit organizations, represent their handlers. An appointed bureaucrat does not represent, say, the Republican or Catholic constituency in Indiana, for example.

This is akin to saying that General Motors had a better business model and was more successful, and that's why they got a bailout instead of Ford.

Nay, cronyism and favoritism amongst elites favoring a certain type of speech and using their immense power is not the success of some forms of speech over others - it's the exact opposite. It is some institutions using political power to intimidate others.

Blogger DemonicProfessorEl February 22, 2017 9:11 AM  

@42

The reason the right of free speech is protected is so that ideas like Leftism, Satanism, etc., can be publicly debated, refuted, and ridiculed.

That the Left took the long march through the institutions to cudgel free speech wasn't to "protect their own speech," but to gain power so that their ideas wouldn't be challenged.

They LOST in the arena of free speech, where their ideas were conquered easily.

"Free speech" was merely a tool for them and institutions who had already succumbed to the Long March held them up. That's all.

Freedom of speech is not the enemy here - the Left is.

Just because your enemy uses weapons or tactics means we should get rid of them. IF a criminal uses a gun to commit a crime, you don't outlaw guns. You throw the idiot in jail.

Anonymous GrayMan February 22, 2017 9:26 AM  

Free speech is a critical tool to a society for the development and transmission of ideas when you have a generally rational cohesive culture.
A cohesive culture is a high trust society based on shared morals ethics and philosophy. As soon as you start playing "multicultural" games and breaking up cohesive societies by injecting foreign cultures the high trust environment is lost and it is ultimately in the benefit of the politicians and minority cultures to weaponize "free speech".
One of the bigger challenges in countering the marxist left is to recognize and understand their word games. Look at how they are playig games with the word "gender". Ask a group of average joe's what gender means and they will tell you it means male or female, your biological sex. Yet the marxist left have quietly shift the definition of "gender" to be different than biological sex. The left are highly adept and weaponizing language in this way. The point here is "diversity" and "multicultural" to a rational mind would be the cooperative interaction of multiple intact cultures. throwing everyone into one group such that you have destabilized ALL cultures is what the left wants but they sell is by weaponizing the language so that they can promote the destruction of all cultures while sounding like saints. That is why free speech falls apart once you destabilize a culture.

Blogger Cecil Henry February 22, 2017 9:27 AM  



People who urge you to “Follow the Money” never ask how thousands of leftist social activists earn a living. (Hint: They're on the news)


Every authoritarian state always begins by silencing all criticism of its doctrine but it's never just to be mean. It ALWAYS gives a Reason.

http://i.imgur.com/tc5tR0i.jpg

Anonymous BbigGayKoranBurner February 22, 2017 9:28 AM  

It seems as though many people across the world don't actually like free speech. It's easy to understand why.

Free speech is used to point out corruption, only people from within the Hajnal line dislike corruption.

Calling a leftist a pedophile personally can be effective rhetoric, because that taboo is still strong enough

There is a good chance they are worried how you found out.

gay man to speak for Western, Christian culture seems self-defeating to me. You can argue that they are the only ones who get heard

He was harder to no platform thanks to having jew +8 nigboyfriend shields, also few people are as comfortable traveling all the time as gays.

I propose a new term for the NeoCons...The "McMuffinettes."

I am partial to "Israel First America 5th Column"

have vocal allies who are willing to stand up and shout back at people who are willing to disparage blacks, women, gays and transgendered

You mean like the 1000+ jewish lawfare attacks after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts that effectively reversed the decision forcing them to accept tranny scouts?

And people speaking up for gays and transgendered want to have sex with your children.

Watch this video with the sound on then off and notice that 2 men have trapped + videoed the boy in the corner of a bathroom between the sink & tub and that when the boy tries to get away you can see the guy on the right moving to block him. I couldn't believe so many gays were sharing the video without actually looking at it, but then again I knew the 3yo refusgee "dead" toddler was fake when I first saw it also. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SvCvvEbWR8

Blogger Cail Corishev February 22, 2017 9:33 AM  

Only a liar or a pedophile would claim that a man can be hounded from employment, driven out of the public square, and threatened with hate crimes for his opinions -- yet he has "freedom of speech" as long as the government doesn't convict him specifically for something he said.

But if leftists want to throw away that freedom because they think they've won and they don't need it anymore, that's okay. For most of my lifetime, "freedom of speech" has been a weapon of the Left in its assault on civilization, like pushing pornography into homes and communities. An open pedophile group like NAMBLA couldn't have existed without that abuse. If they want to get rid of it now, then when they're stuffed back into their lockers, maybe we shouldn't be in a hurry to give it back to them.

Anonymous Grayman February 22, 2017 9:35 AM  

DemonicProf, @46

Agreed, however as cliche as it may sound words are more dangerous than guns. The criminal with the gun must first be disarmed and the left has co-opted the government and educational institutions to such a degree that "disarming" them is no small task and the act of disarming them will lead to casualties.

The population at large has been conditioned to be told what to think, as a nation we are no longer a rational people. Therefore while rational discourse must be engaged in it will be of limited use, emotional rhetoric and propaganda must be used to break the grip of the left.

The long road for the right would be to take over control of educational institutions with the goal of producing individuals who are honed in rational thought. That is the only way to inoculate the population against the emotionally based rhetoric of the Marxists left and it will take 2 generations at a minimum.

Anonymous Dr. Havens February 22, 2017 9:36 AM  

"Not really, when it's punished or censured by organizations that are neither representative of people nor democratically elected. Institutions like the MSM or universities, as well as some nonprofit organizations, represent their handlers. An appointed bureaucrat does not represent, say, the Republican or Catholic constituency in Indiana, for example."

So you would forbid institutions from installing their own rules to govern themselves?

You can't have it both ways. Either individuals and private companies have the right to act and believe what they want or they don't.

The job of people like MvC is to attempt to convince more people that it ought to be acceptable to express disregard for blacks, women, gays and transgendered. It's a tough case to make, but they need to make the case nonetheless.

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky February 22, 2017 9:44 AM  

Just yesterday a new speech police group was announced. Funded by, guess who?, George Soros. It will seek to apply proper terms regarding immigration to newsrooms. You know, the old "undocumented worker" instead of "illegal alien" kind of thing.

Initially you have to wonder why a need for this was perceived. The left already has 100% compliant and supine newsrooms ready to work its will. For example, when the transgender issue broke into the mainstream with Bruce Jenner, I was looking out for the odd journo who didn't get the speech memo. The one who screwed up and (correctly) called Caitlyn a "he" rather than a "she". Of course all the media thought leaders such as the NYT, WaPo, and the networks could be relied upon to use the politically correct pronouns and therefore degrade our language in service to the left. But surely there's somebody out on the hustings who didn't get the memo and will be embarrassed for thought crimes.

Didn't happen, as far as I could tell. And I looked pretty far and wide expecting to see it. Nope, even in little local papers the entire media spoke off the same politically correct page. Zero deviation.

That level of compliance is a tell, it's a sign, that already very strong and effective means of policing speech already exist in our media organs, and they are already on the job, and they are already working quite well.

And yet here we are with Soros feeling the need to shore it up with new efforts in thought policing for the press. Why? What does Emperor Palatine see?

Anonymous Rocklea February 22, 2017 9:49 AM  

Dialectic fails in the presence abundance. Ironically diversity seems an apt cure.

Blogger Cail Corishev February 22, 2017 9:55 AM  

And yet here we are with Soros feeling the need to shore it up with new efforts in thought policing for the press. Why? What does Emperor Palatine see?

The Internet, and the potential online for competition from uncontrolled media sources. Infogalactic News, for instance. He hopes to smother such efforts in the crib, before they become too popular to stop. The more the Left can force all mainstream and not-quite-mainstream media to follow certain speech codes, the easier it will be to portray those who don't as too dangerous to read.

Of course, that has the risk of backfiring, if too many people get tired of Pravda and go seeking dangerous sources. So he has to hurry.

Anonymous Mark Auld February 22, 2017 10:00 AM  

Well said.

Anonymous BBGKB February 22, 2017 10:03 AM  

And yet here we are with Soros feeling the need to shore it up with new efforts in thought policing for the press. Why? What does Emperor Palatine see?

All the compliant media you mentioned are owned by Carlos Slims and 5 jewish families. The org is to deal with their competition.

Anonymous Grayman February 22, 2017 10:05 AM  

@54 Rocklea

Rocklea wrote:Dialectic fails in the presence abundance. Ironically diversity seems an apt cure.

You bring up an interesting and critical, yet very deep point. If any one here has investigated the cyclic nature of things from empires to solar cycles to birth rates then you can see that the next step for us as a species is to learn to overcome the cycle.
The west crumbling at this point in history is more or less expected from a cyclic basis. The question is what rises from the ashes? The same old cycle of empire, or do we begin to plan 50 to 100 years out and move beyond the cycles of nature. Do we recognize our own monumental hubris and overcome the pathos with the lagos. Dialectic is the only thing that really separates us from the rest of the great apes. without that we are little more than naked apes.

Blogger DemonicProfessorEl February 22, 2017 10:06 AM  

Dr. Havens wrote:So you would forbid institutions from installing their own rules to govern themselves?

You can't have it both ways. Either individuals and private companies have the right to act and believe what they want or they don't.

The job of people like MvC is to attempt to convince more people that it ought to be acceptable to express disregard for blacks, women, gays and transgendered. It's a tough case to make, but they need to make the case nonetheless.


Rights are not a zero sum game - either nobody has them or everybody does. Private policies (e.g., no spitting on the floor, no swearing before 9 pm, etc.) are different than legal protections. In this, I think we agree - private institutions can have *policies in place; but when it enters into the realm of legal intimidation, it's crossing a line.

When institutions hold a monopoly on speech, there is no free speech.

Following this line of logic, MvC should have no platform because of institutional rules, as free speech belongs only to them, not to *us.

I retain my original stance - free speech is the enemy of the corrupt, not the enemy of the virtuous.

Blogger DemonicProfessorEl February 22, 2017 10:13 AM  

@51 Grayman

"Therefore while rational discourse must be engaged in it will be of limited use, emotional rhetoric and propaganda must be used to break the grip of the left.

The long road for the right would be to take over control of educational institutions with the goal of producing individuals who are honed in rational thought. That is the only way to inoculate the population against the emotionally based rhetoric of the Marxists left and it will take 2 generations at a minimum."

I agree. We must use our right to speech as the weapon it is, to educate, inform, persuade.

We do agree that it's rhetoric that convinces rather than dialectic insofar as persuading large amounts of people.

My argument was that to eliminate free speech is to surrender to the Left. It's basically saying "our enemy uses guns, so we shouldn't."

I mean, if we were to eliminate free speech, what's the point of Castalia House, or Gab? I mean, we'd just bend over and suck up to Penguin House, or CNN, or Twitter and Zuckerbook and acknowledge that we've lost and the West is no more.

Free speech *is the central issue here and the rhetoric about its elimination is exactly what the anti-West factions (Islamic Caliphate, SJWs, Communists, Feminists, Soros, etc.) desire. If we surrender our speech, then we have surrendered wholly.

The biggest reason we're winning against the Left is because of free speech, not despite it.

Blogger DemonicProfessorEl February 22, 2017 10:15 AM  

I'll post again for emphasis:

The biggest reason we're winning against the Left is because of free speech, not despite it.

Anonymous Dr. Havens February 22, 2017 10:16 AM  

"Rights are not a zero sum game - either nobody has them or everybody does. Private policies (e.g., no spitting on the floor, no swearing before 9 pm, etc.) are different than legal protections. In this, I think we agree - private institutions can have *policies in place; but when it enters into the realm of legal intimidation, it's crossing a line."

There's nothing preventing MvC from saying blacks are inferior. There's nothing from preventing VD from saying women are not fit to have the vote. It sounds like you and others are upset that others disagree with these ideas and are willing not only to combat them with speech, but also to set up their own private institutions with policies that discourage acceptance of these ideas.

It sounds like you simply don't like the fact that more people disagree with you than agree and are willing to say so.

Blogger DemonicProfessorEl February 22, 2017 10:24 AM  

@62

Since I defend speech as whole, and defend private policies.

What I disagree with is the monopolization of avenues, or the prevention of platforms that the Left desires.

I don't care if Dr. Marxist or Abd al Rahman goes up to speak about the evils of white people because their ideas are ridiculous and often murderous.

Again - I disagree with the Left's use of institutions to prevent other institutions from forming, which is what they want.

Blogger Student in Blue February 22, 2017 10:25 AM  

Ironically, diversity is the cure for diversity.

Anonymous BBGKB February 22, 2017 10:27 AM  

"Rights are not a zero sum game - either nobody has them or everybody does.

Leftists believe the right to force people to bake a cake ends when the bakers are moslem.

There's nothing preventing MvC from saying blacks are inferior.

Proving that they are is called hate speech. They are not actually inferior it's simply they had better things to evolved toward in Africa than IQ. If you were born in Africa you would wish to have a set of genes for sickle cell to give you resistance to malaria in case you couldn't get Whitey's meds, & you would want the genes that burn your kidneys out at 4x the rate of whites since they let you resist sleeping sickness without whiteys meds. East Asians and whites evolved to build/plan/store so they could survive winters with no food increasing IQ, blacks evolved to outbreed disease in an area single moms had no problem feeding the survivors with low hanging fruit.

OT:CT governor raises price of pistol permit renewal to more than Nate paid for his last GLOCK http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/20/connecticut-governor-proposes-massive-fee-hike-on-gun-owners/

Anonymous grayman February 22, 2017 10:31 AM  

@60 DemonicProf

We agree on all points, I was simply elucidating on the idea that we must recognize speech has been weaponized and all of the consequences and strategy that go with that.

Blogger DemonicProfessorEl February 22, 2017 10:32 AM  

@66 grayman

Oh, for sure. I was doing the same thing :) Cheers!

Blogger Silly But True February 22, 2017 10:54 AM  

God damn. Didn't we already cover how much Milo's gayness realky matters at least four years ago in the Phil Robertson takedown?

Fucking homosexuality doesn't hold any special place alone in God's condemnation of sexual impurities of the body. There's a whole lot more hetero behaviors He hates all the same.

He hates also all sexual immorality which includes all simple fornication, all pre- and extra-marital sex, all adultery, generally all wickedness, and yes also including men who submit to and perform gay stuff.

Just the same He hates impurity and debauchery, and idoltry too.

And He hates greed. Absolutely hates it.

And to be clear where homosexual submission and acts are called out, so too are lustful desires by everyone - straight or queer.

And to not be confused, His standard is "to not be a hint."

If one has truly met that, great. Nail yourself up and take all the potshots against Milo's sin you feel you need to.

Anonymous Grayman February 22, 2017 10:56 AM  

@ Demonic Prof & Havens

To your points:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-21/florida-teacher-reassigned-after-facebook-post-praising-trump-immigration

Multiple factors at play here...
A)We no longer have an intact national culture and as such the minority groups and politicians are incentivized to weaponize speech.
B)Rhetoric and "pathos" have long since taken over dialectic and "lagos". The logical statement that this woman simply stated her agreement with enforcing a long standing law is irrelevant to the emotional / "pathos" dialogue of the marxists left.
C)Anyone opposing the marxists left must counter this with weaponized language as well using the same tools of rhetoric and "lagos" as the left. A strong tactial response would be to have alt-right groups strongly and rapidly support this teacher to sue the school and anyone involved in this. Use their own tactics of lawfare against them. Personally attack and embarrass the school administration throughout throughout social media webs. Use the lefts playbook and make this a personal scandal of the administration involved in attacking the teacher.

Anonymous kfg February 22, 2017 11:02 AM  

" . . . when it's punished or censured by organizations that are neither representative of people nor democratically elected . . ."

. . . it's called "Fascism."

Anonymous Überdeplorable Psychedelic Cat Hair February 22, 2017 11:16 AM  

@12. Exactly! Who gives a damn what they think?

@18. It's like what happened to a classmate in grad school that was in Iraq. His unit captured insurgents posing as IA and stripped them down to their underwear and ordered them off the base. They protested if the other insurgents saw them like that, they'd be shot. His response? The equivalent of I. don't. care. And yes, they all got mowed down.

Blogger Were-Puppy February 22, 2017 11:19 AM  

@26 Cail Corishev

Calling a leftist a pedophile personally can be effective rhetoric, because that taboo is still strong enough that he doesn't want the direct label. But nothing short of that will have any more effect than "Dems R the Real Racists."
---

Stick to rhetoric. I just call them either Pussyhat or Pizza Breath.

Blogger Were-Puppy February 22, 2017 11:20 AM  

@27 Harris
I have a gut level problem with a gay man leading the movement to retake our country from barbarians.
---

Your problem is nonexistent. He is not leading the movement. He is one of the front line fighters. There is no leader of the movement.

Blogger DemonicProfessorEl February 22, 2017 11:33 AM  

@69 Grayman

I'm with you on this. Agreed on all points.

Blogger praetorian February 22, 2017 11:33 AM  

Dr. Haven: do you consider rioting to prevent someone from talking in a public venue to be suppression of free speech?

Anonymous S. Misanthrope February 22, 2017 11:39 AM  

That Gook story reminded me: in junior high I got in trouble for saying "Jap" while recounting the life of Butch O'Hare for a book report presentation. The fact that it was a) theatrical and b) literally shortening of the word "Japanese" didn't matter. Public education is evil.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents February 22, 2017 11:39 AM  

@27 Harris
I have a gut level problem with a gay man leading the movement to retake our country from barbarians.

So what?
Are you leading? If not, can you follow? If not, then quit ankle biting.

By the way, Milo isn't the leader of anything except his own fabulousness. Stop thinking in 20th century terms.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents February 22, 2017 11:42 AM  

@31 dc.sunsets
The war on some speech is simply part of the attempt to prevent a change in "idea trend."


Yes, the left regards free speech as a tool, not as a good thing in and of itself.

Anonymous ScoobySnack February 22, 2017 12:15 PM  

Random thought....

The IRS database was stolen. If you know where to look you can purchase sections of it. Data mine the data set for suspicious tax returns such as excessive multiple returns to the same address. File a complaint with ICE or DHS. Target places such as the school district going after this teacher.....

Anonymous Dr. Havens February 22, 2017 12:19 PM  

"There's nothing preventing MvC from saying blacks are inferior.

"Proving that they are is called hate speech."

So what? Hate speech is not a crime. It's a phrase one may choose to use in the course of describing a person's position in the course of practicing their free speech.

Blogger CM February 22, 2017 12:19 PM  

Silly But True wrote:God damn. Didn't we already cover how much Milo's gayness realky matters at least four years ago in the Phil Robertson takedown?

Fucking homosexuality doesn't hold any special place alone in God's condemnation of sexual impurities of the body. There's a whole lot more hetero behaviors He hates all the same.

He hates also all sexual immorality which includes all simple fornication, all pre- and extra-marital sex, all adultery, generally all wickedness, and yes also including men who submit to and perform gay stuff.

Just the same He hates impurity and debauchery, and idoltry too.

And He hates greed. Absolutely hates it.

And to be clear where homosexual submission and acts are called out, so too are lustful desires by everyone - straight or queer.

And to not be confused, His standard is "to not be a hint."

If one has truly met that, great. Nail yourself up and take all the potshots against Milo's sin you feel you need to.


Hear hear!

Anonymous Dr. Havens February 22, 2017 12:23 PM  

"Dr. Haven: do you consider rioting to prevent someone from talking in a public venue to be suppression of free speech?"

No. I consider it to be (probably) an illegal disturbance of the peace. The fact that Milo was prevented from speaking was a matter of very poor planning on the part of the organizers of the event at Berkeley. It's not like they didn't anticipate their being protesters.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents February 22, 2017 12:26 PM  

Dr. Havens, have you stopped beating your wife?

Blogger Happy LP9 February 22, 2017 12:31 PM  

Wonderful.

I'm surprised the MSM TV police state authoritian worship shows haven't demonized the Alt Right or demonized Milo in one of their utterly low rating tv shows, anyone know who's still watching that gar-barge?

Blogger Mark February 22, 2017 12:50 PM  

Listening to Roosh last night. He was remarking how Milo got taken out for an opinion not an actual deed. Are we to the point now where you no longer need an actual dirty deed from the past to blackmail a man, only a politically incorrect viewpoint or an ill-advised throwaway comment?
Also, Mr. bloom observes that in some circles it has become virtually impossible to say anything at all. Isn't that a fine hamstringing?! Almost akin to scrambling the languages at Babel - we are rendered helpless and hapless through the construction of language. And, at the same time, behind the curtain, certain classes of individuals are exempt and can say what they will and plot their schemes using precise terms both PC and PIncorrect!

Anonymous grumblr February 22, 2017 12:54 PM  

When these satanic fuckwads tell you that "speech has consequences," you should remind them that consequences, too, have consequences.

If we lived in a more civilized world, one might fire back, "Of course speech has consequences. And the consequences are that those who disagree with speech should also speak."

Blogger L. Jagi Lamplighter Wright February 22, 2017 12:58 PM  

I notice that, for the second time recently, the ACLU is actually on the right side for a change. They objected to Milo's book being dropped.

Anonymous grumblr February 22, 2017 12:59 PM  

In these troubling times one should always remember the exampled of the sainted John Peter Zenger, printer and hero. When dragged into a British colonial court for slander and lese majeste for having printed a pamphlet criticizing the Royal Governor of the colony of New York, his defense was that what he had printed was in fact true, and then proved it. He was acquitted. Of course we can't expect the same level of insanity from the libtards, but it fortifies the soul to think of the man.

The best defense is a pre-emptive offense: speak truly, speak accurately, and most importantly, speak elegantly: in a lapidary or aphoristic manner if you can. Elegance and quotability travel far indeed. You may lose the battle but you win the war.

Anonymous Grayman February 22, 2017 1:05 PM  

@85 Mark

"Are we to the point now where you no longer need an actual dirty deed from the past to blackmail a man, only a politically incorrect viewpoint or an ill-advised throwaway comment?"

Yes, yes we are. I have had minorities try to get me fired on 2 different occasions for reprimanding them for being repeatedly late for their shifts as their manager. both made claims of harassment and discrimination. If my documentation had not been perfect and locked down to a T, I would have been fired. As it was, I was quietly told to back off of them by HR


@80 et al

""There's nothing preventing MvC from saying blacks are inferior. ""

That is a straw man approach. Is a terrier inferior to a mastiff, or a hunting breed of dog inferior to a guarding breed?
Asians are different then caucasians are different than blacks, etc. It has become antithetic to even consider that possibility. Different is not inherently good or bad, it simply is.
This is another place you use the lefts own tools against them. As soon as they fail to recognize differences you attack them for it. Attack them for oppressing the different groups.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents February 22, 2017 1:09 PM  

@87
I notice that, for the second time recently, the ACLU is actually on the right side for a change.

A stopped clock is right 1 or 2 times per day, but that doesn't mean anyone should rely on it for accurate time.

Anonymous BBGKB February 22, 2017 1:10 PM  

Dr. Havens, have you stopped beating your wife?

Lesbian domestic violence is a problem. In fact lesbians are even more at risk for rape than anyone else as it's possible for 2 ugly girls to wake up next to each other after drinking.

demonized the Alt Right or demonized Milo in one of their utterly low rating tv shows, anyone know who's still watching that gar-barge?

There is going to be another Chicongo law show where all the criminals are white. We might give up on this session of The Magicians as every episode has shit as a plot point.

Blogger Yorzhik February 22, 2017 1:12 PM  

And oddly enough, the term "gook" came into use in Vietnam because of the veterans of the Korean war - where they got the term from the Koreans and it means "person".

Blogger Shitlord Numéro Uno February 22, 2017 1:18 PM  

"It sounds like you and others are upset that others disagree with these ideas and are willing not only to combat them with speech, but also to set up their own private institutions with policies that discourage acceptance of these ideas."

Countering speech with speech is quite different than taking action or inciting others to do so.

Some examples: hate speech legislation in Europe,destroying people's careers, boycotting companies, and outright violence directed at wrongspeakers.

You are quite disingenuous.

Blogger Cail Corishev February 22, 2017 1:24 PM  

Are we to the point now where you no longer need an actual dirty deed from the past to blackmail a man, only a politically incorrect viewpoint or an ill-advised throwaway comment?

We have been for a while. The controversy over "niggardly," when several people around the country were reprimanded and a mayor's aide was forced to resign for correctly using the word (which has no racial implications), was in 1999. Tim Hunt was forced to resign over a joke in a speech. Brendan Eich was driven out of Mozilla for a political donation. Heck, even SJW icon Wil Wheaton was forced to commit virtual seppuku recently after expressing an unacceptable opinion.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents February 22, 2017 1:31 PM  

@94
The excuse for Klantifa riot-lite in Berkeley?
"Hate speech is violence", therefore physical violence is justified as a response. This should turn out just dandy.

Anonymous Frank1961 February 22, 2017 1:43 PM  

When I went through "New Employee Orientation," at my current job, this point was brought home forcefully: The HR lady warned us that we had better watch every word we say, no matter who we talk to. That, if anyone overhearing our conversations was to be offended, for any reason, we could be fired summarily. She gave an example of two employees were discussing politics; a passerby took offense at some political point that was mentioned. The two employees were only allowed to keep their jobs by apologizing ABJECTLY. As a result, we have only the most boring, sophomoric conversations at work with people afraid of being hauled off to the HR dungeon. Practically anything that is interesting, anything that is important, will offend someone (usually it will be some twit that thinks everyone else should conform to his/her worldview).

BTW-- can we get a better link to the Visual Guide? The text is illegible to me.

Blogger horsewithnonick February 22, 2017 1:46 PM  

That doesn't work either.

Outside of political circles (or Utah), not one person in ten could pick McMullin out of a lineup, nor would they know why you were asking. He's really just irrelevant to almost everybody.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents February 22, 2017 1:57 PM  

@96
BTW-- can we get a better link to the Visual Guide? The text is illegible to me.



Download it to your desktop and use a local viewer, it's easier to read.

Blogger praetorian February 22, 2017 1:59 PM  

It's not like they didn't anticipate their being protesters.

Thank you. As with the left establishing that the IRS and FBI can be used against political enemies, that will be useful in the future.

And how do you feel about the police staying inside, allowing the riot to continue?

Anonymous Gen. Kong February 22, 2017 2:57 PM  

Matt wrote:
Is there a creature more worthless than a leftist?

Yes, there actually is. Cucks and Churchians are even more worthless than leftists. Leftists carry their hammer and sickle loud and proud. While one should never go so far as to say they are honorable opponents (the concept is alien to them), they're right there in our face - endlessly. The Cucks and the Churchians are those who pass easily into our ranks, only to stab our side in the back - every single time.

Antony wrote:
Just remind the leftists of their total silence, and indeed covering up, of the muslim grooming gang scandals in Britain.

That will be every bit as effective as reminding them of the seven decades of covering up black-on-white violent crime in the USA, the cover up of the 150 million or so murdered in the advancement of their various utopian schemes, plus the unending roster of lies stretching back at least 2 centuries. Hell, the French okrug of the EUSSR denies the mass slaughter carried out in the Vendée region by the revolutionaries (hundreds of thousands murdered) to this very day. You would have better luck instructing a stone.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer February 22, 2017 3:03 PM  

Dr. Havens wrote:"Dr. Haven: do you consider rioting to prevent someone from talking in a public venue to be suppression of free speech?"

No. I consider it to be (probably) an illegal disturbance of the peace. The fact that Milo was prevented from speaking was a matter of very poor planning on the part of the organizers of the event at Berkeley. It's not like they didn't anticipate their being protesters.


And if the the Berkeley administrator telegraphed the fact that a stand-down order would be given to the police if a riot were to break out? Still the event organizers fault? Still not a suppression of free speech?

Blogger Michael Maier February 22, 2017 3:03 PM  

VD wrote:Is this effective rhetoric?

No, because no one has any idea who you're talking about.


I've a regular here and I have no idea what this Egg McMuffin thing is.

In fact, I was just about to post a request for clarification on that point.

Anonymous Iacobus February 22, 2017 3:29 PM  

Michael Maier wrote:VD wrote:Is this effective rhetoric?

No, because no one has any idea who you're talking about.


I've a regular here and I have no idea what this Egg McMuffin thing is.

In fact, I was just about to post a request for clarification on that point.


Believe they're referring to Evan McMullin. It's a (hilarious) riff on his name since Trump himself picked up on it.

Blogger Michael Maier February 22, 2017 3:33 PM  

OK, thanks. I don't recall hearing the name before.

Blogger Cail Corishev February 22, 2017 3:33 PM  

Egg McMuffin is the nickname of the second guy (((Bill Kristol))) picked to run as president for his spoiler third party, which he hoped would peel enough votes away from Trump by pretending to be conservative that Hillary could win.

His first choice of candidate was David French. If you'd like to see a picture of the French family, just call him a racist.

OpenID aew51183 February 22, 2017 3:36 PM  

@59

What happens when you "privatize" the commons?

We're seeing what happens with weasels Suckerberg and Jack silencing conservatives with increasing effectiveness on (anti)social media.

Do you see any mass exodus? All they have to do is apply increasingly effective censorship to censor news of the censorship, which keeps an "unaware and compliant citizenry" staying with the private (non)"commons" where their speech is carefully curated according to ingsoc's manual.

Judicial precedent used to differentiate these public spaces, but hard-core lolbertarians and agenda-driven SJW's have helped to erase this.

Anonymous Dr. Havens February 22, 2017 3:59 PM  

"And if the the Berkeley administrator telegraphed the fact that a stand-down order would be given to the police if a riot were to break out? Still the event organizers fault? Still not a suppression of free speech?"

That hypothetical situation isn't a suppression of speech. It's an administrator doing a shitty job.

When you hear about a govt. passing a law that makes speech a crime (like prohibiting doctors from discussing firearms in patients' homes) then we can talk about suppression of free speech.

OpenID aew51183 February 22, 2017 4:05 PM  

@107

wait what? Giving a stand-down order to law enforcement because you don't like what the people being assaulted are saying is a violation of the first by way of the fourteenth's equal protection clause.

Anonymous Dr. Havens February 22, 2017 4:25 PM  

I didn't read where Milo was physically assaulted in Berkeley.

Blogger DemonicProfessorEl February 22, 2017 4:28 PM  

@108

I know right? I just want him to say, outright, that physical violence is protected speech when Antifa does it, but throwing away a teabag is real violence and vandalism.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer February 22, 2017 4:36 PM  

Dr. Havens wrote:"And if the the Berkeley administrator telegraphed the fact that a stand-down order would be given to the police if a riot were to break out? Still the event organizers fault? Still not a suppression of free speech?"

That hypothetical situation isn't a suppression of speech. It's an administrator doing a shitty job.

When you hear about a govt. passing a law that makes speech a crime (like prohibiting doctors from discussing firearms in patients' homes) then we can talk about suppression of free speech.


Either you are a Sperg or are not very bright, probably a little of both.

According to your line of logic, abusing your power to enable other people to shutdown opposing speech is A-Ok. The first amendment is really only there to prevent overt abuses of power, if you get creative on how you shut down speech then you are good to go.

Blogger Valtandor Nought February 22, 2017 4:55 PM  

Let me see if I've got this straight.

If the Government passes a law saying that the police or army is authorised to beat me up and throw me in prison as punishment for something I've said, that's "criminalisation of speech" and is as such verboten...

But if instead the law says that private individuals and groups may offer me harm and even make good on their offers for something I've said, and the police and courts will neither intervene to protect me nor punish my assailants after the fact, that's somehow OK?

No.

In the latter case, my speech may not have been criminalised in the strict sense, but it's certainly been outlawed.

Anonymous Dr. Havens February 22, 2017 4:57 PM  

"Either you are a Sperg or are not very bright, probably a little of both.

According to your line of logic, abusing your power to enable other people to shutdown opposing speech is A-Ok. The first amendment is really only there to prevent overt abuses of power, if you get creative on how you shut down speech then you are good to go."

I don't know what a "sperg" is but I know what you mean by "not very bright". For example casting my comment that the administrator was "doing a shitty job" to mean "A-OK" is an example of you not being very bright.

The first amendment is there to prevent the STATE from passing laws that violate freedom on speech.

Anonymous Dr. Havens February 22, 2017 4:59 PM  

"But if instead the law says that private individuals and groups may offer me harm and even make good on their offers for something I've said, and the police and courts will neither intervene to protect me nor punish my assailants after the fact, that's somehow OK?"

The law doesn't say that.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer February 22, 2017 5:04 PM  

Dr. Havens wrote:"Either you are a Sperg or are not very bright, probably a little of both.

According to your line of logic, abusing your power to enable other people to shutdown opposing speech is A-Ok. The first amendment is really only there to prevent overt abuses of power, if you get creative on how you shut down speech then you are good to go."

I don't know what a "sperg" is but I know what you mean by "not very bright". For example casting my comment that the administrator was "doing a shitty job" to mean "A-OK" is an example of you not being very bright.

The first amendment is there to prevent the STATE from passing laws that violate freedom on speech.



And the STATE is abusing it's authority in order to shut down speech in that scenario.

It's the same thing as if a governor passed an EO stating that law enforcement would not interfere with Catholics enforcing purity laws. That is not a per se law establishing a religion, but if no one is going to stop the inquisition from showing up at your door it has the same effect.

Anonymous Dr. Havens February 22, 2017 5:11 PM  

"And the STATE is abusing it's authority in order to shut down speech in that scenario.

It's the same thing as if a governor passed an EO stating that law enforcement would not interfere with Catholics enforcing purity laws. That is not a per se law establishing a religion, but if no one is going to stop the inquisition from showing up at your door it has the same effect."

The state might be abusing it's authority in that situation. But if it is, then that's what the court is for. Such cases have been litigated before and the state has lost.

The state would lose if such an executive order were issued. The state can't selectively enforce laws based on religion. 14th Amendment.

There is no suppression of free speech. And the kind of "suppression" you are trying to suggest occurs wasn't even the kind that MvC was alluding to or that VD was discussing.

You can say whatever you like. And the state will not punish you. However, your peers may punish you via ostracizing you, humiliating you or in any other way they choose via their own equal free speech rights.

Blogger Cail Corishev February 22, 2017 5:13 PM  

Either you are a Sperg or are not very bright

Just ask yourself this: do you think he's arguing in good faith and honestly considering the responses he's getting, or is he playing a game and trying to bait everyone into chasing a shifting set of goalposts and fallacies?

If the latter, what is that called?

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents February 22, 2017 5:21 PM  

@116 Dr. Havens
You can say whatever you like. And the state will not punish you. However, your peers may punish you via ostracizing you, humiliating you or in any other way they choose via their own equal free speech rights.

Dr. Havens:
How long have you been a supporter of the Ku Klux Klan?

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents February 22, 2017 5:21 PM  

Dr Havens, direct question:

Have you stopped beating your wife?

OpenID aew51183 February 22, 2017 5:26 PM  

@116
"You can say whatever you like. And the state will not punish you. However, your peers may punish you via ostracizing you, humiliating you or in any other way they choose via their own equal free speech rights."

Unless your peers lean to the right. Then "anti-discrimination" laws will punish them for trying to ostracize or humiliate you.

Which is why "anti-discrimination" law is a violation of the 14th amendment.

Either everyone has free association or some people are more equal than others.

Blogger Valtandor Nought February 22, 2017 5:41 PM  

Of course we know the law - both statutes and executive orders (called "regulations" where I hail from) doesn't, on paper, permit that kind of thing.

We also know it's quite easy for police and so on to get what are initially quiet instructions from their political masters. Then, when a provocative speaker gets the stuffing beaten out of him, they can publicly lament the lack of resources that forced them to deprioritise his protection. And it's well known that the police and courts have absolutely no obligation to any specific member of the public.

And by the way, if in some future I am beaten to a bloody pulp by a gang of thugs, and reduced to spending the rest of my life as a vegetable in a wheelchair, because the police refused to intervene, it would be cold comfort to my family that a lawsuit against the perps and maybe the police - maybe - might be entertained. The courts, with their long roster of cases, are no protection against a consistently bad-faith government.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer February 22, 2017 5:50 PM  

Cail Corishev wrote:Either you are a Sperg or are not very bright

Just ask yourself this: do you think he's arguing in good faith and honestly considering the responses he's getting, or is he playing a game and trying to bait everyone into chasing a shifting set of goalposts and fallacies?

If the latter, what is that called?


Was giving him the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes it is worth using them as a foil to sharpen your own arguments and possibly convince some other silent observers.

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky February 22, 2017 6:01 PM  

On this front today, the University of Washington has declared that standard grammar is racist, and will no longer be abandoned. The logical next move is to construct and then _require_ a grammar that's politically acceptable.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/02/22/university-of-washington-declares-correct-grammar-is-racist/

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky February 22, 2017 6:02 PM  

Whoops - meant to say "no longer be taught"

Anonymous Anonymous February 22, 2017 6:06 PM  

Stefan Molyneux has spoken, he cannot stand by Milo. He points out the hypocricy of the Left and recognizes this as a media attack but he cannot in good conscience and as a philosopher defend Milo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wsZSE-iJAk

Anonymous m. hunter February 22, 2017 6:08 PM  

Stefan Molyneux has spoken... he cannot defend Milo. He attacks the Left's hypocrisy and recognizes this as an establishment attack, but Milo is not innocent. He cannot in good conscience or as a philosopher defend his statements and is calling him out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wsZSE-iJAk

Blogger Lazarus February 22, 2017 6:40 PM  

Must see Cernovich and Alex Jones

http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2017/02/the-threat-to-free-speech.html#comment-form

Blogger Lazarus February 22, 2017 6:53 PM  

m. hunter wrote:Stefan Molyneux has spoken... he cannot defend Milo

He is a philosopher. He is not politically astute. A good man over his head on this one.

https://www.dangerandplay.com/2017/02/21/watch-alex-jones-and-mike-cernovich-discuss-deep-state-trump-milo-and-more/

Anonymous BBGKB February 22, 2017 7:11 PM  

(((Bill Maher))) says banging a 14yo is A OK. http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/02/22/uh-oh-video-surfaces-of-bill-maher-condoning-sex-between-an-adult-and-a-14-year-old/
#Milo

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents February 22, 2017 7:13 PM  

According to Facebook, standard Bible teaching on homosexuality is "hate speech", and good for a 3-day ban.

Handwriting right there on the wall.

Anonymous Dr. Havens February 22, 2017 7:19 PM  

"do you think he's arguing in good faith and honestly considering the responses he's getting"

I considered and directly answered the responses. So, there's that.


"Unless your peers lean to the right. Then "anti-discrimination" laws will punish them for trying to ostracize or humiliate you."

There are no anti-discrimination laws that prohibit you from standing up for someone and denouncing what others say about them.


"We also know it's quite easy for police and so on to get what are initially quiet instructions from their political masters. Then, when a provocative speaker gets the stuffing beaten out of him, they can publicly lament the lack of resources that forced them to deprioritise his protection."

Milo didn't get the stuffing beat out of him. Or anything else.


"And by the way, if in some future I am beaten to a bloody pulp by a gang of thugs, and reduced to spending the rest of my life as a vegetable in a wheelchair, because the police refused to intervene, it would be cold comfort to my family that a lawsuit against the perps and maybe the police - maybe - might be entertained. The courts, with their long roster of cases, are no protection against a consistently bad-faith government."

This would have nothing to do with speech. This would be a matter of assault and battery and likely other violations of the law.

If you want to discuss the notion that something is a threat to free speech, have at it...But you've moved into non-sequitur country.

Blogger DeploraBard February 22, 2017 7:22 PM  

Milo-Wan Kenobi meme

https://imgflip.com/i/1k5tat

First attempt. Would be better with Milo's face photoshopped over the film scene holding the sabre, but I don't know how to do that yet.

Blogger Silly But True February 22, 2017 7:43 PM  

@BBGKB:
"(((Bill Maher))) says banging a 14yo is A OK."

They literally can't keep track.

Left: Please project moar!

Blogger Lazarus February 22, 2017 9:13 PM  

Dr. Havens wrote:If you want to discuss the notion that something is a threat to free speech, have at it...But you've moved into non-sequitur country.

What field is your doctorate in, exactly.

Anonymous W. Lindsay Wheeler February 22, 2017 9:53 PM  

Attended a Townhall at Western Michigan University about Immigration and how to handle the Exec. Orders.

I asked to speak. I was told, "You can't speak". I'm a military veteran and told--You can't speak---and all these foreigners did!

F*ck this country. F*ck you all!

Blogger Sagramore February 22, 2017 9:53 PM  

Later, to prevent a recurrence, he went to live at Frenay, just a few hundred yards from Geneva.

Stanstead, perhaps. There is no way I am living in Abbotsford.

Anonymous gxg February 22, 2017 10:09 PM  

W. Lindsay Wheeler wrote:Attended a Townhall at Western Michigan University about Immigration and how to handle the Exec. Orders. I asked to speak. I was told, "You can't speak". I'm a military veteran and told--You can't speak---and all these foreigners did!

That's an outrage. Have you thought about contacting Breitbart or Fox News to tell your story? (Breitbart has that "send a tip feature.) We're seeing all these news stories about "immigrants" and protesters at town halls, and your experience (that you, as an American and Veteran, weren't allowed to speak) would offer a good counter-point.

Hearing your experience, I'm angry on your behalf, and I'm betting that many other American citizens would be equally pissed off if they knew this was happening.

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky February 22, 2017 10:14 PM  

W. Lindsay Wheeler wrote:Attended a Townhall at Western Michigan University about Immigration and how to handle the Exec. Orders.

I asked to speak. I was told, "You can't speak". I'm a military veteran and told--You can't speak---and all these foreigners did!

F*ck this country. F*ck you all!


Same crap around here. Every immigration talk features bringing up a bunch of immigrants to tell their sob stories, then tell us what America means and what it means to be an American. And that's mainly what happens. So wrong.

Anonymous Thomas II February 22, 2017 11:21 PM  

"Attended a Townhall at Western Michigan University about Immigration and how to handle the Exec. Orders.

I asked to speak. I was told, "You can't speak". I'm a military veteran and told--You can't speak---and all these foreigners did!

F*ck this country. F*ck you all!"

My guess is that you probably said something imflamatory at an event specifically organized to support immigrants. My guess is this wasn't a constituent town hall meeting with a member of congress or a state lawmaker.

My guess is they decided they wanted to keep the meeting on topic rather than listen to someone bogart the mic and rant.

Anonymous LurkingPuppy February 22, 2017 11:55 PM  

Cail Corishev wrote:Just ask yourself this: do you think he's arguing in good faith and honestly considering the responses he's getting, or is he playing a game and trying to bait everyone into chasing a shifting set of goalposts and fallacies?
The latter.

If the latter, what is that called?
Um… fishing?

A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents wrote:According to Facebook, standard Bible teaching on homosexuality is "hate speech", and good for a 3-day ban.

Handwriting right there on the wall.

If (((Zuckerberg))) needs someone else to explain what the handwriting means, does that make him a fake jew?

Blogger DonReynolds February 23, 2017 12:02 AM  

Italians are delightful people and it has been my high privilege to have had a number of Italian-Americans as my friends. I can remember each occasion when I put my Scot-Irish feet under their table for dinner and exactly what was served. Terrific.

What was different, was not just the food. Everyone seated around the table and they were all talking at the same time. Many of them did not seem to be speaking to anyone in particular, just adding their voice to the din and clatter. No one ever asked anyone to repeat what they said, so I am pretty sure the messages were mostly lost in the background noise.

This was quite different from my own family at mealtime, where there was never more than one person speaking at the same time. Everyone was polite and took their turn at speaking without getting too windy, but the key was that everyone heard every word that was spoken and anyone could respond to what was said. Anyone who tried to carry on a "private" conversation, even at a whisper, was considered rude and inattentive. My Dad was quick to put such side conversations to an end. This absolutely defined my own understanding of free speech.

What is essential to free speech is NOT that anyone can say anything they want, anywhere and to anyone.....that would be license. What makes for Free Speech is that NONE of the Listeners are under any obligation to AGREE with the Speaker, AND the Speaker is by no means protected from Reply. Yes, and that reply can disagree with what the speaker said....even directly contradict what was said. The mere fact that a person has spoken does not establish them as an authority on the subject nor does it mean that what they said was factual or even truthful. It may be, but that is by no means assumed. After all, even an expert can make a mistake or get confused or misunderstand the question. Free Speech then is a process where thoughts are challenged and cleansed, distilled and refined...in public.

Blogger DonReynolds February 23, 2017 12:17 AM  

The purpose of Free Speech is not to antagonize and divide people. The positive purpose of Free Speech is to forge mutual understanding of the various viewpoints and feel for a way, much like in the dark, for an opportunity for agreement.... searching out commonality and deliberately narrowing specific differences in values or opinions to what might be an accommodation or compromise.

Anonymous Discard February 23, 2017 3:16 AM  

Any institution that takes government money is obligated to respect the First Amendment, just as they are obligated to follow a bunch of other regulations. Using allegedly private institutions to shut down political dissent is the primary threat to free speech in America.

There's no such thing as hate speech, only free speech. "Hate speech" is a term intended to lead in time to charges of "hate crimes", another linguistic and legal fraud. We are not so stupid as you imagine, Dr. We see the path this is taking.

Dr Havens, what is your doctorate in? A direct question requires a direct answer, per the rules of this blog, as can be seen on the top left.

Anonymous Anonymous February 23, 2017 5:29 AM  

A very good article in the UK daily mail today, online as well, from the black former head of the equalities and human rights commission. He highlights the problems of the 'speech police', feminism gone mad, and how he was labelled 'racist' and 'far right' when he mad an observation about the Notting Hill carnival. All done by liberals. Very interesting.

Blogger JP February 23, 2017 8:43 AM  

"The problem I have with guys like Evan McMullen (and John McCain, John Kasich, Lindsay Graham, etc. is that they spend all their time policing their own ranks instead of recognizing the other side for who they are - the enemy."

They've never been anything but the enemy, they've only pretended otherwise. I'm glad that the neocons are continuing to out themselves, because this "Hello fellow conservatives" shit has finally ran its course.

Blogger JP February 23, 2017 8:55 AM  

Dr. Havens, Bullshit. When you can get fired from your job, or sued for discrimination, we don't have free speech. There are strong legal consequences for proclaiming those views in public. We haven't had actual free speech since the '60s.

Anonymous Dr. Havens February 23, 2017 10:24 AM  

"Dr. Havens, Bullshit. When you can get fired from your job, or sued for discrimination, we don't have free speech. There are strong legal consequences for proclaiming those views in public. We haven't had actual free speech since the '60s."

I"m not sure how an employee can get sued for discrimination. However, I do know how an employee can get fired for demonstrating questionable character traits. The question is should an employer have the right to fire a person who publicly expresses opinions that completely contradict their employer's world view. Should the employer, who has a mob outside his retail flower shop with signs and bull horns protesting the person inside who has repeatedly publicly denounced the "mixing of the races" have the right to fire that employee? Or should they be forced to continue employing the person and suffer the consequences of lost income? Should the employer have the right to associate with whom he wants.?

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts