The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Poll on Diversity vs. Free Speech Among College Students
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Screenshot 2018-03-11 22.02.50

From the New York Times:

When forced to choose, a majority of students said that diversity and inclusivity were more important than free speech, though opinions differed widely by demographic.

Those who belong to groups historically or currently in positions of power — white students, men or Republicans — tended to favor free speech, while nearly two in three students who were black, women or Democrats favored inclusivity. That gap was widest along partisan lines, with 66 percent of Democrats saying inclusivity was more important and 69 percent of Republicans saying the same of free speech.

Uh, why would groups supposedly not “currently in positions of power” favor using power to limit free speech? Isn’t a more plausible interpretation that the people on campus who are more likely to favor free speech are those less likely to be powerful on campus?

Functionally, the people most likely to favor free speech are those who have less power and better arguments.

It’s interesting that blacks at historically black colleges have less extremist, more pro-freedom views.

 
Hide 215 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Isn’t this a contrived, forced choice? “Inclusivity” (whatever that is) vs. Free Speech?

    Let’s try another survey: “When forced to choose, which is more important to you, air or free speech?

    Students currently in need of breathing will choose air.

    Why must one thing contradict the other?

    How many ways can we set up a question like that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Yea, good point. "Inclusivity" is vague and is going to be interpreted differently by people. A lot of the blacks being surveyed probably think that favoring free speech over "inclusivity" means oppressing blacks or something.
    , @Free Truth
    Because inclusivity (a/k/a diversity) is promoted and declared as the end-all, be-all of social organization yet no valid argument is ever put forward to support it. Then when valid questions concerning this agenda arise and valid arguments are put forth against it, they are hysterically dismissed with name-calling and other fallacious arguments.
    , @Corvinus
    "Isn’t this a contrived, forced choice? “Inclusivity” (whatever that is) vs. Free Speech?"

    I'm surprised Mr. Sailer didn't notice it, nor show us this little nugget from the link.

    "Students may struggle to balance free speech and inclusivity in the abstract, but they overwhelmingly and broadly prefer a learning environment that is open and permits offensive speech to one that is positive and limits it."

    Again, what does "open learning environment" mean?
    , @res

    Isn’t this a contrived, forced choice? “Inclusivity” (whatever that is) vs. Free Speech?
     
    I don't think so. iSteve is full of examples where those two principles are in tension. In most, "inclusivity" (as you say, whatever that is, does it have something to do with the right of blacks to have their own segregated spaces whenever they desire?) seems to be taking precedence. Which is very strange given both the Constitution and history of the US.

    That said, you are right about

    Why must one thing contradict the other?
     
    Perhaps answering that why is the conversation that should be taking place. Why is "inclusivity" so sacred that even making arguments against some of the implications is unacceptable?

    P.S. Steve's point about lack of power and desire for freedom of speech is some deadly noticing. An excellent thing to mention the next time this conversation comes up in my vicinity. It ties in nicely with the observation of the sea change in attitudes on the left towards free speech over time (compare attitudes towards McCarthyite black lists and cases like Brendan Eich).
    , @Michael Soeren
    The question is even more slanted than that: it forces respondents to choose between "society," associated with diversity and inclusion, and "rights," associated with speech.

    Most people think rights are to serve society and not the reverse. The Constitution is not a suicide pact! But you could also flip the question for different results by making respondents choose between, say, "a free society" and "inclusivity rights," i.e., putting freedom at the core and diversity on the fringe.
    , @Mike P.
    Isn't the bigger problem that when given this choice, students do, in fact, choose "diversity"?
    , @guest
    Contrived, maybe, but not forced. Because however vaguely "inclusiveness" is defined, there's a real movement not to tolerate speech based on "hate."

    Of course, you don't have to exclude anyone to be considered hateful. All you have to do is have the wrong opinions.
    , @EdwardM
    I don't think it's really contrived, given that campus leftists nowadays explicitly argue that free speech must be suppressed in order to achieve equality, diversity, inclusiveness, etc.

    I am actually glad that they did this poll, because it reminds those who don't pay much attention that the two values are in fact in conflict. It's a step up from the 1990s PC days when people didn't readily admit there was a conflict, just as they didn't acknowledge the trade-off between affirmative action and standards.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Strange to behold campus free speech — if that actually means or ever meant anything; since “diverse and inclusive” clearly now means “Goodies For The Non-Cis-Male or NAM” — becoming a super-majority *Republican* issue (HBCU exception noted)… Truly the media narrative is forever stuck in 1965 but we end up dealing with the warped Philip K. Dick version of it

    Is anyone else suspicious of surveys that show 50-50 or 49-51 splits for “independents?” Assuming they don’t just norm it, consciously or not, on Homo independentus

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    My assumption has always been that in 1965 campus "free speech" was not about some abstract right, but about them taking over campuses. So it's not a warped version we see now, but a continuation of the Who/Whom struggle.

    Remember, they literally conquered academia by force of arms. (Admittedly against sympathetic administrations.) They're not going to give it up on the basis of open argument.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. istevefan says:

    Uh, why would groups supposedly not “currently in positions of power” favor using power to limit free speech? Isn’t a more plausible interpretation that the people on campus who are more likely to favor free speech are those less likely to be powerful on campus?

    There is a quote floating around on the internet misattributed to Voltair, “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” Though it is a fake, maybe you can rephrase it for the free speech phenomena you have noticed. “To learn who is in power, find out who opposes free speech.”

    It’s interesting that blacks at historically black colleges have less extremist, more pro-freedom views.

    That’s because they live in their own Wakanda and don’t have to deal with the unpleasant views of the other.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

    So trannies and Arabs rule over us?
    , @Paul Yarbles


    It’s interesting that blacks at historically black colleges have less extremist, more pro-freedom views.
     
    That’s because they live in their own Wakanda and don’t have to deal with the unpleasant views of the other.
     
    Yep, free speech for me (and my people), but not for thee (and your people).

    I'm beginning to suspect that the driving force of today's leftism is not the desire to increase justice, but simply animus towards whites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. AndrewR says:

    So according to the NYT, Democrats have never been in power. That is a bold lie even by Lügenpresse standards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Well...not so much a lie as an expression of ignorance of even recent history.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. “It’s interesting that blacks at historically black colleges have less extremist, more pro-freedom views.”

    Yeah that was the only real surprise in the survey.

    Maybe when at an all-black college, the students don’t feel a compulsion to run the Diversity-Inclusivity script constantly on everything. So when there is no incentive to stifle freedom to get extra gibs, it turns out black students like free speech just about as much as white ones do. Which is a pretty good argument in favor of all black colleges. Or, as it used to be called, segregation.

    Hey, what’s Old is what’s New!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    AlmostMissouri, I can't figure black college students out, because when they are included in everything at an ultra liberal college such as Oberlin, they still aren't happy and "demand" more. Demand is in quotes to emphasize the fact that they never present requests, just a list of demands. Oh, yeah, and their own space.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. syonredux says:

    ‘Girls must be saved from going through this hell’: Call for public inquiry into Telford sex scandal as it emerges up to 1,000 children as young as 11 were drugged, beaten and raped over 40 years
    Gang in Telford, Shropshire, has been sexually abusing teen girls since the 1980s
    Allegations ‘have been mishandled by authorities’ with attackers left unpunished
    Telford’s Tory MP, Lucy Allan, has called for an urgent Rotherham-style inquiry
    Lucy Lowe, 16, was murdered alongside her mother and sister after her abuser set fire to their house. She had given birth to his child at just 14

    A brutal sex gang raped as many as 1,000 young girls over 40 years in what may be Britain’s ‘worst ever’ child abuse scandal.

    Girls in the town of Telford, Shropshire, were drugged, beaten and raped at the hands of a grooming gang active since the 1980s.

    Home Office figures show there were 15.1 child sex crimes reported per 10,000 residents in the year to September 2015

    Lucy Lowe, 16, died alongside her mother and sister after the man who had been abusing her, 26-year-old Azhar Ali Mehmood, set fire to their house.

    The taxi-driver first targeted Lucy in 1997. She gave birth to his child when she was just 14.

    Another victim, who was drugged and gang raped by nine men two years later, said that Lucy’s death was used as a warning to other girls who might speak out.

    Becky Watson, 13, was killed after a car she was in crashed. At the time the incident was reported as a ‘prank’.

    However, it was revealed she had suffered two years of sex abuse at the hands of a grooming gang, which began when she was 11.

    Mubarek Ali, 34, sold teenage girls, some as young as 13, for sex above an Indian restaurant in Telford, Shropshire, after grooming them.

    His brother Ahdel Ali, 27, was handed a 26-year sentence after the pair sexually abused, trafficked, prostituted or tried to prostitute four teenagers.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5487167/Telford-child-sex-scandal-involving-1-000-Britains-worst.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    #NotAllPakistanis

    #IllRideWithYou
    , @TelfoedJohn
    Nothing on BBC news site about 1000 girls being drugged and raped. More important news, according to the BBC:
    • India's gay prince opens his palace
    • Footballer sorry after spitting
    • Reality Stars really do have brains
    , @anon
    Gang in Telford, Shropshire, has been sexually abusing teen girls since the 1980s
    Allegations ‘have been mishandled by authorities’


    And yet, these same authorities will rain down punishment on you like fire from Heaven if you insult these rapists on the internet.

    So you can see, in real time, what happens when you value inclusivity/diversity more than free speech.

    And the thing is, this contradiction is so glaringly obvious that ordinary people point it out daily on Twitter. But for some reason, I don't remember any op-eds in the NYT about it.
    , @Mr. Anon
    And Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen of Britain First were jailed for pointing out the nature of these rape-gangs:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/britain-first-leaders-jayda-fransen-paul-golding-jailed-mugshots-police-muslim-hate-crime-kent-a8246571.html
    , @Yngvar
    I have become comfortably numb.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. #StatuaryRape

    Christopher Columbus statue removed from San Jose City Hall

    A crew from Atthowe Fine Art Services remove the Christopher Columbus statue from San Jose City Hall in San Jose, California, on Saturday, March 10, 2018.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “It’s interesting that blacks at historically black colleges have less extremist, more pro-freedom views.”

    Here’s a conjecture: in my experience, there is a class of effectively autodidactic blacks. I know they exist since I have met a number of them (and I’ve never really known that many blacks at all). I think they tend to be people who grow up in areas that are significantly black, and to some degree identify with that, but do not identify with the overt anti-intellectualism of mainstream black culture. They read books, for instance, and they choose which books to read. Some (but not all, I think) have at least something of an Afrocentric bent, and are skeptical of SJWism, and often adopt a contrarian line. I cannot think of any public figure at all who exemplifies this: maybe a cross between John McWhorter, Cornel West, and Louis Farrakhan. Maybe such people provide the extra percentage for free speech at the black colleges.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Followup:
    Maybe such people are akin to a sort of "black alt-right" or more accurately, since "alt-right" is weaponized, a black "dissident right". They are not "conservatives" in either the Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas mode, but they do not endorse globalist SJWism, or its fake Stalinist "resistance". Maybe someone like Alan Keyes is closer to who I am describing, but probably most of them have more of an Afrocentrist vibe.
    , @MJMD

    Here’s a conjecture: in my experience, there is a class of effectively autodidactic blacks. I know they exist since I have met a number of them (and I’ve never really known that many blacks at all). I think they tend to be people who grow up in areas that are significantly black, and to some degree identify with that, but do not identify with the overt anti-intellectualism of mainstream black culture. They read books, for instance, and they choose which books to read. Some (but not all, I think) have at least something of an Afrocentric bent, and are skeptical of SJWism, and often adopt a contrarian line. I cannot think of any public figure at all who exemplifies this: maybe a cross between John McWhorter, Cornel West, and Louis Farrakhan.
     
    Uh, don't get mad at me, but this is actually what I used to like about Ta Nehisi Coates.

    And, to be frank, I wish I still could. Coates gets a lot of abuse here (much of it well deserved), and there's no question he's become less interesting as success (undeserved, at least in such ridiculous scale) has gone to his head. But, before Between the World and Me and that absurd MacArthur grant, I found his essentially autodidactic background refreshing. Comic book geek in Baltimore, Howard drop-out (because of his own immaturity and foolishness, he admits), worked the black beat for a dozen rags, spent his free time reading Tony Judt's Postwar and Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands (which brings to mind Steve's comments about Lin-Manuel Miranda - how many Nuyoricans spend their summer holidays reading Ron Chernow biographies?).

    Coates's playing around with both the racial extremism he inherited from his parents and the grim, hopeless, anti-theist, postmodern ideas in academic vogue today was dangerous, to be sure, like mixing chlorine and ammonia. But so long as it was just play he could at least be honest about it (as in, give his own honest take, whether it was crazy or true). Writing in Between the World and Me that he was happy to see the twin towers burn was honest.

    But now his significance has a "black intellectual" has been blown out of all proportion by a fawning white intelligentsia of similarly nihilistic bent, the real villains in all of this, while actual black intellectuals like McWhorter are pushed to the side. I almost feel sorry for Coates. I don't think it's a surprise that the last book we saw out of him was just warmed over Atlantic articles, and I expect we'll hear even less from/of him as the years grind on. The flame of honest inquiry that should move an autodidact (or even a half-decent writer) has been drowned if not quenched in him. You can't play the part of somebody else's useful idiot unless you can refrain from publicly challenging their idiocies.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. TGGP says: • Website

    The bit about historically blank colleges sounds related to Scott Alexander’s logic of the “fargroup”. Steve once quoted Thomas Babington Macaulay giving some similar reasoning as Scott.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Calvin X Hobbes

    The bit about historically blank colleges...
     
    I'm guessing that's a typo, but it does reflect reality.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Isn’t a more plausible interpretation that the people on campus who are more likely to favor free speech are those less likely to be powerful on campus?

    Now who are you gonna believe, the NYT or your old-fashioned White Logic?

    So-called “inclusivity” is most assuredly not the reason the NYT’s favored groups want to curtail speech. Quite the contrary. They want to cement their death grip on the Public Narrative.

    I’ve lately realized that MSM representations of the world are not just inaccurate. They’re the exact opposite of reality, and it’s no accident.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Moses

    So-called “inclusivity” is most assuredly not the reason the NYT’s favored groups want to curtail speech. Quite the contrary. They want to cement their death grip on the Public Narrative.

     

    Yep. And use state power to jail their political opponents for speaking the truth. Already happening in the UK.

    "Crimethink." Orwell was more prescient than he knew.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    Isn't this a contrived, forced choice? "Inclusivity" (whatever that is) vs. Free Speech?

    Let's try another survey: "When forced to choose, which is more important to you, air or free speech?

    Students currently in need of breathing will choose air.

    Why must one thing contradict the other?

    How many ways can we set up a question like that?

    Yea, good point. “Inclusivity” is vague and is going to be interpreted differently by people. A lot of the blacks being surveyed probably think that favoring free speech over “inclusivity” means oppressing blacks or something.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Let the record show, I am not the Anonymous who can't spell "yeah". I mean, yeesh.

    Cf: Tallulah Bankhead to Norman Mailer at a party in New York, shortly after the publication of "The Naked and the Dead".

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/12/how_the_f_word_was_written_in_1948.html

    PS: Miss Bankhead was not a "waggish starlet" she was a theatrical legend. And she didn't say "young man" she said "writer". The internet is stupid.

    , @stillCARealist
    I would think Inclusivity means everybody in the pool. No child left behind, that sort of thing. Turns out they mean Excluding some people.

    The free speech movement was never about free speech. It was actually the MY speech movement.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    "It’s interesting that blacks at historically black colleges have less extremist, more pro-freedom views."

    Here's a conjecture: in my experience, there is a class of effectively autodidactic blacks. I know they exist since I have met a number of them (and I've never really known that many blacks at all). I think they tend to be people who grow up in areas that are significantly black, and to some degree identify with that, but do not identify with the overt anti-intellectualism of mainstream black culture. They read books, for instance, and they choose which books to read. Some (but not all, I think) have at least something of an Afrocentric bent, and are skeptical of SJWism, and often adopt a contrarian line. I cannot think of any public figure at all who exemplifies this: maybe a cross between John McWhorter, Cornel West, and Louis Farrakhan. Maybe such people provide the extra percentage for free speech at the black colleges.

    Followup:
    Maybe such people are akin to a sort of “black alt-right” or more accurately, since “alt-right” is weaponized, a black “dissident right”. They are not “conservatives” in either the Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas mode, but they do not endorse globalist SJWism, or its fake Stalinist “resistance”. Maybe someone like Alan Keyes is closer to who I am describing, but probably most of them have more of an Afrocentrist vibe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @IHTG
    They're called Hoteps.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. It’s interesting that blacks at historically black colleges have less extremist, more pro-freedom views.

    I think there are a few ways of interpreting this, depending—I’m by no means an expert on the socio-political environment at HBUs.

    1. At HBUs, black students aren’t a minority population, and thus don’t need campus sanctioned safespaces/hugboxes to protect their feelings from the so-called “privileged” groups. Moreover, there are no minority populations at these universities (by definition), so these groups can’t force the university or socially pressure their peers not to hurt their feelings.

    2. Although black people (errr… bodies?) and college students as a whole tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic, black culture tends to be more conservative than liberal. With a diversity of liberal/conservative viewpoints among a homogeneous population, it’s not too surprising that the pressures for and against free speech balance out.

    Personally, I think 1. is the driving force here, but I’d bet 2. has a sizable influence as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    al, democrats give blacks inclusivity, but really don't care what they have to say as long as they vote for them. If they didn't vote lock step for them, they wouldn't want to include them.
    , @Bill

    At HBUs, black students aren’t a minority population, and thus don’t need campus sanctioned safespaces/hugboxes
     
    Is it really black students, specifically, in the safe spaces on campus?
    , @Father O'Hara
    Since when do black students have any "diversity of viewpoints"?? Try showing up with some DOV and see what happens to you. You can have any opinion you want,as long as its BLACK!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Thread:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Moses
    "..erosion of White privilege..." said the man who lives in an all-White neighborhood of Seattle.

    Delete your account.

    , @Pericles
    A prog POS safely ensconced in Seattle spews his smug hatred over conservatives. Big whoop. Apparently also tweets dreamily about Stalin-era size wind turbines.

    This one was funny though:


    If NYT really wants to expose its readers to the right, it should give Dinesh D'Souza, Dana Loesch, or Ben Shapiro a column. Let readers see, up close & personal, the crude tribalism & resentment that animate the RW base.

     

    Lol, windmill wanker has no idea.
    , @Bill
    How is it that this particular characterization of "the right" is always true? Isn't that odd? It's almost as if this characterization is a puzzle piece that fits into a particular hole in the SJW brain rather than an actual description of an external reality.
    , @Je Suis Omar Mateen
    'The contemporary right-wing in the US has become, in Lionel Trilling's immortal words, a bundle of "irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas." It's just a tangle of resentments & bigotries, driven by the erosion of white privilege.'

    Beautiful. What a pitch-perfect display of psychological projection!

    Now let's convert this gibberish into TrueFact:

    The contemporary left wing in the US has become, in Lionel Trilling's immortal words, a bundle of irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas. It's just a tangle of resentments & bigotries, driven by the erosion of white confidence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Lot says:
    @istevefan

    Uh, why would groups supposedly not “currently in positions of power” favor using power to limit free speech? Isn’t a more plausible interpretation that the people on campus who are more likely to favor free speech are those less likely to be powerful on campus?
     
    There is a quote floating around on the internet misattributed to Voltair, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." Though it is a fake, maybe you can rephrase it for the free speech phenomena you have noticed. "To learn who is in power, find out who opposes free speech."

    It’s interesting that blacks at historically black colleges have less extremist, more pro-freedom views.
     
    That's because they live in their own Wakanda and don't have to deal with the unpleasant views of the other.

    “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

    So trannies and Arabs rule over us?

    Read More
    • Troll: AndrewR
    • Replies: @rogue-one
    Not really.

    We are ruled by an elite class of "progressives" or "liberals". The elite considers trannies & arabs as a victim class to be protected from evil natives.
    , @AndrewR
    More like a tribe that is closely related to the Arabs.
    , @Bill
    National Review doesn't criticize trannies and Arabs?
    , @AskMeNot
    "To learn who rules over you, find out who will punish you for criticizing those you are not allowed to criticize."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Greeks vs Turks is always fun.

    http://www.ekathimerini.com/226634/article/ekathimerini/news/erdogan-hits-back-at-greek-presidents-comments-on-sovereignty

    Pavlopoulos stressed that Greece wants good neighborly relations with Turkey and supports its bid to join the European Union but that Ankara must respect borders and international law.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Why are inclu-diversity pitted against free speech?

    Don’t they want diversity of views? Don’t they want to include dissident views?

    And what’s the point of INCLUDING people if people lose free speech in the bargain?

    Ask blacks a question like this: Should certain rap music and black speech be silenced to make a more inclusive environment?

    They would be for free speech.

    This is all BS. It means ‘free speech for me, not for thee’.

    All these groups calling for limits on ‘free speech’ would never tolerate silencing their speech even in the name of ‘inclusion’.
    They assume it must be NAZI speech only.

    But what a strange bargain. Inclusivity trumps speech. So, we let different peoples in so that no one can say anything.

    So, this is admittance that diversity destroys freedom.

    Thank you. We have proof.

    Read More
    • Replies: @densa

    But what a strange bargain. Inclusivity trumps speech. So, we let different peoples in so that no one can say anything.

    So, this is admittance that diversity destroys freedom.

    Thank you. We have proof.
     
    That's it. And the rationale is that anything that doesn't support diversity (our highest value; it's in the constitution) is hate, not speech. It's for your own good. By stopping your speech they intend to 'stop the hate'. Camps may become necessary. Electro-schock therapy. Exorcism. Who knows.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Yea, good point. "Inclusivity" is vague and is going to be interpreted differently by people. A lot of the blacks being surveyed probably think that favoring free speech over "inclusivity" means oppressing blacks or something.

    Let the record show, I am not the Anonymous who can’t spell “yeah”. I mean, yeesh.

    Cf: Tallulah Bankhead to Norman Mailer at a party in New York, shortly after the publication of “The Naked and the Dead”.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/12/how_the_f_word_was_written_in_1948.html

    PS: Miss Bankhead was not a “waggish starlet” she was a theatrical legend. And she didn’t say “young man” she said “writer”. The internet is stupid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. IHTG says:
    @Anonymous
    Followup:
    Maybe such people are akin to a sort of "black alt-right" or more accurately, since "alt-right" is weaponized, a black "dissident right". They are not "conservatives" in either the Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas mode, but they do not endorse globalist SJWism, or its fake Stalinist "resistance". Maybe someone like Alan Keyes is closer to who I am describing, but probably most of them have more of an Afrocentrist vibe.

    They’re called Hoteps.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That is probably more right than wrong, but not all black guys that are Hotepish are full-on Hoteps. I don't think I've ever personally know a full-on Hotep, but I can think of multiple black guys I"ve known that are Hotepish in some respect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Moses says:

    Uh, why would groups supposedly not “currently in positions of power” favor using power to limit free speech?

    Perhaps because when noticing becomes a crime it’s easier to grab power and suppress realtalk which might threaten that power?

    Steve, they want to outlaw only speech they don’t like.

    Btw the charts lead me to an inescapable conclusion: “Say goodbye to the 1st Amendment when America tips majority non-White.” The groundwork and demographics are being laid as we speak.

    The races ARE different intrinsically, culturally, politically. America could only have been created by Whites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    It wasn't created by "Whites." It was created by ASPs [there are no non-white Anglo-Saxons] who have chosen to cede their country to other peoples.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    At some point, whites will have to realize that we can't rely on a nicely-worded document written more than 200 years ago by thoughtful, white men.

    Like it or not, the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

    If whites wants freedom of speech or to be treated equally, we'll have to fight for it. I'm not talking about violence, but fighting in the same way that American Jews fight for their people, creating lobby groups, funding politicians, creating media outlets, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Moses says:
    @Classical Liberal
    Thread:
    https://twitter.com/drvox/status/972916409603833856

    “..erosion of White privilege…” said the man who lives in an all-White neighborhood of Seattle.

    Delete your account.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. MJMD says:
    @Anonymous
    "It’s interesting that blacks at historically black colleges have less extremist, more pro-freedom views."

    Here's a conjecture: in my experience, there is a class of effectively autodidactic blacks. I know they exist since I have met a number of them (and I've never really known that many blacks at all). I think they tend to be people who grow up in areas that are significantly black, and to some degree identify with that, but do not identify with the overt anti-intellectualism of mainstream black culture. They read books, for instance, and they choose which books to read. Some (but not all, I think) have at least something of an Afrocentric bent, and are skeptical of SJWism, and often adopt a contrarian line. I cannot think of any public figure at all who exemplifies this: maybe a cross between John McWhorter, Cornel West, and Louis Farrakhan. Maybe such people provide the extra percentage for free speech at the black colleges.

    Here’s a conjecture: in my experience, there is a class of effectively autodidactic blacks. I know they exist since I have met a number of them (and I’ve never really known that many blacks at all). I think they tend to be people who grow up in areas that are significantly black, and to some degree identify with that, but do not identify with the overt anti-intellectualism of mainstream black culture. They read books, for instance, and they choose which books to read. Some (but not all, I think) have at least something of an Afrocentric bent, and are skeptical of SJWism, and often adopt a contrarian line. I cannot think of any public figure at all who exemplifies this: maybe a cross between John McWhorter, Cornel West, and Louis Farrakhan.

    Uh, don’t get mad at me, but this is actually what I used to like about Ta Nehisi Coates.

    And, to be frank, I wish I still could. Coates gets a lot of abuse here (much of it well deserved), and there’s no question he’s become less interesting as success (undeserved, at least in such ridiculous scale) has gone to his head. But, before Between the World and Me and that absurd MacArthur grant, I found his essentially autodidactic background refreshing. Comic book geek in Baltimore, Howard drop-out (because of his own immaturity and foolishness, he admits), worked the black beat for a dozen rags, spent his free time reading Tony Judt’s Postwar and Timothy Snyder’s Bloodlands (which brings to mind Steve’s comments about Lin-Manuel Miranda – how many Nuyoricans spend their summer holidays reading Ron Chernow biographies?).

    Coates’s playing around with both the racial extremism he inherited from his parents and the grim, hopeless, anti-theist, postmodern ideas in academic vogue today was dangerous, to be sure, like mixing chlorine and ammonia. But so long as it was just play he could at least be honest about it (as in, give his own honest take, whether it was crazy or true). Writing in Between the World and Me that he was happy to see the twin towers burn was honest.

    But now his significance has a “black intellectual” has been blown out of all proportion by a fawning white intelligentsia of similarly nihilistic bent, the real villains in all of this, while actual black intellectuals like McWhorter are pushed to the side. I almost feel sorry for Coates. I don’t think it’s a surprise that the last book we saw out of him was just warmed over Atlantic articles, and I expect we’ll hear even less from/of him as the years grind on. The flame of honest inquiry that should move an autodidact (or even a half-decent writer) has been drowned if not quenched in him. You can’t play the part of somebody else’s useful idiot unless you can refrain from publicly challenging their idiocies.

    Read More
    • Agree: Abe, YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Tulip
    Ta Nehisi Coates plays the same role in the Progressive eco-system that Ben Shapiro plays in the Conservative eco-system. Or should I say echo-system?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Moses says:
    @Anonymous

    Isn’t a more plausible interpretation that the people on campus who are more likely to favor free speech are those less likely to be powerful on campus?
     
    Now who are you gonna believe, the NYT or your old-fashioned White Logic?

    So-called "inclusivity" is most assuredly not the reason the NYT's favored groups want to curtail speech. Quite the contrary. They want to cement their death grip on the Public Narrative.

    I've lately realized that MSM representations of the world are not just inaccurate. They're the exact opposite of reality, and it's no accident.

    So-called “inclusivity” is most assuredly not the reason the NYT’s favored groups want to curtail speech. Quite the contrary. They want to cement their death grip on the Public Narrative.

    Yep. And use state power to jail their political opponents for speaking the truth. Already happening in the UK.

    “Crimethink.” Orwell was more prescient than he knew.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I'd never heard of Ramism before this article. Apparently it was huge in the 17th century.
    , @res
    I like this excerpt:

    Despite occasional conservative paranoia, there is not some sinister academic plot to brainwash students with liberal dogma. Instead, humanists are doing what they have always done, trying to bring students into a class loosely defined around a broad constellation of judgments and tastes. This constellation might include political judgments, but it is never reducible to politics.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. Doug says:

    The dumbing down of American universities has done considerable damage here. As Audacious Epigone showed belief in free speech is highly correlated to intelligence. Now consider that the average IQ of an American university student has dropped between 10-15 points since 1970. (Think this was all an Audacious Epigone post, but can’t find the link.)

    Whereas in the past, college was explicitly designed for the cognitive elite, we’re now trying to push every 18 year old into getting a bachelors. There’s justifications of varying merit: the decimation of the blue collar middle class, differential earning power between college graduates and non-graduates, declining standards of high school diplomas, and attempts to reduce hereditary inequality. But unless you believe that all 18 year olds have near equal cognitive capacity, it just ain’t gonna work.

    Pushing more people through is not only going to hurt the marginal student (sense of personal failures, high dropout rates, crushing student debt). It’s going to do irreparable harm to university culture. Declining free speech and intellectual openness is only one example. Another anecdotal observation (my wife’s an adjunct at a state U) is that colleges are much less collegial. Professors have largely been turned into babysitters a la high school teachers. There’s just only so many “dog ate my homework” excuses that you can deal with. The relationship between student and professor has become much less that of mature professional peers, and much more prison guard vs detainee.

    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/11/free-speech-absolutism.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yak-15
    On the flip side, universities are now staffed and professored by marginally intelligent people producing work that would be characterized as rote regurgitation a generation ago.
    , @TelfoedJohn
    Right now, the average IQ is crossing below the 100 IQ mark at US universities. This means that going to university is now a signal to people that you are dumber than average.
    , @AndrewR
    Given that you're married to a professor at a university, I suppose you are better versed in the realities of current year tertiary education than I am, but what I have concluded over my years of reading about American colleges is that the student-professor relationship would be much better described as customer vs wage slave, with the "management" taking the side of the "customers" over the "employees."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Anonymous
    https://www.chronicle.com/article/There-Is-No-Case-for-the/242724

    I’d never heard of Ramism before this article. Apparently it was huge in the 17th century.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_J._Ong#Ramus,_Method,_and_the_Decay_of_Dialogue_(1958)

    Walter Ong seems currently "owned" by the institutional left (although he is no doubt simply too erudite for most of them today), but might be a bountiful source of insight for dissenters.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @IHTG
    They're called Hoteps.

    That is probably more right than wrong, but not all black guys that are Hotepish are full-on Hoteps. I don’t think I’ve ever personally know a full-on Hotep, but I can think of multiple black guys I”ve known that are Hotepish in some respect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    As the saying goes, ‘Those who choose security over liberty deserve neither’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Yuck. Stop misquoting him. He said:

    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

    Fundamentally different from your butchered misquote.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    I'd never heard of Ramism before this article. Apparently it was huge in the 17th century.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_J._Ong#Ramus,_Method,_and_the_Decay_of_Dialogue_(1958)

    Walter Ong seems currently “owned” by the institutional left (although he is no doubt simply too erudite for most of them today), but might be a bountiful source of insight for dissenters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. TheBoom says:

    Thet findings aren’t surprising. White men came up the concept of free speech and they are the only ones majority in favor of it especially if they are conservatives. Women are a combination of totalitarian and desiring of protection by nature so not surprising that they are very much against free speech.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "White men came up the concept of free speech..."

    It was actually Athenians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. rogue-one says:

    It is interesting to note that women, as a group, are almost as extremist against free speech as blacks. I can probably understand the motivations of blacks. They would like to use the cudgel of bureaucracy, inclusion, & equity to gain even greater resources & power. But women? Really? A world run by Al Sharpton , like Detroit or Baltimore, isn’t going to be great for your basic white woman.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    It is interesting to note that women, as a group, are almost as extremist against free speech as blacks. I can probably understand the motivations of blacks. They would like to use the cudgel of bureaucracy, inclusion, & equity to gain even greater resources & power. But women? Really? A world run by Al Sharpton , like Detroit or Baltimore, isn’t going to be great for your basic white woman.
     
    The intoxication of power and getting more power in the here and now blots out all long range thought. This is especially true in the European coalitions of leftists, feminists, Muslims.
    , @Yak-15
    A lot of women think of bullying of some other, equally idiotic modern problem when free speech is discussed. To them, stopping the gay kid from being called a fag (which rarely even happened twenty years ago), is more important than civil rights that sustain our republic.
    , @Whiskey
    Its great for women because its all Alpha swagger all the time.
    , @Moses
    Women value feelz over logic. It's a stereotype, sure, and also contains more than a bit of truth in it.

    Show them a pic of a drowned boy on a beach and suddenly they want to open national borders to hordes of unassimilable aliens. No thought or logic involved. Just feelz.

    There's a reason societies didn't give suffrage to women for thousands of years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. rogue-one says:
    @Lot
    "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

    So trannies and Arabs rule over us?

    Not really.

    We are ruled by an elite class of “progressives” or “liberals”. The elite considers trannies & arabs as a victim class to be protected from evil natives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    I agree, just having fun with istevefan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Pericles says:
    @Classical Liberal
    Thread:
    https://twitter.com/drvox/status/972916409603833856

    A prog POS safely ensconced in Seattle spews his smug hatred over conservatives. Big whoop. Apparently also tweets dreamily about Stalin-era size wind turbines.

    This one was funny though:

    If NYT really wants to expose its readers to the right, it should give Dinesh D’Souza, Dana Loesch, or Ben Shapiro a column. Let readers see, up close & personal, the crude tribalism & resentment that animate the RW base.

    Lol, windmill wanker has no idea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Or maybe he does?

    The Establishment needs both red and blue puppets in the show, pundits who bop each other within arm's length. Even this fine website has a couple Conservative action figures on its roster of columnists.
    , @AndrewR
    All three of the individuals whom he named are controlled opposition who will ruthlessly attack anyone who expresses sentiments to the right of the Overton window in terms of race and tribe.

    Vox.com pretends to be highbrow but this progtrog clearly demonstrates that it's no better than Salon.
    , @Jack Hanson
    Give me a column and he'll never leave his hugbox.
    , @J.Ross
    Fantastic. They're continuing to pursue the same "shut you, you do not exist" strategy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Pericles says:

    I’m sure they understand that voting against ‘free speech’ is not the same as voting against ‘their unrestricted speech’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. Tyrion 2 says:

    Uh, why would groups supposedly not “currently in positions of power” favor using power to limit free speech? Isn’t a more plausible interpretation that the people on campus who are more likely to favor free speech are those less likely to be powerful on campus?

    Bingo.

    What really gets me every time is how pretty much every single important institution including both political parties, all major companies, the civil service, the military, the media and so much more are both open and boastful in their discrimination against white people and their discrimination against men.

    Nor is this taking things out of context or obsessing over obscure figures. It is normally one of the most prominent boasts on their respective websites. That is, if you can put the two and two together that discriminating in favour of women is exactly the same thing as discriminating against men as it is for those with colour vis a vis those without.

    What is even worse is that not only are you a ‘racist and sexist divider’ for noticing how these institutions racistly and sexistly divide our society but you are even supposed to believe the opposite. The credo is that actually, despite the extremely open and much shouted about direct discrimination against white people and men, our society actually favours those two groups due to the bizarre, insidious and entirely hidden conspiracy theories called the patriarchy and white privilege.

    Where I get stuck is whether this is a unique phenomenon? The total inversion of reality as it relates to discrimination between groups. It is certainly effective. It is hard to think of history as anything other than the oppression of women by men, for example. Even though any experience of older relationships certainly shows that women gave as good as they got.

    The narrative is so strong that it determines our snap judgements and feelings. Only by stepping back and cooly reassessing do we remember that we live in a bizarro world. Again, has this always been the case? Or is it particular to the societies of the contemporary West post-1992?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. “It’s interesting that blacks at historically black colleges have less extremist, more pro-freedom views.”

    Likely for the same reason I am, they are sheltered from the influence of SJWs who wait for it…are White.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dr kill
    Can it really be that simple?
    , @anon
    That wouldn't make any sense even if it was true. Why are whites even more pro-freedom, even when they're exposed to these white "SJW"s?

    And if you think that there aren't plenty of black and Hispanic "SJW"s around, then I invite you to pay a visit to one of our fine universities, so you'll actually have some idea what you're talking about.

    Do you even remember a couple years ago, when black "SJW"S wreaked havoc on the University of Missouri over nothing?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Two heuristics:

    1) Leftists want to shut up their enemies, Right-wingers want their enemies to talk louder.

    2) Jews only care about “free speech” if it gives their Tribe political advantage — or if it involves p0rnography.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. Uh, why would groups supposedly not “currently in positions of power” favor using power to limit free speech? Isn’t a more plausible interpretation that the people on campus who are more likely to favor free speech are those less likely to be powerful on campus?

    It is not groups supposedly not “currently in positions of power” who favor limiting free speech, but rather a specific group not currently in a position of power who favors limiting free speech because that is inherent in their (in)ability to deal civilization.

    At institutions where this group is not faced with powerlessness, the preference for limiting free speech is not expressed.

    It is all about gaining power at the expense of civilization.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. dr kill says:
    @Nigerian Nationalist
    "It’s interesting that blacks at historically black colleges have less extremist, more pro-freedom views."

    Likely for the same reason I am, they are sheltered from the influence of SJWs who wait for it...are White.

    Can it really be that simple?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. rogue-one says:

    When we deny freedom of speech in favor of political correctness, we get rape gangs.

    1,000 children may have been victims in Britain’s biggest ever child abuse scandal

    >Hundreds of children, some as young as 11, are estimated to have been drugged, beaten and raped over a 40-year period in the town of Telford.

    >It is also claimed that abused and trafficked children were considered “prostitutes” by council staff, that authorities did not keep details of abusers from Asian communities for fear of being accused of “racism” and that police failed to investigate one recent case five times until an MP intervened.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/11/1000-children-may-have-victims-britains-biggest-ever-child-abuse/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Those two things are not the opposing ends of a single continuum. You could have both.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Travis
    you could have both inclusivity and free speech...but the current advocates of inclusivity actually want to eliminate diverse viewpoints on campus and outlaw divergent ideas. Thus those in charge of our universities do not believe they can have both...which is the reason Larry Summers lost the presidency of Harvard. His divergent views were seen as incompatible with a "diverse" inclusive campus.
    , @AndrewR
    To some extent they're mutually exclusive. There's no way to have "inclusion" if people are allowed to say "I hate [group x]", "we need to kill [group x]" "[group x] doesn't belong here", etc. You either have limits on free speech or you have limits on inclusion.

    Of course, what we have now is a perverse system where hateful, violent, exclusive language towards certain groups [whites, males, right-wingers] is tolerated if not encouraged, while even the most slightly "non-inclusive" towards protected groups is harshly punished

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Clyde says:
    @rogue-one
    It is interesting to note that women, as a group, are almost as extremist against free speech as blacks. I can probably understand the motivations of blacks. They would like to use the cudgel of bureaucracy, inclusion, & equity to gain even greater resources & power. But women? Really? A world run by Al Sharpton , like Detroit or Baltimore, isn't going to be great for your basic white woman.

    It is interesting to note that women, as a group, are almost as extremist against free speech as blacks. I can probably understand the motivations of blacks. They would like to use the cudgel of bureaucracy, inclusion, & equity to gain even greater resources & power. But women? Really? A world run by Al Sharpton , like Detroit or Baltimore, isn’t going to be great for your basic white woman.

    The intoxication of power and getting more power in the here and now blots out all long range thought. This is especially true in the European coalitions of leftists, feminists, Muslims.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Pericles
    A prog POS safely ensconced in Seattle spews his smug hatred over conservatives. Big whoop. Apparently also tweets dreamily about Stalin-era size wind turbines.

    This one was funny though:


    If NYT really wants to expose its readers to the right, it should give Dinesh D'Souza, Dana Loesch, or Ben Shapiro a column. Let readers see, up close & personal, the crude tribalism & resentment that animate the RW base.

     

    Lol, windmill wanker has no idea.

    Or maybe he does?

    The Establishment needs both red and blue puppets in the show, pundits who bop each other within arm’s length. Even this fine website has a couple Conservative action figures on its roster of columnists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Do the poll by secret, non-human-proctored, anonymous methods, like [theoretically] at the ballot box, and see what results you get.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. Yak-15 says:
    @Doug
    The dumbing down of American universities has done considerable damage here. As Audacious Epigone showed belief in free speech is highly correlated to intelligence. Now consider that the average IQ of an American university student has dropped between 10-15 points since 1970. (Think this was all an Audacious Epigone post, but can't find the link.)

    Whereas in the past, college was explicitly designed for the cognitive elite, we're now trying to push every 18 year old into getting a bachelors. There's justifications of varying merit: the decimation of the blue collar middle class, differential earning power between college graduates and non-graduates, declining standards of high school diplomas, and attempts to reduce hereditary inequality. But unless you believe that all 18 year olds have near equal cognitive capacity, it just ain't gonna work.

    Pushing more people through is not only going to hurt the marginal student (sense of personal failures, high dropout rates, crushing student debt). It's going to do irreparable harm to university culture. Declining free speech and intellectual openness is only one example. Another anecdotal observation (my wife's an adjunct at a state U) is that colleges are much less collegial. Professors have largely been turned into babysitters a la high school teachers. There's just only so many "dog ate my homework" excuses that you can deal with. The relationship between student and professor has become much less that of mature professional peers, and much more prison guard vs detainee.

    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/11/free-speech-absolutism.html

    On the flip side, universities are now staffed and professored by marginally intelligent people producing work that would be characterized as rote regurgitation a generation ago.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Yak-15 says:
    @rogue-one
    It is interesting to note that women, as a group, are almost as extremist against free speech as blacks. I can probably understand the motivations of blacks. They would like to use the cudgel of bureaucracy, inclusion, & equity to gain even greater resources & power. But women? Really? A world run by Al Sharpton , like Detroit or Baltimore, isn't going to be great for your basic white woman.

    A lot of women think of bullying of some other, equally idiotic modern problem when free speech is discussed. To them, stopping the gay kid from being called a fag (which rarely even happened twenty years ago), is more important than civil rights that sustain our republic.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. AndrewR says:
    @syonredux
    'Girls must be saved from going through this hell': Call for public inquiry into Telford sex scandal as it emerges up to 1,000 children as young as 11 were drugged, beaten and raped over 40 years
    Gang in Telford, Shropshire, has been sexually abusing teen girls since the 1980s
    Allegations 'have been mishandled by authorities' with attackers left unpunished
    Telford's Tory MP, Lucy Allan, has called for an urgent Rotherham-style inquiry
    Lucy Lowe, 16, was murdered alongside her mother and sister after her abuser set fire to their house. She had given birth to his child at just 14

    A brutal sex gang raped as many as 1,000 young girls over 40 years in what may be Britain's 'worst ever' child abuse scandal.

    Girls in the town of Telford, Shropshire, were drugged, beaten and raped at the hands of a grooming gang active since the 1980s.
     

    Home Office figures show there were 15.1 child sex crimes reported per 10,000 residents in the year to September 2015

     


    Lucy Lowe, 16, died alongside her mother and sister after the man who had been abusing her, 26-year-old Azhar Ali Mehmood, set fire to their house.
     

    The taxi-driver first targeted Lucy in 1997. She gave birth to his child when she was just 14.
     

    Another victim, who was drugged and gang raped by nine men two years later, said that Lucy's death was used as a warning to other girls who might speak out.
     

    Becky Watson, 13, was killed after a car she was in crashed. At the time the incident was reported as a 'prank'.

    However, it was revealed she had suffered two years of sex abuse at the hands of a grooming gang, which began when she was 11.

     


    Mubarek Ali, 34, sold teenage girls, some as young as 13, for sex above an Indian restaurant in Telford, Shropshire, after grooming them.

    His brother Ahdel Ali, 27, was handed a 26-year sentence after the pair sexually abused, trafficked, prostituted or tried to prostitute four teenagers.

     

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5487167/Telford-child-sex-scandal-involving-1-000-Britains-worst.html

    #NotAllPakistanis

    #IllRideWithYou

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. AndrewR says:
    @Pericles
    A prog POS safely ensconced in Seattle spews his smug hatred over conservatives. Big whoop. Apparently also tweets dreamily about Stalin-era size wind turbines.

    This one was funny though:


    If NYT really wants to expose its readers to the right, it should give Dinesh D'Souza, Dana Loesch, or Ben Shapiro a column. Let readers see, up close & personal, the crude tribalism & resentment that animate the RW base.

     

    Lol, windmill wanker has no idea.

    All three of the individuals whom he named are controlled opposition who will ruthlessly attack anyone who expresses sentiments to the right of the Overton window in terms of race and tribe.

    Vox.com pretends to be highbrow but this progtrog clearly demonstrates that it’s no better than Salon.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. AndrewR says:
    @Lot
    "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

    So trannies and Arabs rule over us?

    More like a tribe that is closely related to the Arabs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @syonredux
    'Girls must be saved from going through this hell': Call for public inquiry into Telford sex scandal as it emerges up to 1,000 children as young as 11 were drugged, beaten and raped over 40 years
    Gang in Telford, Shropshire, has been sexually abusing teen girls since the 1980s
    Allegations 'have been mishandled by authorities' with attackers left unpunished
    Telford's Tory MP, Lucy Allan, has called for an urgent Rotherham-style inquiry
    Lucy Lowe, 16, was murdered alongside her mother and sister after her abuser set fire to their house. She had given birth to his child at just 14

    A brutal sex gang raped as many as 1,000 young girls over 40 years in what may be Britain's 'worst ever' child abuse scandal.

    Girls in the town of Telford, Shropshire, were drugged, beaten and raped at the hands of a grooming gang active since the 1980s.
     

    Home Office figures show there were 15.1 child sex crimes reported per 10,000 residents in the year to September 2015

     


    Lucy Lowe, 16, died alongside her mother and sister after the man who had been abusing her, 26-year-old Azhar Ali Mehmood, set fire to their house.
     

    The taxi-driver first targeted Lucy in 1997. She gave birth to his child when she was just 14.
     

    Another victim, who was drugged and gang raped by nine men two years later, said that Lucy's death was used as a warning to other girls who might speak out.
     

    Becky Watson, 13, was killed after a car she was in crashed. At the time the incident was reported as a 'prank'.

    However, it was revealed she had suffered two years of sex abuse at the hands of a grooming gang, which began when she was 11.

     


    Mubarek Ali, 34, sold teenage girls, some as young as 13, for sex above an Indian restaurant in Telford, Shropshire, after grooming them.

    His brother Ahdel Ali, 27, was handed a 26-year sentence after the pair sexually abused, trafficked, prostituted or tried to prostitute four teenagers.

     

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5487167/Telford-child-sex-scandal-involving-1-000-Britains-worst.html

    Nothing on BBC news site about 1000 girls being drugged and raped. More important news, according to the BBC:
    • India’s gay prince opens his palace
    • Footballer sorry after spitting
    • Reality Stars really do have brains

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. AndrewR says:
    @Moses

    Uh, why would groups supposedly not “currently in positions of power” favor using power to limit free speech?
     
    Perhaps because when noticing becomes a crime it's easier to grab power and suppress realtalk which might threaten that power?

    Steve, they want to outlaw only speech they don't like.

    Btw the charts lead me to an inescapable conclusion: "Say goodbye to the 1st Amendment when America tips majority non-White." The groundwork and demographics are being laid as we speak.

    The races ARE different intrinsically, culturally, politically. America could only have been created by Whites.

    It wasn’t created by “Whites.” It was created by ASPs [there are no non-white Anglo-Saxons] who have chosen to cede their country to other peoples.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Rubbish. Some nineteen of the fifty-sex signatories to the Declaration of Independence were Scots, including its primary author, Thomas Jefferson (who was doubtless familiar with, and probably influenced by, the Declaration of Arbroath). Small but not insignificant numbers of Dutch also contributed to the creation of America.

    However, there most certainly weren't any Hindoos, Arabs, Orientals, or Negroes calling the shots....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Travis says:
    @Anonymous
    Those two things are not the opposing ends of a single continuum. You could have both.

    you could have both inclusivity and free speech…but the current advocates of inclusivity actually want to eliminate diverse viewpoints on campus and outlaw divergent ideas. Thus those in charge of our universities do not believe they can have both…which is the reason Larry Summers lost the presidency of Harvard. His divergent views were seen as incompatible with a “diverse” inclusive campus.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Doug
    The dumbing down of American universities has done considerable damage here. As Audacious Epigone showed belief in free speech is highly correlated to intelligence. Now consider that the average IQ of an American university student has dropped between 10-15 points since 1970. (Think this was all an Audacious Epigone post, but can't find the link.)

    Whereas in the past, college was explicitly designed for the cognitive elite, we're now trying to push every 18 year old into getting a bachelors. There's justifications of varying merit: the decimation of the blue collar middle class, differential earning power between college graduates and non-graduates, declining standards of high school diplomas, and attempts to reduce hereditary inequality. But unless you believe that all 18 year olds have near equal cognitive capacity, it just ain't gonna work.

    Pushing more people through is not only going to hurt the marginal student (sense of personal failures, high dropout rates, crushing student debt). It's going to do irreparable harm to university culture. Declining free speech and intellectual openness is only one example. Another anecdotal observation (my wife's an adjunct at a state U) is that colleges are much less collegial. Professors have largely been turned into babysitters a la high school teachers. There's just only so many "dog ate my homework" excuses that you can deal with. The relationship between student and professor has become much less that of mature professional peers, and much more prison guard vs detainee.

    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/11/free-speech-absolutism.html

    Right now, the average IQ is crossing below the 100 IQ mark at US universities. This means that going to university is now a signal to people that you are dumber than average.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    OT

    https://www.twincities.com/2018/03/08/augsburg-professor-faces-deportation-years-after-failed-asylum-bid/

    Kenyan guy comes over in 1992 on a J-1 visa as an exchange student. Somehow he’s still here in 2005 when his visa finally expires. J-1′s don’t last that long and tend not to be extended that much, so there’s a bit of a mystery there, but he got a PhD, so maybe he was a student the whole time.

    Anyway, his wife and two kids showed up illegally very soon after he first arrived, probably on an overstay of a tourist visa, and never leave. The kids are DACA. A third kid was born in 1998, so birthright citizenship. Wife is still illegal.

    Upon the 2005 visa expiration he applies for political asylum, is rejected.

    At that point Obama’s in office, so he just has to show up and say hi to immigration from time to time.

    Now they want him out.

    By the way, he’s a tenure track “studies,” uh, English, professor at a dipshit college, which is “standing behind him.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Good. Arrest him and put him and his kin on a plane today. Rinse and repeat until these assh0les get the message. I don't care if any of them are just weeks away from curing cancer. I want them to GTF home.
    , @Autochthon
    FOOL! Don't you realise it's well known and irrefutable that being a tenured professor is such an onerous and unrewarding job Americans just won't do it?!

    It's a great example of the enemy's snares, by the by, and the reason it's always useless to reason with or even debate these creatures. It's always a game of heads I win and tails you lose and when did you stop beating your wife? If it's sweeping offal in a slaughterhouse or even mowing lawns it's a job Americans "just won't do" so you must be grateful for Paco and Taco's humility and hard work. If it's the faculty of a university or being a programmer or engineer it's evidence of how worthy and brilliant and irreplaceable invaders are. And no one ever makes the simple point that these two are contradictory claims: they mean Americans are simultaneously too sophisticated to mow lawns and too dim-witted to write Java. Nevermind that more people of all stripes – stupid and intelligent – lower the costs of (each type of) labour raise the costs of realty, which benefits a tiny fraction of the Americans who employ that labour and own (and collect rents for) most of the realty....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @istevefan

    Uh, why would groups supposedly not “currently in positions of power” favor using power to limit free speech? Isn’t a more plausible interpretation that the people on campus who are more likely to favor free speech are those less likely to be powerful on campus?
     
    There is a quote floating around on the internet misattributed to Voltair, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." Though it is a fake, maybe you can rephrase it for the free speech phenomena you have noticed. "To learn who is in power, find out who opposes free speech."

    It’s interesting that blacks at historically black colleges have less extremist, more pro-freedom views.
     
    That's because they live in their own Wakanda and don't have to deal with the unpleasant views of the other.

    It’s interesting that blacks at historically black colleges have less extremist, more pro-freedom views.

    That’s because they live in their own Wakanda and don’t have to deal with the unpleasant views of the other.

    Yep, free speech for me (and my people), but not for thee (and your people).

    I’m beginning to suspect that the driving force of today’s leftism is not the desire to increase justice, but simply animus towards whites.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Moses

    Uh, why would groups supposedly not “currently in positions of power” favor using power to limit free speech?
     
    Perhaps because when noticing becomes a crime it's easier to grab power and suppress realtalk which might threaten that power?

    Steve, they want to outlaw only speech they don't like.

    Btw the charts lead me to an inescapable conclusion: "Say goodbye to the 1st Amendment when America tips majority non-White." The groundwork and demographics are being laid as we speak.

    The races ARE different intrinsically, culturally, politically. America could only have been created by Whites.

    At some point, whites will have to realize that we can’t rely on a nicely-worded document written more than 200 years ago by thoughtful, white men.

    Like it or not, the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

    If whites wants freedom of speech or to be treated equally, we’ll have to fight for it. I’m not talking about violence, but fighting in the same way that American Jews fight for their people, creating lobby groups, funding politicians, creating media outlets, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    I was with you until you said "we can't be violent!" and then you descend into 'pithy blog posts will save the day!' nonsense.

    You won't be able to use the same levers ad the Juden cause Jews don't have the same buttons to push as Europeans. You're not going to engage in high verbal IQ antics to fix this.
    , @Corvinus
    "If whites wants freedom of speech or to be treated equally, we’ll have to fight for it. I’m not talking about violence, but fighting in the same way that American Jews fight for their people, creating lobby groups, funding politicians, creating media outlets, etc."

    Who is "we", Kemosabe?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Free Speech is great but it is yet another example of our own ideals being used against us. I wonder if we aren’t better off giving up on it. Go full U.K. from the right.

    Suppress leftist speech as much as possible. Declare racism, white privilege, transgender, etc etc to be hate words and forbid them. Jail liberals for anti-White tweets. Fund all the Nazi LARP goon squads and let them disrupt every enemy gathering. Immigration “activists” could be silenced on national security and opiod epidemic grounds.

    Why should we continue to defend universal principles and let our enemies use them against us? We already don’t have the freedom of speech, it seems like more classic cuckservatism to obsess about it in the abstract.

    If a fight is unavoidable it’s always better to hit the other guy first. Everyone knows what kind of speech laws we would be looking at under a Kampala Harris administration. So why wait around for it to happen to us, if we could just do it to them first?

    Read More
    • Disagree: Abe, YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Barnard
    On a practical level, Trump can't even get judges to let him rescind executive orders signed by his predecessor, something that is obviously within the duties of his office. The left has weaponized the judiciary against us, they already hit first.
    , @Tulip
    Are you trolling?

    Who is going to suppress leftist speech? Mitt Romney? John McCain? Mitch McConnell?

    What court is going to uphold jail for Left-wing alleged "hate speech"?

    Free speech to protect cultural subversion is the tactic of a faction out of power. Notice how the Left were all free speech absolutists until they achieved cultural hegemony?

    , @Jack Hanson
    Personally, I like the fact they're so open about their insanity.
    , @Samuel Skinner
    Welcome to reaction or "wait, people had legitimate reasons for all the things they did prior to the Enlightenment". The fact the left was for free speech before it was against it is a good sign this is one of those cases.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. AndrewR says:
    @Doug
    The dumbing down of American universities has done considerable damage here. As Audacious Epigone showed belief in free speech is highly correlated to intelligence. Now consider that the average IQ of an American university student has dropped between 10-15 points since 1970. (Think this was all an Audacious Epigone post, but can't find the link.)

    Whereas in the past, college was explicitly designed for the cognitive elite, we're now trying to push every 18 year old into getting a bachelors. There's justifications of varying merit: the decimation of the blue collar middle class, differential earning power between college graduates and non-graduates, declining standards of high school diplomas, and attempts to reduce hereditary inequality. But unless you believe that all 18 year olds have near equal cognitive capacity, it just ain't gonna work.

    Pushing more people through is not only going to hurt the marginal student (sense of personal failures, high dropout rates, crushing student debt). It's going to do irreparable harm to university culture. Declining free speech and intellectual openness is only one example. Another anecdotal observation (my wife's an adjunct at a state U) is that colleges are much less collegial. Professors have largely been turned into babysitters a la high school teachers. There's just only so many "dog ate my homework" excuses that you can deal with. The relationship between student and professor has become much less that of mature professional peers, and much more prison guard vs detainee.

    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/11/free-speech-absolutism.html

    Given that you’re married to a professor at a university, I suppose you are better versed in the realities of current year tertiary education than I am, but what I have concluded over my years of reading about American colleges is that the student-professor relationship would be much better described as customer vs wage slave, with the “management” taking the side of the “customers” over the “employees.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux
    'Girls must be saved from going through this hell': Call for public inquiry into Telford sex scandal as it emerges up to 1,000 children as young as 11 were drugged, beaten and raped over 40 years
    Gang in Telford, Shropshire, has been sexually abusing teen girls since the 1980s
    Allegations 'have been mishandled by authorities' with attackers left unpunished
    Telford's Tory MP, Lucy Allan, has called for an urgent Rotherham-style inquiry
    Lucy Lowe, 16, was murdered alongside her mother and sister after her abuser set fire to their house. She had given birth to his child at just 14

    A brutal sex gang raped as many as 1,000 young girls over 40 years in what may be Britain's 'worst ever' child abuse scandal.

    Girls in the town of Telford, Shropshire, were drugged, beaten and raped at the hands of a grooming gang active since the 1980s.
     

    Home Office figures show there were 15.1 child sex crimes reported per 10,000 residents in the year to September 2015

     


    Lucy Lowe, 16, died alongside her mother and sister after the man who had been abusing her, 26-year-old Azhar Ali Mehmood, set fire to their house.
     

    The taxi-driver first targeted Lucy in 1997. She gave birth to his child when she was just 14.
     

    Another victim, who was drugged and gang raped by nine men two years later, said that Lucy's death was used as a warning to other girls who might speak out.
     

    Becky Watson, 13, was killed after a car she was in crashed. At the time the incident was reported as a 'prank'.

    However, it was revealed she had suffered two years of sex abuse at the hands of a grooming gang, which began when she was 11.

     


    Mubarek Ali, 34, sold teenage girls, some as young as 13, for sex above an Indian restaurant in Telford, Shropshire, after grooming them.

    His brother Ahdel Ali, 27, was handed a 26-year sentence after the pair sexually abused, trafficked, prostituted or tried to prostitute four teenagers.

     

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5487167/Telford-child-sex-scandal-involving-1-000-Britains-worst.html

    Gang in Telford, Shropshire, has been sexually abusing teen girls since the 1980s
    Allegations ‘have been mishandled by authorities’

    And yet, these same authorities will rain down punishment on you like fire from Heaven if you insult these rapists on the internet.

    So you can see, in real time, what happens when you value inclusivity/diversity more than free speech.

    And the thing is, this contradiction is so glaringly obvious that ordinary people point it out daily on Twitter. But for some reason, I don’t remember any op-eds in the NYT about it.

    Read More
    • Agree: jim jones
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "So you can see, in real time, what happens when you value inclusivity/diversity more than free speech."
     
    And, in a larger sense, this is what happens when you give up your right to bear arms. In Britain, the Left has the guns, the police, the media and the law courts. Don't like what they decree? Tough. You're their bitch now. Your guns were Ultima Ratio Populum: the Final Argument of the People. The British people forswore their final argument. But the globalists did not. Now the globalists get to have their way with the British people: a Teva sandal stamping on a British face — forever.

    Why should the British authorities lift a finger to help thousands of raped white girls? The disarmed whites pose no threat. The Muslim rapers, by contrast, are organized, violent, politically potent and have infinite reinforcements available overseas. Besides, Muslims are the new black: fresh, cool, and above reproach ... by law.

    There was a comment here some time ago from a DC staffer whose Recucklican congressman confided that he personally hated Trump and Trump's agenda but that he had to go along with it because if he didn't, his own constituents would "kill" him. Now I don't know whether that was literally true or not, but it doesn't matter. The congresscritter thought it was close enough to true to guide his behavior. Obviously, this congress"man" is a contemptible cur who has no wish to uphold the will of the people who represented him to do just that. But he has even less wish to face the Final Argument of those same People, whether literally or metaphorically. So he does what he is supposed to do even if only from fear rather than from honor.

    This is the magic of Ultima Ratio Populum. Just as Adam Smith's Invisible Hand miraculously converts the self-interest of many individuals into altruistic good for society, so does Ultima Ratio Populum convert fourth-rate politicians into champions of obscure and ignored citizens.

    If you give up the trump card, you give up the hand. If you give up the hand, everyone knows you are not serious about the game and ... you ... lose.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. AndrewR says:
    @Anonymous
    Those two things are not the opposing ends of a single continuum. You could have both.

    To some extent they’re mutually exclusive. There’s no way to have “inclusion” if people are allowed to say “I hate [group x]“, “we need to kill [group x]” “[group x] doesn’t belong here”, etc. You either have limits on free speech or you have limits on inclusion.

    Of course, what we have now is a perverse system where hateful, violent, exclusive language towards certain groups [whites, males, right-wingers] is tolerated if not encouraged, while even the most slightly “non-inclusive” towards protected groups is harshly punished

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. AndrewR says:
    @Anonymous
    As the saying goes, 'Those who choose security over liberty deserve neither'.

    Yuck. Stop misquoting him. He said:

    “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

    Fundamentally different from your butchered misquote.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Barnard says:
    @27 year old
    Free Speech is great but it is yet another example of our own ideals being used against us. I wonder if we aren't better off giving up on it. Go full U.K. from the right.

    Suppress leftist speech as much as possible. Declare racism, white privilege, transgender, etc etc to be hate words and forbid them. Jail liberals for anti-White tweets. Fund all the Nazi LARP goon squads and let them disrupt every enemy gathering. Immigration "activists" could be silenced on national security and opiod epidemic grounds.

    Why should we continue to defend universal principles and let our enemies use them against us? We already don't have the freedom of speech, it seems like more classic cuckservatism to obsess about it in the abstract.

    If a fight is unavoidable it's always better to hit the other guy first. Everyone knows what kind of speech laws we would be looking at under a Kampala Harris administration. So why wait around for it to happen to us, if we could just do it to them first?

    On a practical level, Trump can’t even get judges to let him rescind executive orders signed by his predecessor, something that is obviously within the duties of his office. The left has weaponized the judiciary against us, they already hit first.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. A young American woman named Brittany Pettibone was detained and sent to a prison in the United Kingdom for alleged political crimes. The political crime was she was going to meet with a British political activist and speak at the famous speaker’s corner at Hyde Park.

    Brittany Pettibone is a Trump supporter who is pro-sovereignty and pro-free speech. She is a nice young lady, who even has the guts to say she doesn’t support Trump’s negotiating tactic of offering amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. Pettibone has covered many of the free speech events that the Antifa thugs have attacked, including at least one of the Battles of Berkeley.

    Brittany Pettibone was kept as a political prisoner in the United Kingdom for 3 days. Prime Minister Theresa May and Home Secretary Amber Rudd are puppet whores for the evil English ruling class. Theresa May and Amber Rudd are totalitarians who want to crush FREE SPEECH in the United Kingdom.

    Young people could bring down the UK ruling class by renouncing the government debt of the UK. The UK ruling class has used the Bank of England to maintain themselves in power. Young people in the UK must have the brains to hit the UK ruling class at their most vulnerable point. The Bank of England is the most vulnerable point in the power structure of the UK ruling class.

    The Bank of England and monetary extremism is the field of battle. The corporate propaganda apparatus in England is used to protect the Bank of England.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. FREE SPEECH is being attacked by the ruling classes of all European Christian nations.

    Free Speech does not exist in France, Britain, Germany, Canada, Australia or most other European Christian nations.

    In the USA, free speech is under attack from the corporate propaganda apparatus and from the ruling class. The Republican Party ruling class supports the concentration of media power as much as the Democrat Party does.

    Totalitarian governments render their debts odious by their actions. Young people must renounce government debt to destroy the totalitarian governments attacking their countries.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. Tulip says:

    Is it possible that if you attend an all-Black college you place less value on “inclusiveness” than if a Black attending an non-Black majority school?

    One also wonders if there is some group antagonism between Blacks that attend historical institutions and the Black snowflakes at the Ivies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. N.B. also the false premises: the canard that to be inclusive is at odds with free speech..in reality, of course, this idea is patently false. Free speech is the most inclusive possible form of interaction and communication: it means everyone, from the deranged lunatic screaming pointless obscenities, to the calm, ingenius, and irrefutably reasonable person has his say. The atheists and the theists, the conservative and the liberal, the vegetarian and the carnivore, the hedonist and the ascetic, and everyone in between, for any topic or spectrum you may mention. That’s the whole point.

    “Inclusive,” as it is used by the writers and the powers that be in academia (both the administrators, and, as you rightly point out, the hectoring mob amongst the students and faculty who actually are the ones in power) means precisely its opposite: exclusive. Their “inclusion” means excluding anyone who disagrees with them, makes them uncomfortable, or otherwise isn’t to their liking. Note that no one favouring free speech wants this kind of thing for his opposite number. Anne Coulter, Tucker Carlson, Jared Taylor, John Derbyshire, Steve Sailer, and the like aren’t running about demanding that Barak Obama, Jerry Brown, and Nancy Pelosi be silenced; rather, they work to expose the idiocy of such scum with better, more compelling arguments which expose the lies and errors.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  68. Tulip says:
    @27 year old
    Free Speech is great but it is yet another example of our own ideals being used against us. I wonder if we aren't better off giving up on it. Go full U.K. from the right.

    Suppress leftist speech as much as possible. Declare racism, white privilege, transgender, etc etc to be hate words and forbid them. Jail liberals for anti-White tweets. Fund all the Nazi LARP goon squads and let them disrupt every enemy gathering. Immigration "activists" could be silenced on national security and opiod epidemic grounds.

    Why should we continue to defend universal principles and let our enemies use them against us? We already don't have the freedom of speech, it seems like more classic cuckservatism to obsess about it in the abstract.

    If a fight is unavoidable it's always better to hit the other guy first. Everyone knows what kind of speech laws we would be looking at under a Kampala Harris administration. So why wait around for it to happen to us, if we could just do it to them first?

    Are you trolling?

    Who is going to suppress leftist speech? Mitt Romney? John McCain? Mitch McConnell?

    What court is going to uphold jail for Left-wing alleged “hate speech”?

    Free speech to protect cultural subversion is the tactic of a faction out of power. Notice how the Left were all free speech absolutists until they achieved cultural hegemony?

    Read More
    • Replies: @27 year old
    You're saying we don't have the power to do it, which, maybe maybe not.

    That's not really the point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Buzz Mohawk
    Isn't this a contrived, forced choice? "Inclusivity" (whatever that is) vs. Free Speech?

    Let's try another survey: "When forced to choose, which is more important to you, air or free speech?

    Students currently in need of breathing will choose air.

    Why must one thing contradict the other?

    How many ways can we set up a question like that?

    Because inclusivity (a/k/a diversity) is promoted and declared as the end-all, be-all of social organization yet no valid argument is ever put forward to support it. Then when valid questions concerning this agenda arise and valid arguments are put forth against it, they are hysterically dismissed with name-calling and other fallacious arguments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. “Uh, why would groups supposedly not “currently in positions of power” favor using power to limit free speech? Isn’t a more plausible interpretation that the people on campus who are more likely to favor free speech are those less likely to be powerful on campus?”

    The important qualification here is ‘on campus’. That is, trannies and blacks have the kind of power that has been ceded to them because it has not been considered worth the fight. I suppose what irks minorities is seeing the kind of roles that are important to maintaining civilisation being done by white men, because it makes them feel like they are at the mercy of others. This sense of inadequacy leads to a sense of paranoia that their powerlessness makes them vulnerable, and they imagine that the people who populate these job roles are using their power to control them. Of course the white men who do these jobs don’t think like that. But if feminist humanities graduates also suffer feelings of inadequacy for the same reasons, perhaps it helps them to think that they are the goodwhites battling for the rights of the downtrodden against the badwhites.

    So the ‘powerful’ on campus probably don’t truly feel all that powerful. And this may make them all the more unbearable when they have their own institutionalised taste of power at college. Student protests are like riots for people with delusional professional aspirations. Are rioters powerful?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. Abe says: • Website

    Everyone knows what kind of speech laws we would be looking at under a Kampala Harris administration

    I unfortunately had to logon to Facebook last week to do a quick chore and noticed a trending item from its (fake) news feed that Anthony Kennedy would be retiring this summer (no one else really confirming so I guess it’s still rumor at this point). If so, it gives us breathing room of at least 10 years for the 1st and 2nd Amendments, though honestly Thomas should do the right thing and retire as well, given his advanced age.

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax

    though honestly Thomas should do the right thing and retire as well, given his advanced age.
     
    Yeah, but good luck finding an equally conservative young black judge, or getting a non-black nominee confirmed.
    , @Calvin X Hobbes
    "If so, it gives us breathing room of at least 10 years for the 1st and 2nd Amendments, though honestly Thomas should do the right thing and retire as well, given his advanced age."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Current_justices

    Thomas is 69. Breyer is 79, Kennedy is 81, and Ginsburg is 84. Alito is 67.

    We'd better start thinking seriously about the long-term future (as in, more than 10 years out) if we want that long-term future to be tolerable.
    , @Art Deco
    Thomas is 69. That's a satisfactory age to retire. Recall, though, that Antonin Scalia was 80 at the time of his death, John Paul Stevens 90 at the time he departed the court, Sandra Day O'Connor was 75 (and had had a disabled husband for 15 years or more), William Rehnquist was 80, Byron White was 77, Harry Blackmun was 84, Thurgood Marshall was 82 (and a triumph of the taxidermists art), Wm. Brennan was 84, Lewis Powell was 80, Warren Burger was 79, William O. Douglas was 77 (and daft from a stroke), John Marshall Harlan was 73 (and moribund), Hugo Black was 85 (and also moribund), and Earl Warren was 78. Abe Fortas was 59 at the time he resigned from the court, but he'd been caught in a scandal. In the last 50 years, Potter Stewart and David Souter have been the only justices who voluntarily retired before they hit 70.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Everyone knows what kind of speech laws we would be looking at under a Kampala Harris administration

    I wonder if Kamala Harris and Willie Brown conducted their negotiations in the back seat of an Impala?

    Read More
    • LOL: Corn
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. Mr. Anon says:
    @syonredux
    'Girls must be saved from going through this hell': Call for public inquiry into Telford sex scandal as it emerges up to 1,000 children as young as 11 were drugged, beaten and raped over 40 years
    Gang in Telford, Shropshire, has been sexually abusing teen girls since the 1980s
    Allegations 'have been mishandled by authorities' with attackers left unpunished
    Telford's Tory MP, Lucy Allan, has called for an urgent Rotherham-style inquiry
    Lucy Lowe, 16, was murdered alongside her mother and sister after her abuser set fire to their house. She had given birth to his child at just 14

    A brutal sex gang raped as many as 1,000 young girls over 40 years in what may be Britain's 'worst ever' child abuse scandal.

    Girls in the town of Telford, Shropshire, were drugged, beaten and raped at the hands of a grooming gang active since the 1980s.
     

    Home Office figures show there were 15.1 child sex crimes reported per 10,000 residents in the year to September 2015

     


    Lucy Lowe, 16, died alongside her mother and sister after the man who had been abusing her, 26-year-old Azhar Ali Mehmood, set fire to their house.
     

    The taxi-driver first targeted Lucy in 1997. She gave birth to his child when she was just 14.
     

    Another victim, who was drugged and gang raped by nine men two years later, said that Lucy's death was used as a warning to other girls who might speak out.
     

    Becky Watson, 13, was killed after a car she was in crashed. At the time the incident was reported as a 'prank'.

    However, it was revealed she had suffered two years of sex abuse at the hands of a grooming gang, which began when she was 11.

     


    Mubarek Ali, 34, sold teenage girls, some as young as 13, for sex above an Indian restaurant in Telford, Shropshire, after grooming them.

    His brother Ahdel Ali, 27, was handed a 26-year sentence after the pair sexually abused, trafficked, prostituted or tried to prostitute four teenagers.

     

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5487167/Telford-child-sex-scandal-involving-1-000-Britains-worst.html

    And Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen of Britain First were jailed for pointing out the nature of these rape-gangs:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/britain-first-leaders-jayda-fransen-paul-golding-jailed-mugshots-police-muslim-hate-crime-kent-a8246571.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. So-called “free speech” is a tool used by white men to subjugate Peopke of Color. Read Leonard Pitts.

    Your grandkids will be brown, you fragile bigots.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. Another good argument against women’s suffrage.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  76. Tulip says:
    @MJMD

    Here’s a conjecture: in my experience, there is a class of effectively autodidactic blacks. I know they exist since I have met a number of them (and I’ve never really known that many blacks at all). I think they tend to be people who grow up in areas that are significantly black, and to some degree identify with that, but do not identify with the overt anti-intellectualism of mainstream black culture. They read books, for instance, and they choose which books to read. Some (but not all, I think) have at least something of an Afrocentric bent, and are skeptical of SJWism, and often adopt a contrarian line. I cannot think of any public figure at all who exemplifies this: maybe a cross between John McWhorter, Cornel West, and Louis Farrakhan.
     
    Uh, don't get mad at me, but this is actually what I used to like about Ta Nehisi Coates.

    And, to be frank, I wish I still could. Coates gets a lot of abuse here (much of it well deserved), and there's no question he's become less interesting as success (undeserved, at least in such ridiculous scale) has gone to his head. But, before Between the World and Me and that absurd MacArthur grant, I found his essentially autodidactic background refreshing. Comic book geek in Baltimore, Howard drop-out (because of his own immaturity and foolishness, he admits), worked the black beat for a dozen rags, spent his free time reading Tony Judt's Postwar and Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands (which brings to mind Steve's comments about Lin-Manuel Miranda - how many Nuyoricans spend their summer holidays reading Ron Chernow biographies?).

    Coates's playing around with both the racial extremism he inherited from his parents and the grim, hopeless, anti-theist, postmodern ideas in academic vogue today was dangerous, to be sure, like mixing chlorine and ammonia. But so long as it was just play he could at least be honest about it (as in, give his own honest take, whether it was crazy or true). Writing in Between the World and Me that he was happy to see the twin towers burn was honest.

    But now his significance has a "black intellectual" has been blown out of all proportion by a fawning white intelligentsia of similarly nihilistic bent, the real villains in all of this, while actual black intellectuals like McWhorter are pushed to the side. I almost feel sorry for Coates. I don't think it's a surprise that the last book we saw out of him was just warmed over Atlantic articles, and I expect we'll hear even less from/of him as the years grind on. The flame of honest inquiry that should move an autodidact (or even a half-decent writer) has been drowned if not quenched in him. You can't play the part of somebody else's useful idiot unless you can refrain from publicly challenging their idiocies.

    Ta Nehisi Coates plays the same role in the Progressive eco-system that Ben Shapiro plays in the Conservative eco-system. Or should I say echo-system?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Whiskey says: • Website
    @rogue-one
    It is interesting to note that women, as a group, are almost as extremist against free speech as blacks. I can probably understand the motivations of blacks. They would like to use the cudgel of bureaucracy, inclusion, & equity to gain even greater resources & power. But women? Really? A world run by Al Sharpton , like Detroit or Baltimore, isn't going to be great for your basic white woman.

    Its great for women because its all Alpha swagger all the time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Svigor says:

    Those who belong to groups historically or currently in positions of power — white students, men or Republicans — tended to favor free speech, while nearly two in three students who were black, women or Democrats favored inclusivity.

    Functionally, the people most likely to favor free speech are those who have less power and better arguments.

    True. But if you want to be a dick, tell leftists “yeah this is probably why blacks, women, and other Democrat constituent groups are failures. They believe in stupid shit like banning free speech in exchange for a mess of pottage.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. @Pericles
    A prog POS safely ensconced in Seattle spews his smug hatred over conservatives. Big whoop. Apparently also tweets dreamily about Stalin-era size wind turbines.

    This one was funny though:


    If NYT really wants to expose its readers to the right, it should give Dinesh D'Souza, Dana Loesch, or Ben Shapiro a column. Let readers see, up close & personal, the crude tribalism & resentment that animate the RW base.

     

    Lol, windmill wanker has no idea.

    Give me a column and he’ll never leave his hugbox.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Anonymous
    Yea, good point. "Inclusivity" is vague and is going to be interpreted differently by people. A lot of the blacks being surveyed probably think that favoring free speech over "inclusivity" means oppressing blacks or something.

    I would think Inclusivity means everybody in the pool. No child left behind, that sort of thing. Turns out they mean Excluding some people.

    The free speech movement was never about free speech. It was actually the MY speech movement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @27 year old
    Free Speech is great but it is yet another example of our own ideals being used against us. I wonder if we aren't better off giving up on it. Go full U.K. from the right.

    Suppress leftist speech as much as possible. Declare racism, white privilege, transgender, etc etc to be hate words and forbid them. Jail liberals for anti-White tweets. Fund all the Nazi LARP goon squads and let them disrupt every enemy gathering. Immigration "activists" could be silenced on national security and opiod epidemic grounds.

    Why should we continue to defend universal principles and let our enemies use them against us? We already don't have the freedom of speech, it seems like more classic cuckservatism to obsess about it in the abstract.

    If a fight is unavoidable it's always better to hit the other guy first. Everyone knows what kind of speech laws we would be looking at under a Kampala Harris administration. So why wait around for it to happen to us, if we could just do it to them first?

    Personally, I like the fact they’re so open about their insanity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Svigor says:

    “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

    So trannies and Arabs rule over us?

    It’s cute when Jews say crap like this. No, really – it’s precious.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  83. Svigor says:

    If NYT really wants to expose its readers to the right, it should give Dinesh D’Souza, Dana Loesch, or Ben Shapiro a column. Let readers see, up close & personal, the crude tribalism & resentment that animate the RW base.

    Or the NYT could just, you know, try free speech; let people comment as long as they don’t curse, sling insults, or break the law. They’d get a dose of white tribalism from me every day. Would love to wrek NYT-reading mopes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. The coalition that makes up the left is far more volatile than the right. This means they have to spend an inordinate amount of time and energy maintaining it or else it collapses and they lose all their gib-me-dats. Silence is the tribute they pay for diversity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  85. snorlax says:
    @Abe

    Everyone knows what kind of speech laws we would be looking at under a Kampala Harris administration
     
    I unfortunately had to logon to Facebook last week to do a quick chore and noticed a trending item from its (fake) news feed that Anthony Kennedy would be retiring this summer (no one else really confirming so I guess it’s still rumor at this point). If so, it gives us breathing room of at least 10 years for the 1st and 2nd Amendments, though honestly Thomas should do the right thing and retire as well, given his advanced age.

    though honestly Thomas should do the right thing and retire as well, given his advanced age.

    Yeah, but good luck finding an equally conservative young black judge, or getting a non-black nominee confirmed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax
    Thomas's grand-nephew (whom he raised) is a lawyer, but a graduate of the highly-prestigious (not) Western New England University School of Law and his bar membership is inactive. https://www.lawyer.com/mark-elliott-martin.html

    He also has a son, who went into finance, not law. https://www.brightscope.com/financial-planning/advisor/541566/Jamal-Adeen-Thomas/

    So no luck finding any young conservative black jurists there.
    , @Lot
    There are plenty of conservative black judges. George W Bush searched high and low for them! Mostly they are too old to be nominated to the SC, like Rogers Brown.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Rogers_Brown

    In a reversal of the normal pattern of drifting left, Clinton appointed judge Johnnie Rawlinson, first black woman on the 9th Cir, has drifted right and usually votes with Republicans, especially on criminal cases.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_B._Rawlinson
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Why are they “historically” black? Aren’t they still? If they are “historically” anything, it’s Negro, as in The United Negro College Fund. Although, unless I missed something, it still goes by the name. So, I can contribute to negro colleges, as long as don’t call them that. I guess I should call them “historically black colleges, now enrolling students of color almost exclusively.”

    I’m here all week. Tip your waitresses.

    Uh, I mean, persons of wait.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Barnard
    I think the term historic is used because if they limited enrollment to blacks only they would be in violation of Federal Government policy and not qualify for government money, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. snorlax says:
    @snorlax

    though honestly Thomas should do the right thing and retire as well, given his advanced age.
     
    Yeah, but good luck finding an equally conservative young black judge, or getting a non-black nominee confirmed.

    Thomas’s grand-nephew (whom he raised) is a lawyer, but a graduate of the highly-prestigious (not) Western New England University School of Law and his bar membership is inactive. https://www.lawyer.com/mark-elliott-martin.html

    He also has a son, who went into finance, not law. https://www.brightscope.com/financial-planning/advisor/541566/Jamal-Adeen-Thomas/

    So no luck finding any young conservative black jurists there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Corvinus says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    Isn't this a contrived, forced choice? "Inclusivity" (whatever that is) vs. Free Speech?

    Let's try another survey: "When forced to choose, which is more important to you, air or free speech?

    Students currently in need of breathing will choose air.

    Why must one thing contradict the other?

    How many ways can we set up a question like that?

    “Isn’t this a contrived, forced choice? “Inclusivity” (whatever that is) vs. Free Speech?”

    I’m surprised Mr. Sailer didn’t notice it, nor show us this little nugget from the link.

    “Students may struggle to balance free speech and inclusivity in the abstract, but they overwhelmingly and broadly prefer a learning environment that is open and permits offensive speech to one that is positive and limits it.”

    Again, what does “open learning environment” mean?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Corvinus says:
    @TheBoom
    Thet findings aren't surprising. White men came up the concept of free speech and they are the only ones majority in favor of it especially if they are conservatives. Women are a combination of totalitarian and desiring of protection by nature so not surprising that they are very much against free speech.

    “White men came up the concept of free speech…”

    It was actually Athenians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    It was actually Athenians.

    And wuz the Athenians kangz or something, Corvinus?
    , @Daniel Williams

    “White men came up the concept of free speech…”

    It was actually Athenians.
     
    Who were what? Kangz?
    , @guest
    Tell that to Socrates.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    It was actually Athenians.

     

    We wuz philosipherz

    Free speech in action in Greece:


    The Death of Socrates

    But there is another part of the indictment which says that he teaches
    men not to receive the gods whom the city receives, and has other new
    gods. 'Is that the way in which he is supposed to corrupt the youth?'
    'Yes, it is.' 'Has he only new gods, or none at all?' 'None at all.'
    'What, not even the sun and moon?' 'No; why, he says that the sun is a
    stone, and the moon earth.'

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. res says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    Isn't this a contrived, forced choice? "Inclusivity" (whatever that is) vs. Free Speech?

    Let's try another survey: "When forced to choose, which is more important to you, air or free speech?

    Students currently in need of breathing will choose air.

    Why must one thing contradict the other?

    How many ways can we set up a question like that?

    Isn’t this a contrived, forced choice? “Inclusivity” (whatever that is) vs. Free Speech?

    I don’t think so. iSteve is full of examples where those two principles are in tension. In most, “inclusivity” (as you say, whatever that is, does it have something to do with the right of blacks to have their own segregated spaces whenever they desire?) seems to be taking precedence. Which is very strange given both the Constitution and history of the US.

    That said, you are right about

    Why must one thing contradict the other?

    Perhaps answering that why is the conversation that should be taking place. Why is “inclusivity” so sacred that even making arguments against some of the implications is unacceptable?

    P.S. Steve’s point about lack of power and desire for freedom of speech is some deadly noticing. An excellent thing to mention the next time this conversation comes up in my vicinity. It ties in nicely with the observation of the sea change in attitudes on the left towards free speech over time (compare attitudes towards McCarthyite black lists and cases like Brendan Eich).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Lot says:
    @rogue-one
    Not really.

    We are ruled by an elite class of "progressives" or "liberals". The elite considers trannies & arabs as a victim class to be protected from evil natives.

    I agree, just having fun with istevefan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Abe

    Everyone knows what kind of speech laws we would be looking at under a Kampala Harris administration
     
    I unfortunately had to logon to Facebook last week to do a quick chore and noticed a trending item from its (fake) news feed that Anthony Kennedy would be retiring this summer (no one else really confirming so I guess it’s still rumor at this point). If so, it gives us breathing room of at least 10 years for the 1st and 2nd Amendments, though honestly Thomas should do the right thing and retire as well, given his advanced age.

    “If so, it gives us breathing room of at least 10 years for the 1st and 2nd Amendments, though honestly Thomas should do the right thing and retire as well, given his advanced age.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Current_justices

    Thomas is 69. Breyer is 79, Kennedy is 81, and Ginsburg is 84. Alito is 67.

    We’d better start thinking seriously about the long-term future (as in, more than 10 years out) if we want that long-term future to be tolerable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Rolling the dice on 5-4 decisions in perpetuity to keep us from needing a Pinochet style cleansing in order to avoid descent into a Latin-African socialist hellhole isn't a solution.

    All its gonna take is for some communist in a black dress to decide only the state may have guns or that hate speech is a crime (or both!) and it is on.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Here’s the left in a nutshell:

    http://thinkexist.com/quotation/when_i_am_the_weaker-i_ask_you_for_my_freedom/158462.html

    “When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  94. Lot says:
    @snorlax

    though honestly Thomas should do the right thing and retire as well, given his advanced age.
     
    Yeah, but good luck finding an equally conservative young black judge, or getting a non-black nominee confirmed.

    There are plenty of conservative black judges. George W Bush searched high and low for them! Mostly they are too old to be nominated to the SC, like Rogers Brown.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Rogers_Brown

    In a reversal of the normal pattern of drifting left, Clinton appointed judge Johnnie Rawlinson, first black woman on the 9th Cir, has drifted right and usually votes with Republicans, especially on criminal cases.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_B._Rawlinson

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    I'm not sure that "voting with Republicans on criminal cases" is a good thing on balance.

    Essentially, Brown sides with the power of the government over the individual in both civil and criminal contexts, then. "Hey she's pro-police AND pro-regulator, we should praise her as a moderate."

    Where are the federal judges who truly enforce Constitutional limitations on government powers, whether they "drifted" to that position or started out there?

    , @snorlax
    Well, it’s like I said, you can find young black conservatives, young black judges, young conservative judges and black conservative judges easily enough, but you’ll have a hard time digging up young, black, conservative, judges.

    In a reversal of the normal pattern of drifting left, Clinton appointed judge Johnnie Rawlinson, first black woman on the 9th Cir, has drifted right and usually votes with Republicans, especially on criminal cases.
     
    That sounds a little too much like the most conservative jurist who ever conservatived conservatively,™️ Merrick Garland. If I recall correctly, Breyer and Ginsburg(!) were also alleged to be vaguely tough on crime. Her page links to “Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates,” which isn’t a very encouraging sign.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. res says:
    @Anonymous
    https://www.chronicle.com/article/There-Is-No-Case-for-the/242724

    I like this excerpt:

    Despite occasional conservative paranoia, there is not some sinister academic plot to brainwash students with liberal dogma. Instead, humanists are doing what they have always done, trying to bring students into a class loosely defined around a broad constellation of judgments and tastes. This constellation might include political judgments, but it is never reducible to politics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Big Bill
    While "politics" may be one of a "constellation" of class "judgements and tastes", it nonetheless dominates.

    You can be inducted into the professor "class" if you reject most "judgements and tastes" (opera, wine, ballet, sushi, Volvos, electric vehicles, LL Bean, etc.). You will not be inducted if you reject class politics.

    Even worse, you may not be permitted to attend or graduate from college if you reject the politics and do not sign diversity/inclusion pledges. Sharing common politics (or at least being silent about your differences with it) is increasingly a necessary condition. Professional associations and certification agencies for teachers are increasingly requiring personal commitments and training in diversity/inclusion to get a teaching degree and/or certification.

    Political silencing has gotten so bad that the American Bar Association is now considering establishing ethical rules of PC that may prevent attorneys from arguing their cases if their arguments would hurt an identity group's feelings. Imagine a prosecutor trying to convict Pakistani rape gangs in Rotherham without ever alluding to the Pakistani Muslim cultural attitudes toward "infidel whores".

    Who knows how far? The next step may be charging/suing trial witnesses for "group defamation" when they speak the truth on the witness stand.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Art Deco says:
    @Abe

    Everyone knows what kind of speech laws we would be looking at under a Kampala Harris administration
     
    I unfortunately had to logon to Facebook last week to do a quick chore and noticed a trending item from its (fake) news feed that Anthony Kennedy would be retiring this summer (no one else really confirming so I guess it’s still rumor at this point). If so, it gives us breathing room of at least 10 years for the 1st and 2nd Amendments, though honestly Thomas should do the right thing and retire as well, given his advanced age.

    Thomas is 69. That’s a satisfactory age to retire. Recall, though, that Antonin Scalia was 80 at the time of his death, John Paul Stevens 90 at the time he departed the court, Sandra Day O’Connor was 75 (and had had a disabled husband for 15 years or more), William Rehnquist was 80, Byron White was 77, Harry Blackmun was 84, Thurgood Marshall was 82 (and a triumph of the taxidermists art), Wm. Brennan was 84, Lewis Powell was 80, Warren Burger was 79, William O. Douglas was 77 (and daft from a stroke), John Marshall Harlan was 73 (and moribund), Hugo Black was 85 (and also moribund), and Earl Warren was 78. Abe Fortas was 59 at the time he resigned from the court, but he’d been caught in a scandal. In the last 50 years, Potter Stewart and David Souter have been the only justices who voluntarily retired before they hit 70.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Moses says:
    @rogue-one
    It is interesting to note that women, as a group, are almost as extremist against free speech as blacks. I can probably understand the motivations of blacks. They would like to use the cudgel of bureaucracy, inclusion, & equity to gain even greater resources & power. But women? Really? A world run by Al Sharpton , like Detroit or Baltimore, isn't going to be great for your basic white woman.

    Women value feelz over logic. It’s a stereotype, sure, and also contains more than a bit of truth in it.

    Show them a pic of a drowned boy on a beach and suddenly they want to open national borders to hordes of unassimilable aliens. No thought or logic involved. Just feelz.

    There’s a reason societies didn’t give suffrage to women for thousands of years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. The NYTimes article makes two logical errors here.

    In the first place, as many above have pointed out, the NYT offers up a false dichotomy. Favoring inclusivity does not necessarily make one opposed to free speech.

    But the second error is more egregious because more subtle. In equating those who prefer free speech with “groups historically or currently in power” they are guilty of having left out the middle term of the syllogism. What connects those who prefer free speech with “groups historically or currently in power”? There is no logical connection here, so it must be inductive and that means they must supply evidence, of which there is none.

    It’s more likely that those who favor free speech are confident that through open debate the Truth will emerge. Being willing to acknowledge the Truth, they operate more effectively than those who avoid it. Operating more effectively they make fewer errors in life and rise to positions of power over those who stumble on blindly clinging to their equally-blind, mutually-inclusive comrades.

    But more to the point, having the right to speak freely is Power. There is no clearer indication of powerlessness than not being allowed to speak up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  99. Art Deco says:

    It’s interesting that blacks at historically black colleges have less extremist, more pro-freedom views.

    They weren’t given any mulligans in the admissions process and are satisfactorily adapted to the academic pace wherever they are. If they are having academic problems, whites do not constitute the comparison group and they will more readily conceive of their problems as arising from somewhere other than the bogeyman. It”s also a reasonable wager black colleges don’t employ diversicrats to be an appreciative audience for emotionally fragile students.

    Ergo, they have a less neuralgic response to the world around them.

    Read More
    • Agree: Tyrion 2
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  100. Tiny Duck says:

    Black Panther blowing up box office records

    Martin Shrekli getting the busniness

    Trump going donw in flames

    white privilege becoming discussed

    People of Color gaining footholds

    gun control forthcoming

    Tired of all that winning?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  101. @27 year old
    Free Speech is great but it is yet another example of our own ideals being used against us. I wonder if we aren't better off giving up on it. Go full U.K. from the right.

    Suppress leftist speech as much as possible. Declare racism, white privilege, transgender, etc etc to be hate words and forbid them. Jail liberals for anti-White tweets. Fund all the Nazi LARP goon squads and let them disrupt every enemy gathering. Immigration "activists" could be silenced on national security and opiod epidemic grounds.

    Why should we continue to defend universal principles and let our enemies use them against us? We already don't have the freedom of speech, it seems like more classic cuckservatism to obsess about it in the abstract.

    If a fight is unavoidable it's always better to hit the other guy first. Everyone knows what kind of speech laws we would be looking at under a Kampala Harris administration. So why wait around for it to happen to us, if we could just do it to them first?

    Welcome to reaction or “wait, people had legitimate reasons for all the things they did prior to the Enlightenment”. The fact the left was for free speech before it was against it is a good sign this is one of those cases.

    Read More
    • Agree: AndrewR
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Uh, why would groups supposedly not “currently in positions of power” favor using power to limit free speech? Isn’t a more plausible interpretation that the people on campus who are more likely to favor free speech are those less likely to be powerful on campus?

    In fairness, the article did actually say “historically or currently in positions of power” [Emphasis mine.] Moreover, did the article specify those who are powerful on campus? Or just more powerful generally? If the latter, then yeah–their argument is absurd on its face. But if the former, it’s at least debatable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  103. densa says:
    @Anon
    Why are inclu-diversity pitted against free speech?

    Don't they want diversity of views? Don't they want to include dissident views?

    And what's the point of INCLUDING people if people lose free speech in the bargain?

    Ask blacks a question like this: Should certain rap music and black speech be silenced to make a more inclusive environment?

    They would be for free speech.

    This is all BS. It means 'free speech for me, not for thee'.

    All these groups calling for limits on 'free speech' would never tolerate silencing their speech even in the name of 'inclusion'.
    They assume it must be NAZI speech only.


    But what a strange bargain. Inclusivity trumps speech. So, we let different peoples in so that no one can say anything.

    So, this is admittance that diversity destroys freedom.

    Thank you. We have proof.

    But what a strange bargain. Inclusivity trumps speech. So, we let different peoples in so that no one can say anything.

    So, this is admittance that diversity destroys freedom.

    Thank you. We have proof.

    That’s it. And the rationale is that anything that doesn’t support diversity (our highest value; it’s in the constitution) is hate, not speech. It’s for your own good. By stopping your speech they intend to ‘stop the hate’. Camps may become necessary. Electro-schock therapy. Exorcism. Who knows.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Clyde says:

    No surprise that the female students trend anti-free speech compared to male students. Women trend anti-progress and anti-innovation. Anti-rambunctious thinking. If they called the shots we would still be living in caves. Their reply is that men are bold – adventurous in destructive ways and are responsible for all wars. Not our fault that you guys figure out various ways to die sooner and have shorter life expectancy.

    Free speech is enshrined in our 100% male designed Constitution, thank God. Look who is in the forefront of trying to kill this free speech. Loons like the imported, nation destroyer Kamala Harris. To be precise, it is her parents who are immigrants who paid us back with her. But she is fresh off the boat in my book.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    No surprise that the female students trend anti-free speech compared to male students. Women trend anti-progress and anti-innovation. Anti-rambunctious thinking. If they called the shots we would still be living in caves.

    Competition and conflict within bounds is challenging learned behavior for women. You notice in fora like this that there are few women and some of those who do enter engage in ruminative or mediating behaviors (or insist on apologies for being spoken to sharply). Many moons ago, I was a member of a university discussion circle. Our membership was 85% male and half the women never said anything. The one good-natured and robust combatant among them is now a law professor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Lot
    There are plenty of conservative black judges. George W Bush searched high and low for them! Mostly they are too old to be nominated to the SC, like Rogers Brown.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Rogers_Brown

    In a reversal of the normal pattern of drifting left, Clinton appointed judge Johnnie Rawlinson, first black woman on the 9th Cir, has drifted right and usually votes with Republicans, especially on criminal cases.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_B._Rawlinson

    I’m not sure that “voting with Republicans on criminal cases” is a good thing on balance.

    Essentially, Brown sides with the power of the government over the individual in both civil and criminal contexts, then. “Hey she’s pro-police AND pro-regulator, we should praise her as a moderate.”

    Where are the federal judges who truly enforce Constitutional limitations on government powers, whether they “drifted” to that position or started out there?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Big Bill says:
    @res
    I like this excerpt:

    Despite occasional conservative paranoia, there is not some sinister academic plot to brainwash students with liberal dogma. Instead, humanists are doing what they have always done, trying to bring students into a class loosely defined around a broad constellation of judgments and tastes. This constellation might include political judgments, but it is never reducible to politics.
     

    While “politics” may be one of a “constellation” of class “judgements and tastes”, it nonetheless dominates.

    You can be inducted into the professor “class” if you reject most “judgements and tastes” (opera, wine, ballet, sushi, Volvos, electric vehicles, LL Bean, etc.). You will not be inducted if you reject class politics.

    Even worse, you may not be permitted to attend or graduate from college if you reject the politics and do not sign diversity/inclusion pledges. Sharing common politics (or at least being silent about your differences with it) is increasingly a necessary condition. Professional associations and certification agencies for teachers are increasingly requiring personal commitments and training in diversity/inclusion to get a teaching degree and/or certification.

    Political silencing has gotten so bad that the American Bar Association is now considering establishing ethical rules of PC that may prevent attorneys from arguing their cases if their arguments would hurt an identity group’s feelings. Imagine a prosecutor trying to convict Pakistani rape gangs in Rotherham without ever alluding to the Pakistani Muslim cultural attitudes toward “infidel whores”.

    Who knows how far? The next step may be charging/suing trial witnesses for “group defamation” when they speak the truth on the witness stand.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Almost Missouri

    "It’s interesting that blacks at historically black colleges have less extremist, more pro-freedom views."
     
    Yeah that was the only real surprise in the survey.

    Maybe when at an all-black college, the students don't feel a compulsion to run the Diversity-Inclusivity script constantly on everything. So when there is no incentive to stifle freedom to get extra gibs, it turns out black students like free speech just about as much as white ones do. Which is a pretty good argument in favor of all black colleges. Or, as it used to be called, segregation.

    Hey, what's Old is what's New!

    AlmostMissouri, I can’t figure black college students out, because when they are included in everything at an ultra liberal college such as Oberlin, they still aren’t happy and “demand” more. Demand is in quotes to emphasize the fact that they never present requests, just a list of demands. Oh, yeah, and their own space.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Buff, it's the design flaw in affirmative action. Whenever you have affirmative action + forced integration, the affirmative actionees will, by definition, be at the bottom of the performance scales, even more so than they would have been in a non-affirmative action environment. Since they can't win in free competition and no one likes staying at the bottom, they will direct their energies in other ways, in this case, into the proven model of demanding they be given Black Privilege.

    http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/05/12/the-amazing-1969-prophecy/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. snorlax says:
    @Lot
    There are plenty of conservative black judges. George W Bush searched high and low for them! Mostly they are too old to be nominated to the SC, like Rogers Brown.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Rogers_Brown

    In a reversal of the normal pattern of drifting left, Clinton appointed judge Johnnie Rawlinson, first black woman on the 9th Cir, has drifted right and usually votes with Republicans, especially on criminal cases.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_B._Rawlinson

    Well, it’s like I said, you can find young black conservatives, young black judges, young conservative judges and black conservative judges easily enough, but you’ll have a hard time digging up young, black, conservative, judges.

    In a reversal of the normal pattern of drifting left, Clinton appointed judge Johnnie Rawlinson, first black woman on the 9th Cir, has drifted right and usually votes with Republicans, especially on criminal cases.

    That sounds a little too much like the most conservative jurist who ever conservatived conservatively,™️ Merrick Garland. If I recall correctly, Breyer and Ginsburg(!) were also alleged to be vaguely tough on crime. Her page links to “Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates,” which isn’t a very encouraging sign.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    I can't name them off the top of my head, but they do exist. I agree there are none with the ideal young circuit court credentials. But a state appeals judge would be fine and there are probably about 800 of them in the USA. Hard to believe at least a few are not black conservatives the way that the GOP tries to promote them.

    Garland is a standard liberal on all issues except criminal, where he is basically a moderate conservative. He looks "tough" because he's the only one like that any Dem has nominated to the court in a long time.

    Rawlinson is a conservative on criminal issues and all over the place on civil issues, probably averages out as a moderate. I wasn't suggesting her for the SC, she is too old anyway and far from a consistent conservative. Just an interesting anecdote.

    I don't remember RBG being called a moderate on anything. She was at the ACLU for a while, I can't believe anyone would believe she'd be conservative on criminal issues. Breyer at times votes with the conservative justices in challenges to corporate regulations but otherwise is a standard liberal.
    , @Lot
    Here's a black conservative on the Michigan supreme court. He is 58.

    http://courts.mi.gov/courts/michigansupremecourt/justices/pages/justice-kurtis-t.-wilder.aspx

    That is not quite too old. But there is likely a younger version of him elsewhere and Trump would choose one if Thomas retires.

    Wilder replaced another black conservative judge who was popular in Fed Society circles, Robert Young Jr.

    Reading his bio, he feels like a pretty low metoo risk.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @al-Gharaniq

    It’s interesting that blacks at historically black colleges have less extremist, more pro-freedom views.
     
    I think there are a few ways of interpreting this, depending—I'm by no means an expert on the socio-political environment at HBUs.

    1. At HBUs, black students aren't a minority population, and thus don't need campus sanctioned safespaces/hugboxes to protect their feelings from the so-called "privileged" groups. Moreover, there are no minority populations at these universities (by definition), so these groups can't force the university or socially pressure their peers not to hurt their feelings.

    2. Although black people (errr... bodies?) and college students as a whole tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic, black culture tends to be more conservative than liberal. With a diversity of liberal/conservative viewpoints among a homogeneous population, it's not too surprising that the pressures for and against free speech balance out.

    Personally, I think 1. is the driving force here, but I'd bet 2. has a sizable influence as well.

    al, democrats give blacks inclusivity, but really don’t care what they have to say as long as they vote for them. If they didn’t vote lock step for them, they wouldn’t want to include them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/

    “About half of black college students rank in the bottom 20 percent of their classes (and the bottom 10 percent in law school).”

    “Interracial friendships are more likely to form among students with relatively similar levels of academic preparation; thus, blacks and Hispanics are more socially integrated on campuses where they are less academically mismatched.”

    The admissions policies that, at most universities and colleges, make the majority of black students a tribe of village idiots (in comparison to the whites and Asians) are a great way to make the blacks defensive and resentful and to make the whites and Asians not respect the blacks. Blacks are of course extremely touchy about their relative intelligence, and if “diversity/inclusivity” versus “free speech” means that people can’t/can talk about the black IQ distribution, a lot of blacks will pick “diversity/inclusivity”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  111. Art Deco says:
    @Clyde
    No surprise that the female students trend anti-free speech compared to male students. Women trend anti-progress and anti-innovation. Anti-rambunctious thinking. If they called the shots we would still be living in caves. Their reply is that men are bold - adventurous in destructive ways and are responsible for all wars. Not our fault that you guys figure out various ways to die sooner and have shorter life expectancy.

    Free speech is enshrined in our 100% male designed Constitution, thank God. Look who is in the forefront of trying to kill this free speech. Loons like the imported, nation destroyer Kamala Harris. To be precise, it is her parents who are immigrants who paid us back with her. But she is fresh off the boat in my book.

    No surprise that the female students trend anti-free speech compared to male students. Women trend anti-progress and anti-innovation. Anti-rambunctious thinking. If they called the shots we would still be living in caves.

    Competition and conflict within bounds is challenging learned behavior for women. You notice in fora like this that there are few women and some of those who do enter engage in ruminative or mediating behaviors (or insist on apologies for being spoken to sharply). Many moons ago, I was a member of a university discussion circle. Our membership was 85% male and half the women never said anything. The one good-natured and robust combatant among them is now a law professor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Lot says:

    SJW been triggered lately by an Israeli program to provide American police with counterterrorism training.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DX-mvxYVAAAg07L?format=jpg

    ADL attacks antifa for calling conservatives and Trump supporters nazis.

    https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/who-are-the-antifa

    “Most recently, the August 27th anti-racist march in Berkeley, attended by thousands of peaceful counter-protesters, turned chaotic when a number of anarchists appeared and allegedly attacked several right-wing or pro-Trump attendees.”

    “Antifa have expanded their definition of fascist/fascism to include not just white supremacists and other extremists, but also many conservatives and supporters of President Trump. In Berkeley, for example, some antifa were captured on video harassing Trump supporters with no known extremist connections. Antifa have also falsely characterized some recent right wing rallies as “Nazi” events, even though they were not actually white supremacist in nature. “

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome


    a number of anarchists appeared and allegedly attacked several right-wing or pro-Trump attendees

     

    "allegedly"
    , @J.Ross
    >ADL criticizes Antifa for over-using the term "Nazi"
    This is the like a Nazi sorting through who is and is not a racial Jew, except that the Nazi would probably be going by some sort of actual criteria.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    "White men came up the concept of free speech..."

    It was actually Athenians.

    It was actually Athenians.

    And wuz the Athenians kangz or something, Corvinus?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "And wuz the Athenians kangz or something, Corvinus?"

    No, they were Athenian.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Uh, why would groups supposedly not “currently in positions of power” favor using power to limit free speech? Isn’t a more plausible interpretation that the people on campus who are more likely to favor free speech are those less likely to be powerful on campus?

    Well, they actually sort of admit that in the article.

    Students broadly agree that liberals have it easier, with about 92 percent saying that liberals can freely express their views on campus, while only 69 percent said the same of conservatives. Democrats were just as likely as the overall student population to hold those views.

    I’m not sure how you square that particular circle. Every group is less likely to think conservatives have freedom to speak, but somehow, they’re the ones in power.

    Which is why I don’t work at the New York Times, I guess. Just not smart enough to wrap my head around stuff like that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  115. @Corvinus
    "White men came up the concept of free speech..."

    It was actually Athenians.

    “White men came up the concept of free speech…”

    It was actually Athenians.

    Who were what? Kangz?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Who were what? Kangz?"

    No, they were Athenian.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @TGGP
    The bit about historically blank colleges sounds related to Scott Alexander's logic of the "fargroup". Steve once quoted Thomas Babington Macaulay giving some similar reasoning as Scott.

    The bit about historically blank colleges…

    I’m guessing that’s a typo, but it does reflect reality.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Lot says:
    @snorlax
    Well, it’s like I said, you can find young black conservatives, young black judges, young conservative judges and black conservative judges easily enough, but you’ll have a hard time digging up young, black, conservative, judges.

    In a reversal of the normal pattern of drifting left, Clinton appointed judge Johnnie Rawlinson, first black woman on the 9th Cir, has drifted right and usually votes with Republicans, especially on criminal cases.
     
    That sounds a little too much like the most conservative jurist who ever conservatived conservatively,™️ Merrick Garland. If I recall correctly, Breyer and Ginsburg(!) were also alleged to be vaguely tough on crime. Her page links to “Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates,” which isn’t a very encouraging sign.

    I can’t name them off the top of my head, but they do exist. I agree there are none with the ideal young circuit court credentials. But a state appeals judge would be fine and there are probably about 800 of them in the USA. Hard to believe at least a few are not black conservatives the way that the GOP tries to promote them.

    Garland is a standard liberal on all issues except criminal, where he is basically a moderate conservative. He looks “tough” because he’s the only one like that any Dem has nominated to the court in a long time.

    Rawlinson is a conservative on criminal issues and all over the place on civil issues, probably averages out as a moderate. I wasn’t suggesting her for the SC, she is too old anyway and far from a consistent conservative. Just an interesting anecdote.

    I don’t remember RBG being called a moderate on anything. She was at the ACLU for a while, I can’t believe anyone would believe she’d be conservative on criminal issues. Breyer at times votes with the conservative justices in challenges to corporate regulations but otherwise is a standard liberal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. There is a circumstance in which the powerful may favor free speech, namely when their advantage is overwhelming. For instance, the US (the “blue government”) is generally in favor of free speech in Russia because (Putin’s bluster about flying nuclear reactors notwithstanding) the US is in an overwhelmingly powerful position. In a somewhat similar fashion, XIX c. Britain of the Cobden/Bright era favored free trade when its economic and technological advantage over other nations was overwhelming. It didn’t hurt that free trade also tended to impoverish the “reactionary” landed classes and pushed impoverished farmers into the towns to swell the workforce and keep wages down (immigration being negligible).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    In a somewhat similar fashion, XIX c. Britain of the Cobden/Bright era favored free trade when its economic and technological advantage over other nations was overwhelming. It didn’t hurt that free trade also tended to impoverish the “reactionary” landed classes and pushed impoverished farmers into the towns to swell the workforce and keep wages down (immigration being negligible).

     

    Middle against the high and low.

    Sam Francis managerialists in Britain pushing free trade to hammer Norman aristocrats and independent farmers.

    Corn laws; taco bowls; Amerindians in Mexico displaced by cheap NAFTA corn. NY Times says Mexicans getting fat as a whale. Corn syrup.

    Free trade is sovereignty-sapping catnip for the globalizer bankers. Larry Kudlow, Lloyd Blankfein and Gary Cohn love free trade. Politician whores such as Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham, Paul Ryan, John McCain, Mitt Romney and all the rest of the GOP Globalizers love free trade.
    , @J.Ross
    The United States is only in favor of free speech in Russia in official statements. The main Russian-focused activity the US and its allied NGOs have pursued for years has been a combination of outright lying, often using self-defeatingly slick productions (notably those promoting the standard CIA asset seizure coup in Ukraine), and the censorship or control of non-lying content. The appearance of true statements about Russia in social media caused the alphabet mafia to panic and begin babbling about Russian hackers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. guest says:

    “groups historically or currently in power–white students, men or Republicans”

    White males are forever officially the Man, even if the Diversity Reich shall rule for 10,000 years. But I love how they add “or Republicans,” I suppose to take care of any Herman Cains who might incorrectly think they’re the Wretched of the Earth.

    I wonder why they split up white people and men, but I guess that’s in case any Beckys get uppity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  120. Yngvar says:
    @syonredux
    'Girls must be saved from going through this hell': Call for public inquiry into Telford sex scandal as it emerges up to 1,000 children as young as 11 were drugged, beaten and raped over 40 years
    Gang in Telford, Shropshire, has been sexually abusing teen girls since the 1980s
    Allegations 'have been mishandled by authorities' with attackers left unpunished
    Telford's Tory MP, Lucy Allan, has called for an urgent Rotherham-style inquiry
    Lucy Lowe, 16, was murdered alongside her mother and sister after her abuser set fire to their house. She had given birth to his child at just 14

    A brutal sex gang raped as many as 1,000 young girls over 40 years in what may be Britain's 'worst ever' child abuse scandal.

    Girls in the town of Telford, Shropshire, were drugged, beaten and raped at the hands of a grooming gang active since the 1980s.
     

    Home Office figures show there were 15.1 child sex crimes reported per 10,000 residents in the year to September 2015

     


    Lucy Lowe, 16, died alongside her mother and sister after the man who had been abusing her, 26-year-old Azhar Ali Mehmood, set fire to their house.
     

    The taxi-driver first targeted Lucy in 1997. She gave birth to his child when she was just 14.
     

    Another victim, who was drugged and gang raped by nine men two years later, said that Lucy's death was used as a warning to other girls who might speak out.
     

    Becky Watson, 13, was killed after a car she was in crashed. At the time the incident was reported as a 'prank'.

    However, it was revealed she had suffered two years of sex abuse at the hands of a grooming gang, which began when she was 11.

     


    Mubarek Ali, 34, sold teenage girls, some as young as 13, for sex above an Indian restaurant in Telford, Shropshire, after grooming them.

    His brother Ahdel Ali, 27, was handed a 26-year sentence after the pair sexually abused, trafficked, prostituted or tried to prostitute four teenagers.

     

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5487167/Telford-child-sex-scandal-involving-1-000-Britains-worst.html

    I have become comfortably numb.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. guest says:
    @Anonymous
    Strange to behold campus free speech -- if that actually means or ever meant anything; since "diverse and inclusive" clearly now means "Goodies For The Non-Cis-Male or NAM" -- becoming a super-majority *Republican* issue (HBCU exception noted)... Truly the media narrative is forever stuck in 1965 but we end up dealing with the warped Philip K. Dick version of it

    Is anyone else suspicious of surveys that show 50-50 or 49-51 splits for "independents?" Assuming they don't just norm it, consciously or not, on Homo independentus

    My assumption has always been that in 1965 campus “free speech” was not about some abstract right, but about them taking over campuses. So it’s not a warped version we see now, but a continuation of the Who/Whom struggle.

    Remember, they literally conquered academia by force of arms. (Admittedly against sympathetic administrations.) They’re not going to give it up on the basis of open argument.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Lot says:
    @snorlax
    Well, it’s like I said, you can find young black conservatives, young black judges, young conservative judges and black conservative judges easily enough, but you’ll have a hard time digging up young, black, conservative, judges.

    In a reversal of the normal pattern of drifting left, Clinton appointed judge Johnnie Rawlinson, first black woman on the 9th Cir, has drifted right and usually votes with Republicans, especially on criminal cases.
     
    That sounds a little too much like the most conservative jurist who ever conservatived conservatively,™️ Merrick Garland. If I recall correctly, Breyer and Ginsburg(!) were also alleged to be vaguely tough on crime. Her page links to “Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates,” which isn’t a very encouraging sign.

    Here’s a black conservative on the Michigan supreme court. He is 58.

    http://courts.mi.gov/courts/michigansupremecourt/justices/pages/justice-kurtis-t.-wilder.aspx

    That is not quite too old. But there is likely a younger version of him elsewhere and Trump would choose one if Thomas retires.

    Wilder replaced another black conservative judge who was popular in Fed Society circles, Robert Young Jr.

    Reading his bio, he feels like a pretty low metoo risk.

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax
    OTOH Thomas himself is about as strait-laced as it gets, yet the smear very nearly worked. (Nor have they given up on it at any point throughout the next 28 years of zero Clarence Thomas sex scandals).

    If Kennedy really is retiring and Trump’s nominee is a) male and b) thought to favor overturning Roe, the left/feminists are going to go thermonuclear.* In that scenario I guarantee there will be rape allegations, most likely plural. Even if the nominee’s female she’ll probably get accused of groping or drugging someone.

    *Yeah, even more so than they are already.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. This is a message for Steve Sailer, unfortunately dropped into this thread because I am not having luck finding a way to otherwise transmit this to your attention. I ran across this story that would seem to possess some interest to you (and likely other posters on your site) from another website that purports to be a listing of the Top 50 Most Violent Cities in the World. I leave it for you, Steve, and other readers to assess the reliability of this listing. What was of greatest interest was that 5 of the cities listed are either in the US proper, or in a territory of the US. Of perhaps equal interest was the number of those cities that are in other parts of the Americas, either South or Central. Let’s hear it for throwing open our borders to our brethren to the South.

    https://www.theorganicprepper.com/5-violent-cities-world-america/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  124. guest says:
    @Corvinus
    "White men came up the concept of free speech..."

    It was actually Athenians.

    Tell that to Socrates.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. I agree there are none with the ideal young circuit court credentials.

    Andrew Jackson was a horseback “circuit rider” state judge in Tennessee.

    Scotch-Irish warrior Andrew Jackson is the kind of judge we need.

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan should be impeached.

    At this point in the late stages of the American Empire, judges should be ignored on policy matters and their constitutionality discernment powers should be abrogated. Impeach the mugs!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  126. snorlax says:
    @Lot
    Here's a black conservative on the Michigan supreme court. He is 58.

    http://courts.mi.gov/courts/michigansupremecourt/justices/pages/justice-kurtis-t.-wilder.aspx

    That is not quite too old. But there is likely a younger version of him elsewhere and Trump would choose one if Thomas retires.

    Wilder replaced another black conservative judge who was popular in Fed Society circles, Robert Young Jr.

    Reading his bio, he feels like a pretty low metoo risk.

    OTOH Thomas himself is about as strait-laced as it gets, yet the smear very nearly worked. (Nor have they given up on it at any point throughout the next 28 years of zero Clarence Thomas sex scandals).

    If Kennedy really is retiring and Trump’s nominee is a) male and b) thought to favor overturning Roe, the left/feminists are going to go thermonuclear.* In that scenario I guarantee there will be rape allegations, most likely plural. Even if the nominee’s female she’ll probably get accused of groping or drugging someone.

    *Yeah, even more so than they are already.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Tiny Duck says:

    Reverse racism is not a thing because racism is related to power structures.

    If you can understand that there is a difference between an adult hitting a child and a child hitting an adult, then you get why reverse racism(or sexism) is not a thing

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Tell that to the white farmers in South Africa.
    , @Briny Schmuck
    I would go far beyond the indisputably obvious notion that one cannot be (reverse) racist against unmelanated Sons of Yakub. It is impossible to be prejudiced against white people, particularly white men, because white men have proven themselves beyond a shadow of a doubt throughout their despicable history to be the most bloodthirsty, genocidal, rape-inclined, monstrous colonialist land thieves in all of human existence. Thus, not only is it impossible to be reverse racist against the white devil, it is impossible to be prejudiced or bigoted against his cave beast self. All hatred against White Men by People of Color and Indigenous People IS ALWAYS JUSTIFIEED! As a matter of fact, given the nature of institutionalized power structures and systematic systems of systematized white supremacy designed by white male patriarchs to oppress and marginalize and enslave People of Color and Indigenous, I would suggest that a proper understanding of systematic racism dictates that crimes such as theft, homicide, and rape require power and privilege, which means that only white people are capable of committing such crimes. PERIOD! Just as we cannot hold a child culpable for crimes as we would hold an adult, the same goes in our racist system where People of Color are systematically oppressed by White Men. Read Leonard Pitts and the VerySmartBrothas! Indeed, once white men are breeded out from this earth by Superior People of Color whom white women and all the world prefer for their SUPERIOR QUALITIES to flabby weak fragile white boys, all bigotry and prejudice will cease, everywhere, for bigotry is a satanic effluence emanating from toxic whiteness and white supremacy alone.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Bill says:
    @al-Gharaniq

    It’s interesting that blacks at historically black colleges have less extremist, more pro-freedom views.
     
    I think there are a few ways of interpreting this, depending—I'm by no means an expert on the socio-political environment at HBUs.

    1. At HBUs, black students aren't a minority population, and thus don't need campus sanctioned safespaces/hugboxes to protect their feelings from the so-called "privileged" groups. Moreover, there are no minority populations at these universities (by definition), so these groups can't force the university or socially pressure their peers not to hurt their feelings.

    2. Although black people (errr... bodies?) and college students as a whole tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic, black culture tends to be more conservative than liberal. With a diversity of liberal/conservative viewpoints among a homogeneous population, it's not too surprising that the pressures for and against free speech balance out.

    Personally, I think 1. is the driving force here, but I'd bet 2. has a sizable influence as well.

    At HBUs, black students aren’t a minority population, and thus don’t need campus sanctioned safespaces/hugboxes

    Is it really black students, specifically, in the safe spaces on campus?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Bill says:
    @Classical Liberal
    Thread:
    https://twitter.com/drvox/status/972916409603833856

    How is it that this particular characterization of “the right” is always true? Isn’t that odd? It’s almost as if this characterization is a puzzle piece that fits into a particular hole in the SJW brain rather than an actual description of an external reality.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Bill says:
    @Lot
    "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

    So trannies and Arabs rule over us?

    National Review doesn’t criticize trannies and Arabs?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    I suppose within certain bounds. You can certainly advocate blowing them up! But they won't say Arabs have low genetic IQs, depressed further by inbreeding, and that Trump should aim for net negative Arab migration. Or that there is no possiblity they can ever be intergrated into the West without degrading it.

    Get even close to the line there, and don't expect to get a corporate job later on even if you are OK as a professional conservative.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @AndrewR
    So according to the NYT, Democrats have never been in power. That is a bold lie even by Lügenpresse standards.

    Well…not so much a lie as an expression of ignorance of even recent history.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. 3g4me says:

    @83 Lot: “That is not quite too old. But there is likely a younger version of him elsewhere and Trump would choose one if Thomas retires.”

    Or, conversely, he could do something novel like nominate a White Protestant to the court and stop allowing the coalition of the fringes to eternally set the parameters of acceptable behavior. But then he would be called mean names and all the Senate patriots utterly devoted to the common good wouldn’t back him. And all the cuckservative boomers here would have the vapors.

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax
    That would be the ideal, but unfortunately a coup-complete scenario, or at least one requiring the GOP to run the table in this years Senate races. Right now the GOP has only a 51-49 majority, including McCain, Flake, Collins, Sasse, Corker, Murkowski, Graham, Rubio and ~15 other über-cucks or otherwise unreliable votes (e.g. Paul).

    Without a doubt at least two out of that group would be swayed by the argument that the Thurgood Marshall seat belongs to blacks in perpetuity. A 50-vote (+Pence) whip count might’ve been achievable if there were another black on the Court, which is no doubt why neither Clinton nor Obama ever nominated one.
    , @Corn
    “Or, conversely, he could do something novel like nominate a White Protestant to the court ”

    Considering that the current Supreme Court is all Catholic and Jew a Protestant would be a diverse pick.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @Buzz Mohawk
    Isn't this a contrived, forced choice? "Inclusivity" (whatever that is) vs. Free Speech?

    Let's try another survey: "When forced to choose, which is more important to you, air or free speech?

    Students currently in need of breathing will choose air.

    Why must one thing contradict the other?

    How many ways can we set up a question like that?

    The question is even more slanted than that: it forces respondents to choose between “society,” associated with diversity and inclusion, and “rights,” associated with speech.

    Most people think rights are to serve society and not the reverse. The Constitution is not a suicide pact! But you could also flip the question for different results by making respondents choose between, say, “a free society” and “inclusivity rights,” i.e., putting freedom at the core and diversity on the fringe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Free speech” and “inclusivity” are mutually EXCLUSIVE. One has nothing to do with the other. Both sides are, or should be, protected by the right to express their opinion-whether in opposition or in support of a given position. If one group contends that the other should not have the right to their freedom of speech, then the latter no longer exists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  135. @Tulip
    Are you trolling?

    Who is going to suppress leftist speech? Mitt Romney? John McCain? Mitch McConnell?

    What court is going to uphold jail for Left-wing alleged "hate speech"?

    Free speech to protect cultural subversion is the tactic of a faction out of power. Notice how the Left were all free speech absolutists until they achieved cultural hegemony?

    You’re saying we don’t have the power to do it, which, maybe maybe not.

    That’s not really the point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tulip
    That is the point. The Right definitely does not have the power to restrict speech in the West, and it is a pipe dream to think otherwise. Arguing against free speech legitimizes censorship from the enemy.

    The old Leftist position was dialectical on free speech: free speech was good for Western democracies, but bad for nations under the Soviet system. The Right has the advantage that they don't have to apologize for some rightist government while at the same time arguing for free speech. They can be pure and principled.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Barnard says:
    @I, Libertine
    Why are they "historically" black? Aren't they still? If they are "historically" anything, it's Negro, as in The United Negro College Fund. Although, unless I missed something, it still goes by the name. So, I can contribute to negro colleges, as long as don't call them that. I guess I should call them "historically black colleges, now enrolling students of color almost exclusively."

    I'm here all week. Tip your waitresses.

    Uh, I mean, persons of wait.

    I think the term historic is used because if they limited enrollment to blacks only they would be in violation of Federal Government policy and not qualify for government money, etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    I rate this a Muncian "ha ha." The gods of the copybook headings have taught her a lesson.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Tiny Duck
    Reverse racism is not a thing because racism is related to power structures.

    If you can understand that there is a difference between an adult hitting a child and a child hitting an adult, then you get why reverse racism(or sexism) is not a thing

    Tell that to the white farmers in South Africa.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. snorlax says:
    @3g4me
    @83 Lot: "That is not quite too old. But there is likely a younger version of him elsewhere and Trump would choose one if Thomas retires."

    Or, conversely, he could do something novel like nominate a White Protestant to the court and stop allowing the coalition of the fringes to eternally set the parameters of acceptable behavior. But then he would be called mean names and all the Senate patriots utterly devoted to the common good wouldn't back him. And all the cuckservative boomers here would have the vapors.

    That would be the ideal, but unfortunately a coup-complete scenario, or at least one requiring the GOP to run the table in this years Senate races. Right now the GOP has only a 51-49 majority, including McCain, Flake, Collins, Sasse, Corker, Murkowski, Graham, Rubio and ~15 other über-cucks or otherwise unreliable votes (e.g. Paul).

    Without a doubt at least two out of that group would be swayed by the argument that the Thurgood Marshall seat belongs to blacks in perpetuity. A 50-vote (+Pence) whip count might’ve been achievable if there were another black on the Court, which is no doubt why neither Clinton nor Obama ever nominated one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @Candide III
    There is a circumstance in which the powerful may favor free speech, namely when their advantage is overwhelming. For instance, the US (the "blue government") is generally in favor of free speech in Russia because (Putin's bluster about flying nuclear reactors notwithstanding) the US is in an overwhelmingly powerful position. In a somewhat similar fashion, XIX c. Britain of the Cobden/Bright era favored free trade when its economic and technological advantage over other nations was overwhelming. It didn't hurt that free trade also tended to impoverish the "reactionary" landed classes and pushed impoverished farmers into the towns to swell the workforce and keep wages down (immigration being negligible).

    In a somewhat similar fashion, XIX c. Britain of the Cobden/Bright era favored free trade when its economic and technological advantage over other nations was overwhelming. It didn’t hurt that free trade also tended to impoverish the “reactionary” landed classes and pushed impoverished farmers into the towns to swell the workforce and keep wages down (immigration being negligible).

    Middle against the high and low.

    Sam Francis managerialists in Britain pushing free trade to hammer Norman aristocrats and independent farmers.

    Corn laws; taco bowls; Amerindians in Mexico displaced by cheap NAFTA corn. NY Times says Mexicans getting fat as a whale. Corn syrup.

    Free trade is sovereignty-sapping catnip for the globalizer bankers. Larry Kudlow, Lloyd Blankfein and Gary Cohn love free trade. Politician whores such as Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham, Paul Ryan, John McCain, Mitt Romney and all the rest of the GOP Globalizers love free trade.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Corvinus says:
    @anon
    It was actually Athenians.

    And wuz the Athenians kangz or something, Corvinus?

    “And wuz the Athenians kangz or something, Corvinus?”

    No, they were Athenian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    “And wuz the Athenians kangz or something, Corvinus?”

    No, they were Athenian.

    Words of wisdom, as always, Corvinus.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Corny, as your frenemy, I have to tell that you're embarrassing yourself on this one. Best to quietly withdraw.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Corvinus says:
    @Daniel Williams

    “White men came up the concept of free speech…”

    It was actually Athenians.
     
    Who were what? Kangz?

    “Who were what? Kangz?”

    No, they were Athenian.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    At some point, whites will have to realize that we can't rely on a nicely-worded document written more than 200 years ago by thoughtful, white men.

    Like it or not, the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

    If whites wants freedom of speech or to be treated equally, we'll have to fight for it. I'm not talking about violence, but fighting in the same way that American Jews fight for their people, creating lobby groups, funding politicians, creating media outlets, etc.

    I was with you until you said “we can’t be violent!” and then you descend into ‘pithy blog posts will save the day!’ nonsense.

    You won’t be able to use the same levers ad the Juden cause Jews don’t have the same buttons to push as Europeans. You’re not going to engage in high verbal IQ antics to fix this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Everyone knows what kind of speech laws we would be looking at under a Kampala Harris administration

    I wonder if Kamala Harris and Willie Brown ever had a political tryst in Kuala Lumpur?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  145. Mike P. says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    Isn't this a contrived, forced choice? "Inclusivity" (whatever that is) vs. Free Speech?

    Let's try another survey: "When forced to choose, which is more important to you, air or free speech?

    Students currently in need of breathing will choose air.

    Why must one thing contradict the other?

    How many ways can we set up a question like that?

    Isn’t the bigger problem that when given this choice, students do, in fact, choose “diversity”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Calvin X Hobbes
    "If so, it gives us breathing room of at least 10 years for the 1st and 2nd Amendments, though honestly Thomas should do the right thing and retire as well, given his advanced age."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Current_justices

    Thomas is 69. Breyer is 79, Kennedy is 81, and Ginsburg is 84. Alito is 67.

    We'd better start thinking seriously about the long-term future (as in, more than 10 years out) if we want that long-term future to be tolerable.

    Rolling the dice on 5-4 decisions in perpetuity to keep us from needing a Pinochet style cleansing in order to avoid descent into a Latin-African socialist hellhole isn’t a solution.

    All its gonna take is for some communist in a black dress to decide only the state may have guns or that hate speech is a crime (or both!) and it is on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Most of the Millenials I know think that there is a Hate Speech exception to the First Amendment, because that is what they have been taught in school.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  148. @Anonymous
    OT

    https://www.twincities.com/2018/03/08/augsburg-professor-faces-deportation-years-after-failed-asylum-bid/

    Kenyan guy comes over in 1992 on a J-1 visa as an exchange student. Somehow he's still here in 2005 when his visa finally expires. J-1's don't last that long and tend not to be extended that much, so there's a bit of a mystery there, but he got a PhD, so maybe he was a student the whole time.

    Anyway, his wife and two kids showed up illegally very soon after he first arrived, probably on an overstay of a tourist visa, and never leave. The kids are DACA. A third kid was born in 1998, so birthright citizenship. Wife is still illegal.

    Upon the 2005 visa expiration he applies for political asylum, is rejected.

    At that point Obama's in office, so he just has to show up and say hi to immigration from time to time.

    Now they want him out.

    By the way, he's a tenure track "studies," uh, English, professor at a dipshit college, which is "standing behind him."

    Good. Arrest him and put him and his kin on a plane today. Rinse and repeat until these assh0les get the message. I don’t care if any of them are just weeks away from curing cancer. I want them to GTF home.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Again, the Left tells you exactly what they’re up to and y’all whip out Sailer’s Butterknife to try and explain away how that’s not what they really mean.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  150. @al-Gharaniq

    It’s interesting that blacks at historically black colleges have less extremist, more pro-freedom views.
     
    I think there are a few ways of interpreting this, depending—I'm by no means an expert on the socio-political environment at HBUs.

    1. At HBUs, black students aren't a minority population, and thus don't need campus sanctioned safespaces/hugboxes to protect their feelings from the so-called "privileged" groups. Moreover, there are no minority populations at these universities (by definition), so these groups can't force the university or socially pressure their peers not to hurt their feelings.

    2. Although black people (errr... bodies?) and college students as a whole tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic, black culture tends to be more conservative than liberal. With a diversity of liberal/conservative viewpoints among a homogeneous population, it's not too surprising that the pressures for and against free speech balance out.

    Personally, I think 1. is the driving force here, but I'd bet 2. has a sizable influence as well.

    Since when do black students have any “diversity of viewpoints”?? Try showing up with some DOV and see what happens to you. You can have any opinion you want,as long as its BLACK!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @Lot
    SJW been triggered lately by an Israeli program to provide American police with counterterrorism training.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DX-mvxYVAAAg07L?format=jpg


    ADL attacks antifa for calling conservatives and Trump supporters nazis.

    https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/who-are-the-antifa

    "Most recently, the August 27th anti-racist march in Berkeley, attended by thousands of peaceful counter-protesters, turned chaotic when a number of anarchists appeared and allegedly attacked several right-wing or pro-Trump attendees."

    "Antifa have expanded their definition of fascist/fascism to include not just white supremacists and other extremists, but also many conservatives and supporters of President Trump. In Berkeley, for example, some antifa were captured on video harassing Trump supporters with no known extremist connections. Antifa have also falsely characterized some recent right wing rallies as “Nazi” events, even though they were not actually white supremacist in nature. "

    a number of anarchists appeared and allegedly attacked several right-wing or pro-Trump attendees

    “allegedly”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Tiny Duck says:

    You guys are on the wrong side of history.

    The future belongs to justice

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    The future belongs to those strong enough and willing enough to take it.

    The winners later spin yarns about the justice of their cause. Quit being a sap and grow up.

    Whites aren't good or bad. Non-whites aren't good or bad. Whites have no claim to this land. Non-whites have no claim to this land.

    If African savages and inbred towel-heads take over Europe, it's not because of "justice"; it's because they wanted it more. If Hispanics and other saintly (in your mind) colored people take over the United States, it won't be because they have a right to do so; it's because they wanted it more than the whites.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1y_0NfhF9c
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Corvinus
    "White men came up the concept of free speech..."

    It was actually Athenians.

    It was actually Athenians.

    We wuz philosipherz

    Free speech in action in Greece:

    The Death of Socrates

    But there is another part of the indictment which says that he teaches
    men not to receive the gods whom the city receives, and has other new
    gods. ‘Is that the way in which he is supposed to corrupt the youth?’
    ‘Yes, it is.’ ‘Has he only new gods, or none at all?’ ‘None at all.’
    ‘What, not even the sun and moon?’ ‘No; why, he says that the sun is a
    stone, and the moon earth.’

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Tiny Duck
    Reverse racism is not a thing because racism is related to power structures.

    If you can understand that there is a difference between an adult hitting a child and a child hitting an adult, then you get why reverse racism(or sexism) is not a thing

    I would go far beyond the indisputably obvious notion that one cannot be (reverse) racist against unmelanated Sons of Yakub. It is impossible to be prejudiced against white people, particularly white men, because white men have proven themselves beyond a shadow of a doubt throughout their despicable history to be the most bloodthirsty, genocidal, rape-inclined, monstrous colonialist land thieves in all of human existence. Thus, not only is it impossible to be reverse racist against the white devil, it is impossible to be prejudiced or bigoted against his cave beast self. All hatred against White Men by People of Color and Indigenous People IS ALWAYS JUSTIFIEED! As a matter of fact, given the nature of institutionalized power structures and systematic systems of systematized white supremacy designed by white male patriarchs to oppress and marginalize and enslave People of Color and Indigenous, I would suggest that a proper understanding of systematic racism dictates that crimes such as theft, homicide, and rape require power and privilege, which means that only white people are capable of committing such crimes. PERIOD! Just as we cannot hold a child culpable for crimes as we would hold an adult, the same goes in our racist system where People of Color are systematically oppressed by White Men. Read Leonard Pitts and the VerySmartBrothas! Indeed, once white men are breeded out from this earth by Superior People of Color whom white women and all the world prefer for their SUPERIOR QUALITIES to flabby weak fragile white boys, all bigotry and prejudice will cease, everywhere, for bigotry is a satanic effluence emanating from toxic whiteness and white supremacy alone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Moses
    Shout it from the mountaintop, brother!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @AndrewR
    It wasn't created by "Whites." It was created by ASPs [there are no non-white Anglo-Saxons] who have chosen to cede their country to other peoples.

    Rubbish. Some nineteen of the fifty-sex signatories to the Declaration of Independence were Scots, including its primary author, Thomas Jefferson (who was doubtless familiar with, and probably influenced by, the Declaration of Arbroath). Small but not insignificant numbers of Dutch also contributed to the creation of America.

    However, there most certainly weren’t any Hindoos, Arabs, Orientals, or Negroes calling the shots….

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    I notice you neglected to mention one group which has more power than all those other groups now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. guest says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    Isn't this a contrived, forced choice? "Inclusivity" (whatever that is) vs. Free Speech?

    Let's try another survey: "When forced to choose, which is more important to you, air or free speech?

    Students currently in need of breathing will choose air.

    Why must one thing contradict the other?

    How many ways can we set up a question like that?

    Contrived, maybe, but not forced. Because however vaguely “inclusiveness” is defined, there’s a real movement not to tolerate speech based on “hate.”

    Of course, you don’t have to exclude anyone to be considered hateful. All you have to do is have the wrong opinions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Nigel Farage responds to the political arrest and detention of American free speech supporter Brittany Pettibone by the UK government of Prime Minister Theresa May:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  158. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Nigerian Nationalist
    "It’s interesting that blacks at historically black colleges have less extremist, more pro-freedom views."

    Likely for the same reason I am, they are sheltered from the influence of SJWs who wait for it...are White.

    That wouldn’t make any sense even if it was true. Why are whites even more pro-freedom, even when they’re exposed to these white “SJW”s?

    And if you think that there aren’t plenty of black and Hispanic “SJW”s around, then I invite you to pay a visit to one of our fine universities, so you’ll actually have some idea what you’re talking about.

    Do you even remember a couple years ago, when black “SJW”S wreaked havoc on the University of Missouri over nothing?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nigerian Nationalist
    Make a list of the most famous SJWs, past and present...who are they?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Tulip says:
    @27 year old
    You're saying we don't have the power to do it, which, maybe maybe not.

    That's not really the point.

    That is the point. The Right definitely does not have the power to restrict speech in the West, and it is a pipe dream to think otherwise. Arguing against free speech legitimizes censorship from the enemy.

    The old Leftist position was dialectical on free speech: free speech was good for Western democracies, but bad for nations under the Soviet system. The Right has the advantage that they don’t have to apologize for some rightist government while at the same time arguing for free speech. They can be pure and principled.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Corn says:
    @3g4me
    @83 Lot: "That is not quite too old. But there is likely a younger version of him elsewhere and Trump would choose one if Thomas retires."

    Or, conversely, he could do something novel like nominate a White Protestant to the court and stop allowing the coalition of the fringes to eternally set the parameters of acceptable behavior. But then he would be called mean names and all the Senate patriots utterly devoted to the common good wouldn't back him. And all the cuckservative boomers here would have the vapors.

    “Or, conversely, he could do something novel like nominate a White Protestant to the court ”

    Considering that the current Supreme Court is all Catholic and Jew a Protestant would be a diverse pick.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    Gorsuch is protestant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Maybe the Right should go on the offensive on this issue.

    The Left and Jews were most pro-free-speech when their right to dissent and subvert was threatened.
    They no longer feel the threat.

    So, start a movement to ban rap for spreading thuggery, Disney for degrading young girls, feminism for hating on men, and Zionism for insulting Palestinians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tulip
    . . . and call it the "Moral Majority". How can you lose?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @Buffalo Joe
    AlmostMissouri, I can't figure black college students out, because when they are included in everything at an ultra liberal college such as Oberlin, they still aren't happy and "demand" more. Demand is in quotes to emphasize the fact that they never present requests, just a list of demands. Oh, yeah, and their own space.

    Buff, it’s the design flaw in affirmative action. Whenever you have affirmative action + forced integration, the affirmative actionees will, by definition, be at the bottom of the performance scales, even more so than they would have been in a non-affirmative action environment. Since they can’t win in free competition and no one likes staying at the bottom, they will direct their energies in other ways, in this case, into the proven model of demanding they be given Black Privilege.

    http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/05/12/the-amazing-1969-prophecy/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Almost Missouri, Thank you for your reply, nicely stated.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @Tiny Duck
    You guys are on the wrong side of history.

    The future belongs to justice

    The future belongs to those strong enough and willing enough to take it.

    The winners later spin yarns about the justice of their cause. Quit being a sap and grow up.

    Whites aren’t good or bad. Non-whites aren’t good or bad. Whites have no claim to this land. Non-whites have no claim to this land.

    If African savages and inbred towel-heads take over Europe, it’s not because of “justice”; it’s because they wanted it more. If Hispanics and other saintly (in your mind) colored people take over the United States, it won’t be because they have a right to do so; it’s because they wanted it more than the whites.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    "And wuz the Athenians kangz or something, Corvinus?"

    No, they were Athenian.

    “And wuz the Athenians kangz or something, Corvinus?”

    No, they were Athenian.

    Words of wisdom, as always, Corvinus.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Tulip says:
    @Anon
    Maybe the Right should go on the offensive on this issue.

    The Left and Jews were most pro-free-speech when their right to dissent and subvert was threatened.
    They no longer feel the threat.

    So, start a movement to ban rap for spreading thuggery, Disney for degrading young girls, feminism for hating on men, and Zionism for insulting Palestinians.

    . . . and call it the “Moral Majority”. How can you lose?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Ricky Vaughn [AKA "Duck Little"] says:

    Jews made porn legal on an iPhone owned by an 11 year old — — but Jews made it illegal to post facts like this about Jews on Twitter and Facebook.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  167. @Classical Liberal
    Thread:
    https://twitter.com/drvox/status/972916409603833856

    ‘The contemporary right-wing in the US has become, in Lionel Trilling’s immortal words, a bundle of “irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas.” It’s just a tangle of resentments & bigotries, driven by the erosion of white privilege.’

    Beautiful. What a pitch-perfect display of psychological projection!

    Now let’s convert this gibberish into TrueFact:

    The contemporary left wing in the US has become, in Lionel Trilling’s immortal words, a bundle of irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas. It’s just a tangle of resentments & bigotries, driven by the erosion of white confidence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    DUNKIRK vs INCEPTION.

    DUNKIRK is about physical invasion. The Brits don’t feel at home in France. Under threat, they flee, but once they are on the homeland, they are willing to fight to the last man. It’s about a nation under physical threat of invasion and occupation. The threat is obvious. And the means of resistance are obvious: guns, ships, planes. Everything is on the conscious level. Brits know who the Brits and who the enemy is. There is us and them. Brits even ferret out a Frenchman masquerading as a Briton.

    INCEPTION is about psychological invasion. The late rich guy’s son remains what he is. He is not physically robbed of money or beaten up. But the agents penetrate his mind and plant a seed that will grow like a virus and make him break up his father’s empire.. and he will think HE HIMSELF made the choice out of free will when, in fact, those who ‘incepted’ the idea manipulated his memory, emotions, complexes, and weak spots. (Ironically, Cobb violates another man’s soul so that he himself can gain reentry into his own home, the US.) Messing with people’s minds, like in MEMENTO, fascinates Nolan. Because the MSM controls our collective memory and because so many Americans are uninformed, it’s like they’re amnesiac and can be fooled with the same shi* over and over…. like another round of housing bubble.

    How did Homomania spread? Homos didn’t invade by tanks and bombs. Rather, the media associated a homo with sainthood in PHILADELPHIA and made people cry. They associated homos with cowboy life. So, even the American West was a land of holy buggers. And homosexuality was associated with rainbows. And then this homo-rainbow was associated with churches. So, via these psyconnections, homo fecal penetration came to be associated with the Jesus. Surely, one of the biggest Inception Operations in history, one that proved that people, even masses of people, can be made to FEEL and believe anything.

    The Brits who withstood the might of the German military have become so helpless. Why? Their collective soul was ‘incepted’ by globalists who went deep into the core institutions(that serve as the eyes, ears, mind, and soul of the nation) and planted the idea that ‘UK is a nation of immigrants’, ‘diversity is our strength’, ‘homos are holy’, and ‘patriotism is hate’. And since these institutions spread these ideas through public education and pop culture that fill eyes and ears with PC, so many Brits now feel that their nation exists to honor the Other, to let Pakistanis and Africans take over, and for Anglos to become Junglos.

    And much the same has happened in the US. An idea was planted in the souls of white people that radically redefined what America is really about. It was done through textbooks, songs, TV, propaganda, advertising, and etc. Diversity = Future, blackness = holy, Jewishness = wisdom, homos = wonders.

    Electronic media are really extensions of our minds. It makes us see and feel things as manipulated and devised by the Power with a certain agenda. So, white minds can be incepted with an image of a mountain-sized Negro who loves a white mouse… when in fact such Negroes in jail are really ripping white boy’s behinds and terrorizing whites.
    Because watching TV and listening to stuff are So Easy, they seem natural to us… when in fact, a vast organization is feeding us certain images and sounds to gain control over us. They are entering and rearranging our souls.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  169. Luke Lea says:

    As Jordan Peterson would say, what do college students know? Almost nothing as a matter of fact.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  170. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Lot
    SJW been triggered lately by an Israeli program to provide American police with counterterrorism training.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DX-mvxYVAAAg07L?format=jpg


    ADL attacks antifa for calling conservatives and Trump supporters nazis.

    https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/who-are-the-antifa

    "Most recently, the August 27th anti-racist march in Berkeley, attended by thousands of peaceful counter-protesters, turned chaotic when a number of anarchists appeared and allegedly attacked several right-wing or pro-Trump attendees."

    "Antifa have expanded their definition of fascist/fascism to include not just white supremacists and other extremists, but also many conservatives and supporters of President Trump. In Berkeley, for example, some antifa were captured on video harassing Trump supporters with no known extremist connections. Antifa have also falsely characterized some recent right wing rallies as “Nazi” events, even though they were not actually white supremacist in nature. "

    >ADL criticizes Antifa for over-using the term “Nazi”
    This is the like a Nazi sorting through who is and is not a racial Jew, except that the Nazi would probably be going by some sort of actual criteria.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Pericles
    A prog POS safely ensconced in Seattle spews his smug hatred over conservatives. Big whoop. Apparently also tweets dreamily about Stalin-era size wind turbines.

    This one was funny though:


    If NYT really wants to expose its readers to the right, it should give Dinesh D'Souza, Dana Loesch, or Ben Shapiro a column. Let readers see, up close & personal, the crude tribalism & resentment that animate the RW base.

     

    Lol, windmill wanker has no idea.

    Fantastic. They’re continuing to pursue the same “shut you, you do not exist” strategy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Candide III
    There is a circumstance in which the powerful may favor free speech, namely when their advantage is overwhelming. For instance, the US (the "blue government") is generally in favor of free speech in Russia because (Putin's bluster about flying nuclear reactors notwithstanding) the US is in an overwhelmingly powerful position. In a somewhat similar fashion, XIX c. Britain of the Cobden/Bright era favored free trade when its economic and technological advantage over other nations was overwhelming. It didn't hurt that free trade also tended to impoverish the "reactionary" landed classes and pushed impoverished farmers into the towns to swell the workforce and keep wages down (immigration being negligible).

    The United States is only in favor of free speech in Russia in official statements. The main Russian-focused activity the US and its allied NGOs have pursued for years has been a combination of outright lying, often using self-defeatingly slick productions (notably those promoting the standard CIA asset seizure coup in Ukraine), and the censorship or control of non-lying content. The appearance of true statements about Russia in social media caused the alphabet mafia to panic and begin babbling about Russian hackers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @anon
    Gang in Telford, Shropshire, has been sexually abusing teen girls since the 1980s
    Allegations ‘have been mishandled by authorities’


    And yet, these same authorities will rain down punishment on you like fire from Heaven if you insult these rapists on the internet.

    So you can see, in real time, what happens when you value inclusivity/diversity more than free speech.

    And the thing is, this contradiction is so glaringly obvious that ordinary people point it out daily on Twitter. But for some reason, I don't remember any op-eds in the NYT about it.

    “So you can see, in real time, what happens when you value inclusivity/diversity more than free speech.”

    And, in a larger sense, this is what happens when you give up your right to bear arms. In Britain, the Left has the guns, the police, the media and the law courts. Don’t like what they decree? Tough. You’re their bitch now. Your guns were Ultima Ratio Populum: the Final Argument of the People. The British people forswore their final argument. But the globalists did not. Now the globalists get to have their way with the British people: a Teva sandal stamping on a British face — forever.

    Why should the British authorities lift a finger to help thousands of raped white girls? The disarmed whites pose no threat. The Muslim rapers, by contrast, are organized, violent, politically potent and have infinite reinforcements available overseas. Besides, Muslims are the new black: fresh, cool, and above reproach … by law.

    There was a comment here some time ago from a DC staffer whose Recucklican congressman confided that he personally hated Trump and Trump’s agenda but that he had to go along with it because if he didn’t, his own constituents would “kill” him. Now I don’t know whether that was literally true or not, but it doesn’t matter. The congresscritter thought it was close enough to true to guide his behavior. Obviously, this congress”man” is a contemptible cur who has no wish to uphold the will of the people who represented him to do just that. But he has even less wish to face the Final Argument of those same People, whether literally or metaphorically. So he does what he is supposed to do even if only from fear rather than from honor.

    This is the magic of Ultima Ratio Populum. Just as Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand miraculously converts the self-interest of many individuals into altruistic good for society, so does Ultima Ratio Populum convert fourth-rate politicians into champions of obscure and ignored citizens.

    If you give up the trump card, you give up the hand. If you give up the hand, everyone knows you are not serious about the game and … you … lose.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @Anonymous
    OT

    https://www.twincities.com/2018/03/08/augsburg-professor-faces-deportation-years-after-failed-asylum-bid/

    Kenyan guy comes over in 1992 on a J-1 visa as an exchange student. Somehow he's still here in 2005 when his visa finally expires. J-1's don't last that long and tend not to be extended that much, so there's a bit of a mystery there, but he got a PhD, so maybe he was a student the whole time.

    Anyway, his wife and two kids showed up illegally very soon after he first arrived, probably on an overstay of a tourist visa, and never leave. The kids are DACA. A third kid was born in 1998, so birthright citizenship. Wife is still illegal.

    Upon the 2005 visa expiration he applies for political asylum, is rejected.

    At that point Obama's in office, so he just has to show up and say hi to immigration from time to time.

    Now they want him out.

    By the way, he's a tenure track "studies," uh, English, professor at a dipshit college, which is "standing behind him."

    FOOL! Don’t you realise it’s well known and irrefutable that being a tenured professor is such an onerous and unrewarding job Americans just won’t do it?!

    It’s a great example of the enemy’s snares, by the by, and the reason it’s always useless to reason with or even debate these creatures. It’s always a game of heads I win and tails you lose and when did you stop beating your wife? If it’s sweeping offal in a slaughterhouse or even mowing lawns it’s a job Americans “just won’t do” so you must be grateful for Paco and Taco’s humility and hard work. If it’s the faculty of a university or being a programmer or engineer it’s evidence of how worthy and brilliant and irreplaceable invaders are. And no one ever makes the simple point that these two are contradictory claims: they mean Americans are simultaneously too sophisticated to mow lawns and too dim-witted to write Java. Nevermind that more people of all stripes – stupid and intelligent – lower the costs of (each type of) labour raise the costs of realty, which benefits a tiny fraction of the Americans who employ that labour and own (and collect rents for) most of the realty….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Corvinus
    "And wuz the Athenians kangz or something, Corvinus?"

    No, they were Athenian.

    Corny, as your frenemy, I have to tell that you’re embarrassing yourself on this one. Best to quietly withdraw.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Corny, as your frenemy, I have to tell that you’re embarrassing yourself on this one. Best to quietly withdraw."

    How cute when you go all white knighting. But The Boom foolishly claimed that “White men came up the concept of free speech…” When, in fact, the origins come from Athens.

    https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/ancient-greeces-legacy-liberty-personal-freedom-athens

    Would the Athenians have referred to themselves as individually or collectively as white, or as simply Athenians?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Corvinus says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Corny, as your frenemy, I have to tell that you're embarrassing yourself on this one. Best to quietly withdraw.

    “Corny, as your frenemy, I have to tell that you’re embarrassing yourself on this one. Best to quietly withdraw.”

    How cute when you go all white knighting. But The Boom foolishly claimed that “White men came up the concept of free speech…” When, in fact, the origins come from Athens.

    https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/ancient-greeces-legacy-liberty-personal-freedom-athens

    Would the Athenians have referred to themselves as individually or collectively as white, or as simply Athenians?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Would the Athenians have referred to themselves as individually or collectively as white, or as simply Athenians?

    I doubt they would have referred to themselves as "white", due to the fact that they spoke Greek instead of English. But what do you think they were? Kangz?

    , @Autochthon
    Not really. (Ask Socrates.)
    , @AnotherGuessModel
    All black Africans were known as Ethiopians to the ancient Greeks, as the fifth-century B.C. historian Herodotus tells us, and their iconography was narrowly defined by Greek artists in the Archaic and Classical periods, black skin color being the primary identifying physical characteristic...Ethiopians were considered exotic to the ancient Greeks and their features contrasted markedly with the Greeks’ own well-established perception of themselves. The black glaze central to Athenian vase painting was ideally suited for representing black skin, a consistent feature used to describe Ethiopians in ancient Greek literature as well.

    Source: https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/afrg/hd_afrg.htm

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    The question isn't whether those Athenians would have considered themselves "white" or "European-Athenians" :) but whether they were, in fact, genetically very similar to current Europeans. (Hint: They were.)

    If someone is making an argument that cultures tolerant of free speech and democracy have historically been found primarily (or, even, only) in countries with genetically European populations, then the genetic make-up of the ancient Athenians who created democracy is pertinent.

    Your "We are all Americans" or Athenians in this case is utterly beside the point. Cultures grow out of the genetic traits of the people that create them. Of course, culture can over hundreds of years (maybe thousands) influence biology, but, again, that's a very slow process.)

    And that's why you looked rather stupid.

    Know when to hold them, know when to fold them, Corny.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Corvinus says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    At some point, whites will have to realize that we can't rely on a nicely-worded document written more than 200 years ago by thoughtful, white men.

    Like it or not, the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

    If whites wants freedom of speech or to be treated equally, we'll have to fight for it. I'm not talking about violence, but fighting in the same way that American Jews fight for their people, creating lobby groups, funding politicians, creating media outlets, etc.

    “If whites wants freedom of speech or to be treated equally, we’ll have to fight for it. I’m not talking about violence, but fighting in the same way that American Jews fight for their people, creating lobby groups, funding politicians, creating media outlets, etc.”

    Who is “we”, Kemosabe?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Corny, I'd rather have an elderly cat lady in my foxhole than you, so no problem is you don't come along for the ride.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Which side is for ‘inclusion’ and which side is for ‘free speech’ in this controversy?

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/anti-semitism/bds-wins-university-loses/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  179. @Percy Gryce
    OT: They're not sending their best:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5491897/Person-accused-killing-nursing-student-ex-flees.html

    I rate this a Muncian “ha ha.” The gods of the copybook headings have taught her a lesson.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    "Corny, as your frenemy, I have to tell that you’re embarrassing yourself on this one. Best to quietly withdraw."

    How cute when you go all white knighting. But The Boom foolishly claimed that “White men came up the concept of free speech…” When, in fact, the origins come from Athens.

    https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/ancient-greeces-legacy-liberty-personal-freedom-athens

    Would the Athenians have referred to themselves as individually or collectively as white, or as simply Athenians?

    Would the Athenians have referred to themselves as individually or collectively as white, or as simply Athenians?

    I doubt they would have referred to themselves as “white”, due to the fact that they spoke Greek instead of English. But what do you think they were? Kangz?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "But what do you think they were? Kangz?"

    They were Athenians. Turn up your hearing aid.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @Corvinus
    "Corny, as your frenemy, I have to tell that you’re embarrassing yourself on this one. Best to quietly withdraw."

    How cute when you go all white knighting. But The Boom foolishly claimed that “White men came up the concept of free speech…” When, in fact, the origins come from Athens.

    https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/ancient-greeces-legacy-liberty-personal-freedom-athens

    Would the Athenians have referred to themselves as individually or collectively as white, or as simply Athenians?

    Not really. (Ask Socrates.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. AskMeNot says:
    @Lot
    "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

    So trannies and Arabs rule over us?

    “To learn who rules over you, find out who will punish you for criticizing those you are not allowed to criticize.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Svigor says:

    Tell that to the white farmers in South Africa.

    Or the white guy trapped in a dark alley, or the white girl captured by WOG rape-gangs, or…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  184. AndrewR says:
    @Autochthon
    Rubbish. Some nineteen of the fifty-sex signatories to the Declaration of Independence were Scots, including its primary author, Thomas Jefferson (who was doubtless familiar with, and probably influenced by, the Declaration of Arbroath). Small but not insignificant numbers of Dutch also contributed to the creation of America.

    However, there most certainly weren't any Hindoos, Arabs, Orientals, or Negroes calling the shots....

    I notice you neglected to mention one group which has more power than all those other groups now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    I don't honestly know much about Jews' shenanigans in those days, since any such were likely as not so-called crypto-Jews hiding the ball about their allegiances, goals, and motivations. However, I expect their numbers were few and their contributions negligible until they began to stream in en masse in the nineteenth century.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @Corvinus
    "Corny, as your frenemy, I have to tell that you’re embarrassing yourself on this one. Best to quietly withdraw."

    How cute when you go all white knighting. But The Boom foolishly claimed that “White men came up the concept of free speech…” When, in fact, the origins come from Athens.

    https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/ancient-greeces-legacy-liberty-personal-freedom-athens

    Would the Athenians have referred to themselves as individually or collectively as white, or as simply Athenians?

    All black Africans were known as Ethiopians to the ancient Greeks, as the fifth-century B.C. historian Herodotus tells us, and their iconography was narrowly defined by Greek artists in the Archaic and Classical periods, black skin color being the primary identifying physical characteristic…Ethiopians were considered exotic to the ancient Greeks and their features contrasted markedly with the Greeks’ own well-established perception of themselves. The black glaze central to Athenian vase painting was ideally suited for representing black skin, a consistent feature used to describe Ethiopians in ancient Greek literature as well.

    Source: https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/afrg/hd_afrg.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    It would make sense for Athenians to describe people who appeared black to them as black, but did Athenians distinctly and definitively view themselves as white, or even European?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @AndrewR
    I notice you neglected to mention one group which has more power than all those other groups now.

    I don’t honestly know much about Jews’ shenanigans in those days, since any such were likely as not so-called crypto-Jews hiding the ball about their allegiances, goals, and motivations. However, I expect their numbers were few and their contributions negligible until they began to stream in en masse in the nineteenth century.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @Corvinus
    "Corny, as your frenemy, I have to tell that you’re embarrassing yourself on this one. Best to quietly withdraw."

    How cute when you go all white knighting. But The Boom foolishly claimed that “White men came up the concept of free speech…” When, in fact, the origins come from Athens.

    https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/ancient-greeces-legacy-liberty-personal-freedom-athens

    Would the Athenians have referred to themselves as individually or collectively as white, or as simply Athenians?

    The question isn’t whether those Athenians would have considered themselves “white” or “European-Athenians” :) but whether they were, in fact, genetically very similar to current Europeans. (Hint: They were.)

    If someone is making an argument that cultures tolerant of free speech and democracy have historically been found primarily (or, even, only) in countries with genetically European populations, then the genetic make-up of the ancient Athenians who created democracy is pertinent.

    Your “We are all Americans” or Athenians in this case is utterly beside the point. Cultures grow out of the genetic traits of the people that create them. Of course, culture can over hundreds of years (maybe thousands) influence biology, but, again, that’s a very slow process.)

    And that’s why you looked rather stupid.

    Know when to hold them, know when to fold them, Corny.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The question isn’t whether those Athenians would have considered themselves “white” or “European-Athenians”...

    Not "European-Athenians", sport, just Athenians. You begged the question here.

    "but whether they were, in fact, genetically very similar to current Europeans. (Hint: They were.)"

    From what I read the ancestors of Greeks are a MIX of continental European hunters AND Middle Eastern farmers. Refer to the Steppe hypothesis and the Anatolian hypothesis.

    "If someone is making an argument that cultures tolerant of free speech and democracy have historically been found primarily (or, even, only) in countries with genetically European populations, then the genetic make-up of the ancient Athenians who created democracy is pertinent."

    I was not making that argument. I simply and correctly stated that Athenians, not whites, came up with the concept of free speech. Free speech and democracy are ideologies by which people regardless of their racial or ethnic background are able to comprehend and apply.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @Corvinus
    "If whites wants freedom of speech or to be treated equally, we’ll have to fight for it. I’m not talking about violence, but fighting in the same way that American Jews fight for their people, creating lobby groups, funding politicians, creating media outlets, etc."

    Who is "we", Kemosabe?

    Corny, I’d rather have an elderly cat lady in my foxhole than you, so no problem is you don’t come along for the ride.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Corvinus says:
    @anon
    Would the Athenians have referred to themselves as individually or collectively as white, or as simply Athenians?

    I doubt they would have referred to themselves as "white", due to the fact that they spoke Greek instead of English. But what do you think they were? Kangz?

    “But what do you think they were? Kangz?”

    They were Athenians. Turn up your hearing aid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Corvinus says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    The question isn't whether those Athenians would have considered themselves "white" or "European-Athenians" :) but whether they were, in fact, genetically very similar to current Europeans. (Hint: They were.)

    If someone is making an argument that cultures tolerant of free speech and democracy have historically been found primarily (or, even, only) in countries with genetically European populations, then the genetic make-up of the ancient Athenians who created democracy is pertinent.

    Your "We are all Americans" or Athenians in this case is utterly beside the point. Cultures grow out of the genetic traits of the people that create them. Of course, culture can over hundreds of years (maybe thousands) influence biology, but, again, that's a very slow process.)

    And that's why you looked rather stupid.

    Know when to hold them, know when to fold them, Corny.

    “The question isn’t whether those Athenians would have considered themselves “white” or “European-Athenians”…

    Not “European-Athenians”, sport, just Athenians. You begged the question here.

    “but whether they were, in fact, genetically very similar to current Europeans. (Hint: They were.)”

    From what I read the ancestors of Greeks are a MIX of continental European hunters AND Middle Eastern farmers. Refer to the Steppe hypothesis and the Anatolian hypothesis.

    “If someone is making an argument that cultures tolerant of free speech and democracy have historically been found primarily (or, even, only) in countries with genetically European populations, then the genetic make-up of the ancient Athenians who created democracy is pertinent.”

    I was not making that argument. I simply and correctly stated that Athenians, not whites, came up with the concept of free speech. Free speech and democracy are ideologies by which people regardless of their racial or ethnic background are able to comprehend and apply.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Not “European-Athenians”, sport, just Athenians. You begged the question here.

    Corvinus, if my German shepherd doesn't think of himself as a German shepherd, does that mean he's not, in fact, a German shepherd?

    (Also, "sport"? Are you hinting that you are secretly Troof in disguise?)

    From what I read the ancestors of Greeks are a MIX of continental European hunters AND Middle Eastern farmers.

    And if you were a mix of continental European hunters and Middle Eastern farmers, what box would you check on the census?

    If the ancestors of ancient Greeks were a mix of continental European hunters and Middle Eastern farmers, then guess what? The ancestors of modern Greeks are also a combination of continental European hunters and Middle Eastern farmers. And I'm pretty sure most people consider them "white".

    Free speech and democracy are ideologies by which people regardless of their racial or ethnic background are able to comprehend and apply.

    Well, I suppose that, theoretically, they could, but that's not really the way it works out in practice. Heck, even lots of white countries don't really have much in the way of free speech.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. Corvinus says:
    @AnotherGuessModel
    All black Africans were known as Ethiopians to the ancient Greeks, as the fifth-century B.C. historian Herodotus tells us, and their iconography was narrowly defined by Greek artists in the Archaic and Classical periods, black skin color being the primary identifying physical characteristic...Ethiopians were considered exotic to the ancient Greeks and their features contrasted markedly with the Greeks’ own well-established perception of themselves. The black glaze central to Athenian vase painting was ideally suited for representing black skin, a consistent feature used to describe Ethiopians in ancient Greek literature as well.

    Source: https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/afrg/hd_afrg.htm

    It would make sense for Athenians to describe people who appeared black to them as black, but did Athenians distinctly and definitively view themselves as white, or even European?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherGuessModel
    You’re quibbling that people from centuries ago didn’t use the use the same precise identifiers of today. Are you also stumped that Africans didn’t call themselves “people of color” back then? And since Europe derives its name from a Greek myth, do you reasonably expect the concept of European to precede the Greeks?

    The Athenians were extremely ethnocentric and defined every outsider in contrast to their own identity. Ethiopian literally means charred or burnt skin, from the fuel ether and opia meaning face or appearance. So sharpen your deductive thinking skills, and stop being ahistorical and obtuse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    "The question isn’t whether those Athenians would have considered themselves “white” or “European-Athenians”...

    Not "European-Athenians", sport, just Athenians. You begged the question here.

    "but whether they were, in fact, genetically very similar to current Europeans. (Hint: They were.)"

    From what I read the ancestors of Greeks are a MIX of continental European hunters AND Middle Eastern farmers. Refer to the Steppe hypothesis and the Anatolian hypothesis.

    "If someone is making an argument that cultures tolerant of free speech and democracy have historically been found primarily (or, even, only) in countries with genetically European populations, then the genetic make-up of the ancient Athenians who created democracy is pertinent."

    I was not making that argument. I simply and correctly stated that Athenians, not whites, came up with the concept of free speech. Free speech and democracy are ideologies by which people regardless of their racial or ethnic background are able to comprehend and apply.

    Not “European-Athenians”, sport, just Athenians. You begged the question here.

    Corvinus, if my German shepherd doesn’t think of himself as a German shepherd, does that mean he’s not, in fact, a German shepherd?

    (Also, “sport”? Are you hinting that you are secretly Troof in disguise?)

    From what I read the ancestors of Greeks are a MIX of continental European hunters AND Middle Eastern farmers.

    And if you were a mix of continental European hunters and Middle Eastern farmers, what box would you check on the census?

    If the ancestors of ancient Greeks were a mix of continental European hunters and Middle Eastern farmers, then guess what? The ancestors of modern Greeks are also a combination of continental European hunters and Middle Eastern farmers. And I’m pretty sure most people consider them “white”.

    Free speech and democracy are ideologies by which people regardless of their racial or ethnic background are able to comprehend and apply.

    Well, I suppose that, theoretically, they could, but that’s not really the way it works out in practice. Heck, even lots of white countries don’t really have much in the way of free speech.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Corvinus, if my German shepherd doesn’t think of himself as a German shepherd, does that mean he’s not, in fact, a German shepherd?"

    We're not talking about dogs. We're talking about a group of people who referred to themselves as Athenians. Did they ever call themselves white? Or, is that label being foisted upon them so you and the fine posters here a to score cheap racial points. Do you really want those gimmedats to make yourself feelz better, like you waz a Kangz?

    Now, if Athenians had only thought of themselves as Athenians, but were somehow transported in time and participated in a "i-Steve meet and greet" with some of the fine posters here, who insisted that they were white**, would Athenians suddenly change their mind regarding their identity?

    **The term "white race" or "white people" entered the major European languages in the 1700's.

    "(Also, “sport”? Are you hinting that you are secretly Troof in disguise?)"

    I'm actually Huey Lewis incognito.

    "And if you were a mix of continental European hunters and Middle Eastern farmers, what box would you check on the census?"

    I would check "Other" or write "Mutt" in the space provided.

    "If the ancestors of ancient Greeks were a mix of continental European hunters and Middle Eastern farmers, then guess what? The ancestors of modern Greeks are also a combination of continental European hunters and Middle Eastern farmers. And I’m pretty sure most people consider them “white”."

    Would THEY call themselves "white", or is it YOU who thinks they ought to call themselves white?

    And, wait a minute here. Middle Easterners are...white? Since when? I thought they were Muslim savages. You know, sand [people].

    "Well, I suppose that, theoretically, they could, but that’s not really the way it works out in practice."

    Actually, that is the way it works out in practice.

    "Heck, even lots of white countries don’t really have much in the way of free speech."

    You are being obtuse here.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @Almost Missouri
    Buff, it's the design flaw in affirmative action. Whenever you have affirmative action + forced integration, the affirmative actionees will, by definition, be at the bottom of the performance scales, even more so than they would have been in a non-affirmative action environment. Since they can't win in free competition and no one likes staying at the bottom, they will direct their energies in other ways, in this case, into the proven model of demanding they be given Black Privilege.

    http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/05/12/the-amazing-1969-prophecy/

    Almost Missouri, Thank you for your reply, nicely stated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Corvinus says:
    @anon
    Not “European-Athenians”, sport, just Athenians. You begged the question here.

    Corvinus, if my German shepherd doesn't think of himself as a German shepherd, does that mean he's not, in fact, a German shepherd?

    (Also, "sport"? Are you hinting that you are secretly Troof in disguise?)

    From what I read the ancestors of Greeks are a MIX of continental European hunters AND Middle Eastern farmers.

    And if you were a mix of continental European hunters and Middle Eastern farmers, what box would you check on the census?

    If the ancestors of ancient Greeks were a mix of continental European hunters and Middle Eastern farmers, then guess what? The ancestors of modern Greeks are also a combination of continental European hunters and Middle Eastern farmers. And I'm pretty sure most people consider them "white".

    Free speech and democracy are ideologies by which people regardless of their racial or ethnic background are able to comprehend and apply.

    Well, I suppose that, theoretically, they could, but that's not really the way it works out in practice. Heck, even lots of white countries don't really have much in the way of free speech.

    “Corvinus, if my German shepherd doesn’t think of himself as a German shepherd, does that mean he’s not, in fact, a German shepherd?”

    We’re not talking about dogs. We’re talking about a group of people who referred to themselves as Athenians. Did they ever call themselves white? Or, is that label being foisted upon them so you and the fine posters here a to score cheap racial points. Do you really want those gimmedats to make yourself feelz better, like you waz a Kangz?

    Now, if Athenians had only thought of themselves as Athenians, but were somehow transported in time and participated in a “i-Steve meet and greet” with some of the fine posters here, who insisted that they were white**, would Athenians suddenly change their mind regarding their identity?

    **The term “white race” or “white people” entered the major European languages in the 1700′s.

    “(Also, “sport”? Are you hinting that you are secretly Troof in disguise?)”

    I’m actually Huey Lewis incognito.

    “And if you were a mix of continental European hunters and Middle Eastern farmers, what box would you check on the census?”

    I would check “Other” or write “Mutt” in the space provided.

    “If the ancestors of ancient Greeks were a mix of continental European hunters and Middle Eastern farmers, then guess what? The ancestors of modern Greeks are also a combination of continental European hunters and Middle Eastern farmers. And I’m pretty sure most people consider them “white”.”

    Would THEY call themselves “white”, or is it YOU who thinks they ought to call themselves white?

    And, wait a minute here. Middle Easterners are…white? Since when? I thought they were Muslim savages. You know, sand [people].

    “Well, I suppose that, theoretically, they could, but that’s not really the way it works out in practice.”

    Actually, that is the way it works out in practice.

    “Heck, even lots of white countries don’t really have much in the way of free speech.”

    You are being obtuse here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    We’re not talking about dogs.

    Forgive me for assuming you were capable of grasping the concept of an analogy.

    Did they ever call themselves white?

    I don't know, and I don't care. The question is, were they white, by our current definiton of "white", regardless of what they considered themselves. And the answer is "yes".

    Or, is that label being foisted upon them so you and the fine posters here a to score cheap racial points.

    Well, you can call it "foisting" if you want, but the fact is, they were white, and if they did invent the concept of freedom of speech, then yes. White people invented the concept of freedom of speech. I'm more interested in why you are so concerned with denying it.

    Now, if Athenians had only thought of themselves as Athenians, but were somehow transported in time and participated in a “i-Steve meet and greet” with some of the fine posters here, who insisted that they were white**, would Athenians suddenly change their mind regarding their identity?

    I have no idea what difference do you think that makes, regarding what they actually were.

    But if it matters, Greek people today consider themselves "white", and they're mostly descended from these same people, so I guess there's your answer.

    I would check “Other” or write “Mutt” in the space provided.

    Well, you're an idiot.

    Would THEY call themselves “white”, or is it YOU who thinks they ought to call themselves white?

    I don't care what they call themselves. I'm just talking about which of our current categories they would fit into.

    And, wait a minute here. Middle Easterners are…white? Since when? I thought they were Muslim savages. You know, sand [people].

    Well, they certainly weren't Muslims back then, genius, since this was thousands of years before the creation of Islam.

    And there are lots of Middle Eastern peoples who are typically considered "white". Jews, for instance. And lots of Persians. Not everybody from the Middle East is an Arab even now.

    And that's to say nothing of the fact that the Greeks were, even according to you, partially descended from continental Europeans.

    Actually, that is the way it works out in practice.

    Actually, no it isn't, if you would even bother to look at the chart above. Or look at the nations on the planet and see which ones have freedom of speech and which ones don't.

    You are being obtuse here.

    Corvinus, why do you do this? Why do you seem to get such a kick out of being the way you are?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Lot says:
    @Bill
    National Review doesn't criticize trannies and Arabs?

    I suppose within certain bounds. You can certainly advocate blowing them up! But they won’t say Arabs have low genetic IQs, depressed further by inbreeding, and that Trump should aim for net negative Arab migration. Or that there is no possiblity they can ever be intergrated into the West without degrading it.

    Get even close to the line there, and don’t expect to get a corporate job later on even if you are OK as a professional conservative.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Lot says:
    @Corn
    “Or, conversely, he could do something novel like nominate a White Protestant to the court ”

    Considering that the current Supreme Court is all Catholic and Jew a Protestant would be a diverse pick.

    Gorsuch is protestant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    "Corvinus, if my German shepherd doesn’t think of himself as a German shepherd, does that mean he’s not, in fact, a German shepherd?"

    We're not talking about dogs. We're talking about a group of people who referred to themselves as Athenians. Did they ever call themselves white? Or, is that label being foisted upon them so you and the fine posters here a to score cheap racial points. Do you really want those gimmedats to make yourself feelz better, like you waz a Kangz?

    Now, if Athenians had only thought of themselves as Athenians, but were somehow transported in time and participated in a "i-Steve meet and greet" with some of the fine posters here, who insisted that they were white**, would Athenians suddenly change their mind regarding their identity?

    **The term "white race" or "white people" entered the major European languages in the 1700's.

    "(Also, “sport”? Are you hinting that you are secretly Troof in disguise?)"

    I'm actually Huey Lewis incognito.

    "And if you were a mix of continental European hunters and Middle Eastern farmers, what box would you check on the census?"

    I would check "Other" or write "Mutt" in the space provided.

    "If the ancestors of ancient Greeks were a mix of continental European hunters and Middle Eastern farmers, then guess what? The ancestors of modern Greeks are also a combination of continental European hunters and Middle Eastern farmers. And I’m pretty sure most people consider them “white”."

    Would THEY call themselves "white", or is it YOU who thinks they ought to call themselves white?

    And, wait a minute here. Middle Easterners are...white? Since when? I thought they were Muslim savages. You know, sand [people].

    "Well, I suppose that, theoretically, they could, but that’s not really the way it works out in practice."

    Actually, that is the way it works out in practice.

    "Heck, even lots of white countries don’t really have much in the way of free speech."

    You are being obtuse here.

    We’re not talking about dogs.

    Forgive me for assuming you were capable of grasping the concept of an analogy.

    Did they ever call themselves white?

    I don’t know, and I don’t care. The question is, were they white, by our current definiton of “white”, regardless of what they considered themselves. And the answer is “yes”.

    Or, is that label being foisted upon them so you and the fine posters here a to score cheap racial points.

    Well, you can call it “foisting” if you want, but the fact is, they were white, and if they did invent the concept of freedom of speech, then yes. White people invented the concept of freedom of speech. I’m more interested in why you are so concerned with denying it.

    Now, if Athenians had only thought of themselves as Athenians, but were somehow transported in time and participated in a “i-Steve meet and greet” with some of the fine posters here, who insisted that they were white**, would Athenians suddenly change their mind regarding their identity?

    I have no idea what difference do you think that makes, regarding what they actually were.

    But if it matters, Greek people today consider themselves “white”, and they’re mostly descended from these same people, so I guess there’s your answer.

    I would check “Other” or write “Mutt” in the space provided.

    Well, you’re an idiot.

    Would THEY call themselves “white”, or is it YOU who thinks they ought to call themselves white?

    I don’t care what they call themselves. I’m just talking about which of our current categories they would fit into.

    And, wait a minute here. Middle Easterners are…white? Since when? I thought they were Muslim savages. You know, sand [people].

    Well, they certainly weren’t Muslims back then, genius, since this was thousands of years before the creation of Islam.

    And there are lots of Middle Eastern peoples who are typically considered “white”. Jews, for instance. And lots of Persians. Not everybody from the Middle East is an Arab even now.

    And that’s to say nothing of the fact that the Greeks were, even according to you, partially descended from continental Europeans.

    Actually, that is the way it works out in practice.

    Actually, no it isn’t, if you would even bother to look at the chart above. Or look at the nations on the planet and see which ones have freedom of speech and which ones don’t.

    You are being obtuse here.

    Corvinus, why do you do this? Why do you seem to get such a kick out of being the way you are?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I don’t know, and I don’t care. The question is, were they white, by our current definiton of “white”, regardless of what they considered themselves. And the answer is “yes”."

    Actually, the question is would Athenians refer to themselves as white? And the answer is no, unless someone out there is able to definitively prove that they called themselves white. “White” is a Western invention. The ancient Greeks certainly did not think of themselves as white: they divided the world by language, not race: those who spoke Greek were Greeks, those who did not speak Greek were deemed barbarians.

    "And that’s to say nothing of the fact that the Greeks were, even according to you, partially descended from continental Europeans."

    Indeed, partially.

    "Well, you can call it “foisting” if you want, but the fact is, they were white, and if they did invent the concept of freedom of speech, then yes."

    To quote someone famous, "Imagine some pathetic Euro-American activist grabbing your lapels and demanding, “Did you know that Euro-Americans invented the airplane? [You nod.] Oh, you did? Well … did you know that Euro-Americans invented the golf cart? Huh? Huh, did you know you that?”...Cheerleading for Euro-Americans seems as pointless as cheerleading for men would be."

    "But if it matters, Greek people today consider themselves “white”, and they’re mostly descended from these same people, so I guess there’s your answer."

    Key word here is "today". Greeks are Medittteranean phenotypically, like Spaniards, Portuguese, and Italians. So, if "whiteness" is measured by one's contribution to European culture and level of civilization, then Greeks are "white".

    But, again, ancient Greeks did not have a concept of race; rather, it was "us" (as in Greeks) and "them" (as in non-Greeks).

    Praytell, how did the term "race" come about? Who "invented" this term?

    "White people invented the concept of freedom of speech. I’m more interested in why you are so concerned with denying it."

    The fact of the matter is Athenians, the English, and Americans all assisted in developing and promoting this concept. It is for the benefit of humankind, not white people. I know it gives you the tingles in your loins to say "white people made this" and "white people made that", but in reality it is rather strange. Perhaps you should keep your pleasure seeking to yourself.

    In the end, this notion of attributing whiteness to all things great, or attributing whiteness to all things bad, is petty and foolish. But so goes the Alt Right and SJW's, two peas in a pod.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. There are two reasons

    1) As others have noted, when everyone is black, the victim card don’t play.

    2) HBCUs (some at least) still carry in their veins the legacy of “black uplift” era thinking.

    3) Related to the above, HBCUs have an inordinate number of wealthy/conservative blacks (yes, they do exist). If you’re upper-middle class and black, but not smart enough to get into an Ivy, a place like Morehouse can have more prestige than, say, Auburn.

    4) I’d bet cash money they did the survey at places like Howard, not at the lower-tier HBCUs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  199. How much does tiny duck put in your begging bowl to get his comments through but I still got comments in moderation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  200. @anon
    That wouldn't make any sense even if it was true. Why are whites even more pro-freedom, even when they're exposed to these white "SJW"s?

    And if you think that there aren't plenty of black and Hispanic "SJW"s around, then I invite you to pay a visit to one of our fine universities, so you'll actually have some idea what you're talking about.

    Do you even remember a couple years ago, when black "SJW"S wreaked havoc on the University of Missouri over nothing?

    Make a list of the most famous SJWs, past and present…who are they?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    I don't know. Ta-Nehisi Coates? Deray from Black Lives Matter would probably be on there. And Tariq Nasheed.

    What difference does it make who the most famous ones are? What you were suggesting is that there just wouldn't be any at all at historically black colleges, which I find sort of silly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Nigerian Nationalist
    Make a list of the most famous SJWs, past and present...who are they?

    I don’t know. Ta-Nehisi Coates? Deray from Black Lives Matter would probably be on there. And Tariq Nasheed.

    What difference does it make who the most famous ones are? What you were suggesting is that there just wouldn’t be any at all at historically black colleges, which I find sort of silly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Corvinus says:
    @anon
    We’re not talking about dogs.

    Forgive me for assuming you were capable of grasping the concept of an analogy.

    Did they ever call themselves white?

    I don't know, and I don't care. The question is, were they white, by our current definiton of "white", regardless of what they considered themselves. And the answer is "yes".

    Or, is that label being foisted upon them so you and the fine posters here a to score cheap racial points.

    Well, you can call it "foisting" if you want, but the fact is, they were white, and if they did invent the concept of freedom of speech, then yes. White people invented the concept of freedom of speech. I'm more interested in why you are so concerned with denying it.

    Now, if Athenians had only thought of themselves as Athenians, but were somehow transported in time and participated in a “i-Steve meet and greet” with some of the fine posters here, who insisted that they were white**, would Athenians suddenly change their mind regarding their identity?

    I have no idea what difference do you think that makes, regarding what they actually were.

    But if it matters, Greek people today consider themselves "white", and they're mostly descended from these same people, so I guess there's your answer.

    I would check “Other” or write “Mutt” in the space provided.

    Well, you're an idiot.

    Would THEY call themselves “white”, or is it YOU who thinks they ought to call themselves white?

    I don't care what they call themselves. I'm just talking about which of our current categories they would fit into.

    And, wait a minute here. Middle Easterners are…white? Since when? I thought they were Muslim savages. You know, sand [people].

    Well, they certainly weren't Muslims back then, genius, since this was thousands of years before the creation of Islam.

    And there are lots of Middle Eastern peoples who are typically considered "white". Jews, for instance. And lots of Persians. Not everybody from the Middle East is an Arab even now.

    And that's to say nothing of the fact that the Greeks were, even according to you, partially descended from continental Europeans.

    Actually, that is the way it works out in practice.

    Actually, no it isn't, if you would even bother to look at the chart above. Or look at the nations on the planet and see which ones have freedom of speech and which ones don't.

    You are being obtuse here.

    Corvinus, why do you do this? Why do you seem to get such a kick out of being the way you are?

    “I don’t know, and I don’t care. The question is, were they white, by our current definiton of “white”, regardless of what they considered themselves. And the answer is “yes”.”

    Actually, the question is would Athenians refer to themselves as white? And the answer is no, unless someone out there is able to definitively prove that they called themselves white. “White” is a Western invention. The ancient Greeks certainly did not think of themselves as white: they divided the world by language, not race: those who spoke Greek were Greeks, those who did not speak Greek were deemed barbarians.

    “And that’s to say nothing of the fact that the Greeks were, even according to you, partially descended from continental Europeans.”

    Indeed, partially.

    “Well, you can call it “foisting” if you want, but the fact is, they were white, and if they did invent the concept of freedom of speech, then yes.”

    To quote someone famous, “Imagine some pathetic Euro-American activist grabbing your lapels and demanding, “Did you know that Euro-Americans invented the airplane? [You nod.] Oh, you did? Well … did you know that Euro-Americans invented the golf cart? Huh? Huh, did you know you that?”…Cheerleading for Euro-Americans seems as pointless as cheerleading for men would be.”

    “But if it matters, Greek people today consider themselves “white”, and they’re mostly descended from these same people, so I guess there’s your answer.”

    Key word here is “today”. Greeks are Medittteranean phenotypically, like Spaniards, Portuguese, and Italians. So, if “whiteness” is measured by one’s contribution to European culture and level of civilization, then Greeks are “white”.

    But, again, ancient Greeks did not have a concept of race; rather, it was “us” (as in Greeks) and “them” (as in non-Greeks).

    Praytell, how did the term “race” come about? Who “invented” this term?

    “White people invented the concept of freedom of speech. I’m more interested in why you are so concerned with denying it.”

    The fact of the matter is Athenians, the English, and Americans all assisted in developing and promoting this concept. It is for the benefit of humankind, not white people. I know it gives you the tingles in your loins to say “white people made this” and “white people made that”, but in reality it is rather strange. Perhaps you should keep your pleasure seeking to yourself.

    In the end, this notion of attributing whiteness to all things great, or attributing whiteness to all things bad, is petty and foolish. But so goes the Alt Right and SJW’s, two peas in a pod.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Actually, the question is would Athenians refer to themselves as white?

    No, Corvinus. Only you are asking that. And you are doing it to deflect from the fact that you were just wrong earlier.

    “White” is a Western invention. The ancient Greeks certainly did not think of themselves as white: they divided the world by language, not race: those who spoke Greek were Greeks, those who did not speak Greek were deemed barbarians.

    This does not change the fact that, under the Western definition of "white", the ancient Greeks would count. Nobody falls for your stupid little games.

    To quote someone famous, “Imagine some pathetic Euro-American activist grabbing your lapels and demanding, “Did you know that Euro-Americans invented the airplane? [You nod.] Oh, you did? Well … did you know that Euro-Americans invented the golf cart? Huh? Huh, did you know you that?”…Cheerleading for Euro-Americans seems as pointless as cheerleading for men would be.”

    Well, if you find it so "pointless", then you could have stopped arguing about it a day ago.

    But, again, ancient Greeks did not have a concept of race; rather, it was “us” (as in Greeks) and “them” (as in non-Greeks).

    Even if this is true, it does not change the fact that, under the concept TheBoom was using, as a modern, Western, English-speaking person, Greeks are white.

    Praytell, how did the term “race” come about? Who “invented” this term?

    Doesn't matter, stupid.

    In the end, this notion of attributing whiteness to all things great, or attributing whiteness to all things bad, is petty and foolish.

    Even if it did, that wouldn't make it factually untrue, you dumb, dumb little person.

    Do you think spending a whole day trying to deny obvious facts makes you look a whole lot better?

    This is why nobody likes you.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. @Corvinus
    It would make sense for Athenians to describe people who appeared black to them as black, but did Athenians distinctly and definitively view themselves as white, or even European?

    You’re quibbling that people from centuries ago didn’t use the use the same precise identifiers of today. Are you also stumped that Africans didn’t call themselves “people of color” back then? And since Europe derives its name from a Greek myth, do you reasonably expect the concept of European to precede the Greeks?

    The Athenians were extremely ethnocentric and defined every outsider in contrast to their own identity. Ethiopian literally means charred or burnt skin, from the fuel ether and opia meaning face or appearance. So sharpen your deductive thinking skills, and stop being ahistorical and obtuse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Ethiopian literally means charred or burnt skin...
     
    "Eritrean" means "red" in Greek. I don't think they looked like Sitting Bull, though.
    , @William Badwhite
    I don't understand how anyone that comments here (or even just reads the comments) would not have Corvair, Tiny Dick, Art "Spergy Librarian" Deco, Whiskey "I hate hate hate white wimminz" etc in their "Commenters to Ignore" box.

    Truth has yet to make his first cogent point, but at least he can be pretty funny...the others are like fingernails on a chalkboard or hip-hop music or a shrieking baby: cringe-inducing with no positive side effects.

    Arguing with Corduroy is like arguing with some deranged homeless guy. "They weren't white, they were Athenians" is a perfect example of his/her argumentative silliness.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    "I don’t know, and I don’t care. The question is, were they white, by our current definiton of “white”, regardless of what they considered themselves. And the answer is “yes”."

    Actually, the question is would Athenians refer to themselves as white? And the answer is no, unless someone out there is able to definitively prove that they called themselves white. “White” is a Western invention. The ancient Greeks certainly did not think of themselves as white: they divided the world by language, not race: those who spoke Greek were Greeks, those who did not speak Greek were deemed barbarians.

    "And that’s to say nothing of the fact that the Greeks were, even according to you, partially descended from continental Europeans."

    Indeed, partially.

    "Well, you can call it “foisting” if you want, but the fact is, they were white, and if they did invent the concept of freedom of speech, then yes."

    To quote someone famous, "Imagine some pathetic Euro-American activist grabbing your lapels and demanding, “Did you know that Euro-Americans invented the airplane? [You nod.] Oh, you did? Well … did you know that Euro-Americans invented the golf cart? Huh? Huh, did you know you that?”...Cheerleading for Euro-Americans seems as pointless as cheerleading for men would be."

    "But if it matters, Greek people today consider themselves “white”, and they’re mostly descended from these same people, so I guess there’s your answer."

    Key word here is "today". Greeks are Medittteranean phenotypically, like Spaniards, Portuguese, and Italians. So, if "whiteness" is measured by one's contribution to European culture and level of civilization, then Greeks are "white".

    But, again, ancient Greeks did not have a concept of race; rather, it was "us" (as in Greeks) and "them" (as in non-Greeks).

    Praytell, how did the term "race" come about? Who "invented" this term?

    "White people invented the concept of freedom of speech. I’m more interested in why you are so concerned with denying it."

    The fact of the matter is Athenians, the English, and Americans all assisted in developing and promoting this concept. It is for the benefit of humankind, not white people. I know it gives you the tingles in your loins to say "white people made this" and "white people made that", but in reality it is rather strange. Perhaps you should keep your pleasure seeking to yourself.

    In the end, this notion of attributing whiteness to all things great, or attributing whiteness to all things bad, is petty and foolish. But so goes the Alt Right and SJW's, two peas in a pod.

    Actually, the question is would Athenians refer to themselves as white?

    No, Corvinus. Only you are asking that. And you are doing it to deflect from the fact that you were just wrong earlier.

    “White” is a Western invention. The ancient Greeks certainly did not think of themselves as white: they divided the world by language, not race: those who spoke Greek were Greeks, those who did not speak Greek were deemed barbarians.

    This does not change the fact that, under the Western definition of “white”, the ancient Greeks would count. Nobody falls for your stupid little games.

    To quote someone famous, “Imagine some pathetic Euro-American activist grabbing your lapels and demanding, “Did you know that Euro-Americans invented the airplane? [You nod.] Oh, you did? Well … did you know that Euro-Americans invented the golf cart? Huh? Huh, did you know you that?”…Cheerleading for Euro-Americans seems as pointless as cheerleading for men would be.”

    Well, if you find it so “pointless”, then you could have stopped arguing about it a day ago.

    But, again, ancient Greeks did not have a concept of race; rather, it was “us” (as in Greeks) and “them” (as in non-Greeks).

    Even if this is true, it does not change the fact that, under the concept TheBoom was using, as a modern, Western, English-speaking person, Greeks are white.

    Praytell, how did the term “race” come about? Who “invented” this term?

    Doesn’t matter, stupid.

    In the end, this notion of attributing whiteness to all things great, or attributing whiteness to all things bad, is petty and foolish.

    Even if it did, that wouldn’t make it factually untrue, you dumb, dumb little person.

    Do you think spending a whole day trying to deny obvious facts makes you look a whole lot better?

    This is why nobody likes you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "This does not change the fact that, under the Western definition of “white”, the ancient Greeks would count."

    You just stated that how the term "race " came about "doesn't matter", yet you are spilling precious digital ink telling me that it does matter. You can't even make up you mind.

    "Even if this is true, it does not change the fact that, under the concept TheBoom was using, as a modern, Western, English-speaking person, Greeks are white."

    Nativists in the late 1800's/early 1900's thought differently. Besides, the relevant question here despite your virtue signaling is how Athenians referred to themselves as, and not "white", which is a biological and social construct.

    "Do you think spending a whole day trying to deny obvious facts makes you look a whole lot better?"

    I was just wondering about the same thing about you!

    "Well, if you find it so “pointless”, then you could have stopped arguing about it a day ago.

    Clearly you find time in your day to make it a point, so it is other than pointless. Perhaps you could follow your own advice, dear.

    "This is why nobody likes you."

    Stuart Smalley says otherwise. Besides, you really need to lighten up, Francis.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. Corvinus says:

    “You’re quibbling that people from centuries ago didn’t use the use the same precise identifiers of today.”

    No. What am I stating is fact…Athenians did not refer to themselves as white, they referred to themselves as Athenians. Remember, the “white race” or “white people” had entered the major European languages in the 1700′s. Pay closer attention, please.

    “Are you also stumped that Africans didn’t call themselves “people of color” back then?”

    That would be who you is apparently perplexed.

    “The Athenians were extremely ethnocentric and defined every outsider in contrast to their own identity.”

    Which I had acknowledged earlier, had you been paying closer attention.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherGuessModel
    No, you claim Greeks defined outsiders only by language, and that is wrong. I gave you a very clear example of how they defined black Africans from an ethnocentric vantage point of their own looks, a light skin that is charred to dark. This is obvious in art, literature, recorded history, and in the actual etymology of their name for them. You're being tendentious.

    I find the debates over the Greek race so tedious, because even if Greeks were Asian or African, only white European people are the cultural heirs of Athens, as in the quote “We are all Greeks. Our laws, our literature, our religion, our arts have their root in Greece." Europeans are the ones who built upon its culture, including the value of free speech, which is now being shattered by outsiders who are not "all Greeks".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. @AnotherGuessModel
    You’re quibbling that people from centuries ago didn’t use the use the same precise identifiers of today. Are you also stumped that Africans didn’t call themselves “people of color” back then? And since Europe derives its name from a Greek myth, do you reasonably expect the concept of European to precede the Greeks?

    The Athenians were extremely ethnocentric and defined every outsider in contrast to their own identity. Ethiopian literally means charred or burnt skin, from the fuel ether and opia meaning face or appearance. So sharpen your deductive thinking skills, and stop being ahistorical and obtuse.

    Ethiopian literally means charred or burnt skin…

    “Eritrean” means “red” in Greek. I don’t think they looked like Sitting Bull, though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherGuessModel
    Greeks called all black Africans Ethiopians. Eritrean wasn't used to describe a people, it referred to the red sea.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. @AnotherGuessModel
    You’re quibbling that people from centuries ago didn’t use the use the same precise identifiers of today. Are you also stumped that Africans didn’t call themselves “people of color” back then? And since Europe derives its name from a Greek myth, do you reasonably expect the concept of European to precede the Greeks?

    The Athenians were extremely ethnocentric and defined every outsider in contrast to their own identity. Ethiopian literally means charred or burnt skin, from the fuel ether and opia meaning face or appearance. So sharpen your deductive thinking skills, and stop being ahistorical and obtuse.

    I don’t understand how anyone that comments here (or even just reads the comments) would not have Corvair, Tiny Dick, Art “Spergy Librarian” Deco, Whiskey “I hate hate hate white wimminz” etc in their “Commenters to Ignore” box.

    Truth has yet to make his first cogent point, but at least he can be pretty funny…the others are like fingernails on a chalkboard or hip-hop music or a shrieking baby: cringe-inducing with no positive side effects.

    Arguing with Corduroy is like arguing with some deranged homeless guy. “They weren’t white, they were Athenians” is a perfect example of his/her argumentative silliness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Arguing with Corduroy is like arguing with some deranged homeless guy. “They weren’t white, they were Athenians” is a perfect example of his/her argumentative silliness."

    Argumentative chops, not silliness. See, why don't you actually try to offer a cogent rebuttal rather than Fake News it? Your significant other would be better off for it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. @Reg Cæsar

    Ethiopian literally means charred or burnt skin...
     
    "Eritrean" means "red" in Greek. I don't think they looked like Sitting Bull, though.

    Greeks called all black Africans Ethiopians. Eritrean wasn’t used to describe a people, it referred to the red sea.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. @Corvinus
    "You’re quibbling that people from centuries ago didn’t use the use the same precise identifiers of today."

    No. What am I stating is fact...Athenians did not refer to themselves as white, they referred to themselves as Athenians. Remember, the “white race” or “white people” had entered the major European languages in the 1700′s. Pay closer attention, please.

    "Are you also stumped that Africans didn’t call themselves “people of color” back then?"

    That would be who you is apparently perplexed.

    "The Athenians were extremely ethnocentric and defined every outsider in contrast to their own identity."

    Which I had acknowledged earlier, had you been paying closer attention.

    No, you claim Greeks defined outsiders only by language, and that is wrong. I gave you a very clear example of how they defined black Africans from an ethnocentric vantage point of their own looks, a light skin that is charred to dark. This is obvious in art, literature, recorded history, and in the actual etymology of their name for them. You’re being tendentious.

    I find the debates over the Greek race so tedious, because even if Greeks were Asian or African, only white European people are the cultural heirs of Athens, as in the quote “We are all Greeks. Our laws, our literature, our religion, our arts have their root in Greece.” Europeans are the ones who built upon its culture, including the value of free speech, which is now being shattered by outsiders who are not “all Greeks”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "No, you claim Greeks defined outsiders only by language, and that is wrong."

    I never said ONLY by language. Here is what I stated "The ancient Greeks certainly did not think of themselves as white: they divided the world by language, not race: those who spoke Greek were Greeks, those who did not speak Greek were deemed barbarians."

    Of course there are other ways that Greeks had defined themselves compared to outsiders.

    "I gave you a very clear example of how they defined black Africans from an ethnocentric vantage point of their own looks, a light skin that is charred to dark. This is obvious in art, literature, recorded history, and in the actual etymology of their name for them. You’re being tendentious."

    Which I never denied nor disputed that characterization. Here is what I said, "It would make sense for Athenians to describe people who appeared black to them as black". Why are you getting your knickers in a twist?

    "...only white European people are the cultural heirs of Athens, as in the quote “We are all Greeks. Our laws, our literature, our religion, our arts have their root in Greece.”

    So Europe didn't build that, it was the Greeks. Europe merely piggy-backed off of those original ideas and made it "their own". But there are non-European nations who have been inspired by the Greek mindset.

    "Europeans are the ones who built upon its culture, including the value of free speech, which is now being shattered by outsiders who are not “all Greeks”."

    The value of free speech has its origins with the Greeks, but free speech as a value found in a number of non-European societies.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. Corvinus says:
    @William Badwhite
    I don't understand how anyone that comments here (or even just reads the comments) would not have Corvair, Tiny Dick, Art "Spergy Librarian" Deco, Whiskey "I hate hate hate white wimminz" etc in their "Commenters to Ignore" box.

    Truth has yet to make his first cogent point, but at least he can be pretty funny...the others are like fingernails on a chalkboard or hip-hop music or a shrieking baby: cringe-inducing with no positive side effects.

    Arguing with Corduroy is like arguing with some deranged homeless guy. "They weren't white, they were Athenians" is a perfect example of his/her argumentative silliness.

    “Arguing with Corduroy is like arguing with some deranged homeless guy. “They weren’t white, they were Athenians” is a perfect example of his/her argumentative silliness.”

    Argumentative chops, not silliness. See, why don’t you actually try to offer a cogent rebuttal rather than Fake News it? Your significant other would be better off for it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. Corvinus says:
    @anon
    Actually, the question is would Athenians refer to themselves as white?

    No, Corvinus. Only you are asking that. And you are doing it to deflect from the fact that you were just wrong earlier.

    “White” is a Western invention. The ancient Greeks certainly did not think of themselves as white: they divided the world by language, not race: those who spoke Greek were Greeks, those who did not speak Greek were deemed barbarians.

    This does not change the fact that, under the Western definition of "white", the ancient Greeks would count. Nobody falls for your stupid little games.

    To quote someone famous, “Imagine some pathetic Euro-American activist grabbing your lapels and demanding, “Did you know that Euro-Americans invented the airplane? [You nod.] Oh, you did? Well … did you know that Euro-Americans invented the golf cart? Huh? Huh, did you know you that?”…Cheerleading for Euro-Americans seems as pointless as cheerleading for men would be.”

    Well, if you find it so "pointless", then you could have stopped arguing about it a day ago.

    But, again, ancient Greeks did not have a concept of race; rather, it was “us” (as in Greeks) and “them” (as in non-Greeks).

    Even if this is true, it does not change the fact that, under the concept TheBoom was using, as a modern, Western, English-speaking person, Greeks are white.

    Praytell, how did the term “race” come about? Who “invented” this term?

    Doesn't matter, stupid.

    In the end, this notion of attributing whiteness to all things great, or attributing whiteness to all things bad, is petty and foolish.

    Even if it did, that wouldn't make it factually untrue, you dumb, dumb little person.

    Do you think spending a whole day trying to deny obvious facts makes you look a whole lot better?

    This is why nobody likes you.

    “This does not change the fact that, under the Western definition of “white”, the ancient Greeks would count.”

    You just stated that how the term “race ” came about “doesn’t matter”, yet you are spilling precious digital ink telling me that it does matter. You can’t even make up you mind.

    “Even if this is true, it does not change the fact that, under the concept TheBoom was using, as a modern, Western, English-speaking person, Greeks are white.”

    Nativists in the late 1800′s/early 1900′s thought differently. Besides, the relevant question here despite your virtue signaling is how Athenians referred to themselves as, and not “white”, which is a biological and social construct.

    “Do you think spending a whole day trying to deny obvious facts makes you look a whole lot better?”

    I was just wondering about the same thing about you!

    “Well, if you find it so “pointless”, then you could have stopped arguing about it a day ago.

    Clearly you find time in your day to make it a point, so it is other than pointless. Perhaps you could follow your own advice, dear.

    “This is why nobody likes you.”

    Stuart Smalley says otherwise. Besides, you really need to lighten up, Francis.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. Moses says:
    @Briny Schmuck
    I would go far beyond the indisputably obvious notion that one cannot be (reverse) racist against unmelanated Sons of Yakub. It is impossible to be prejudiced against white people, particularly white men, because white men have proven themselves beyond a shadow of a doubt throughout their despicable history to be the most bloodthirsty, genocidal, rape-inclined, monstrous colonialist land thieves in all of human existence. Thus, not only is it impossible to be reverse racist against the white devil, it is impossible to be prejudiced or bigoted against his cave beast self. All hatred against White Men by People of Color and Indigenous People IS ALWAYS JUSTIFIEED! As a matter of fact, given the nature of institutionalized power structures and systematic systems of systematized white supremacy designed by white male patriarchs to oppress and marginalize and enslave People of Color and Indigenous, I would suggest that a proper understanding of systematic racism dictates that crimes such as theft, homicide, and rape require power and privilege, which means that only white people are capable of committing such crimes. PERIOD! Just as we cannot hold a child culpable for crimes as we would hold an adult, the same goes in our racist system where People of Color are systematically oppressed by White Men. Read Leonard Pitts and the VerySmartBrothas! Indeed, once white men are breeded out from this earth by Superior People of Color whom white women and all the world prefer for their SUPERIOR QUALITIES to flabby weak fragile white boys, all bigotry and prejudice will cease, everywhere, for bigotry is a satanic effluence emanating from toxic whiteness and white supremacy alone.

    Shout it from the mountaintop, brother!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Corvinus says:
    @AnotherGuessModel
    No, you claim Greeks defined outsiders only by language, and that is wrong. I gave you a very clear example of how they defined black Africans from an ethnocentric vantage point of their own looks, a light skin that is charred to dark. This is obvious in art, literature, recorded history, and in the actual etymology of their name for them. You're being tendentious.

    I find the debates over the Greek race so tedious, because even if Greeks were Asian or African, only white European people are the cultural heirs of Athens, as in the quote “We are all Greeks. Our laws, our literature, our religion, our arts have their root in Greece." Europeans are the ones who built upon its culture, including the value of free speech, which is now being shattered by outsiders who are not "all Greeks".

    “No, you claim Greeks defined outsiders only by language, and that is wrong.”

    I never said ONLY by language. Here is what I stated “The ancient Greeks certainly did not think of themselves as white: they divided the world by language, not race: those who spoke Greek were Greeks, those who did not speak Greek were deemed barbarians.”

    Of course there are other ways that Greeks had defined themselves compared to outsiders.

    “I gave you a very clear example of how they defined black Africans from an ethnocentric vantage point of their own looks, a light skin that is charred to dark. This is obvious in art, literature, recorded history, and in the actual etymology of their name for them. You’re being tendentious.”

    Which I never denied nor disputed that characterization. Here is what I said, “It would make sense for Athenians to describe people who appeared black to them as black”. Why are you getting your knickers in a twist?

    “…only white European people are the cultural heirs of Athens, as in the quote “We are all Greeks. Our laws, our literature, our religion, our arts have their root in Greece.”

    So Europe didn’t build that, it was the Greeks. Europe merely piggy-backed off of those original ideas and made it “their own”. But there are non-European nations who have been inspired by the Greek mindset.

    “Europeans are the ones who built upon its culture, including the value of free speech, which is now being shattered by outsiders who are not “all Greeks”.”

    The value of free speech has its origins with the Greeks, but free speech as a value found in a number of non-European societies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. MBlanc46 says:

    I’ve advocated enslaving anyone under 30 for several reasons. This is another.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  215. EdwardM says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    Isn't this a contrived, forced choice? "Inclusivity" (whatever that is) vs. Free Speech?

    Let's try another survey: "When forced to choose, which is more important to you, air or free speech?

    Students currently in need of breathing will choose air.

    Why must one thing contradict the other?

    How many ways can we set up a question like that?

    I don’t think it’s really contrived, given that campus leftists nowadays explicitly argue that free speech must be suppressed in order to achieve equality, diversity, inclusiveness, etc.

    I am actually glad that they did this poll, because it reminds those who don’t pay much attention that the two values are in fact in conflict. It’s a step up from the 1990s PC days when people didn’t readily admit there was a conflict, just as they didn’t acknowledge the trade-off between affirmative action and standards.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?