Stop Feeding Milo Yiannapolous

Avatar

Roland Dodds

Roland Dodds is an educator, researcher and father who writes about politics, culture and education. He spent his formative years in radical left wing politics, but now prefers the company of contrarians of all political stripes (assuming they aren't teetotalers). He is a regular inactive at Harry's Place and Ordinary Times.

Related Post Roulette

619 Responses

  1. Avatar Damon
    Ignored
    says:

    Hmm…gee…this guy sounds like the mirror image of some folks on the left. Bed made…lie in it.

    I have no problem going to see this guy talk. I saw Jean Kirkpatrick, Marc Russell, George Will, and folks on the left. Generally, about 4 a year for each year in college. I remember the guys on the right mainly because of all the protests..which never happened when someone from the left came for a talk. Someone’s opinion’s don’t scare me and I find “how people think” interesting.Report

    • Avatar veronica d in reply to Damon
      Ignored
      says:

      @damon — Milo has reached the point, however, where he will single out students on campus, show their pictures, give their names, and then tell the audience how terrible this individual is. In one case the person’s crime was being transgender.

      Yeah, this is free speech, in the sense that if I knew your name and address I could probably convince a bunch of people to harass you. Which, maybe that is a victory of sorts. I doubt it.

      The thing is, Milo trucks in ugliness, and he will increase his ugliness to whatever point is needed to generate a response. And indeed, people would be smarter to ignore him. However, consider what would then happen: he would increase his ugliness, always just short of criminal levels, until it becomes quite difficult to ignore.

      This is #gamergate, basically. It’s manifest bullying.

      Saying “the left” will protest any conservative is perhaps true. But I, veronica d, won’t protest literally all conservatives. Milo is different. He does not share ideas. He preaches targeted hate, and not against those will power, not against “public figures,” but against random vulnerable people.

      Plus, he’s pretty much a Nazi. If conservatives are tired of being called Nazis, then do not become Nazis.

      I mean seriously, you are responsible for what you become.Report

      • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to veronica d
        Ignored
        says:

        Singling out a student with name and other identifying information and holding that person up for obloquy is likely not protected conduct under the First Amendment. I suppose the devil is in the totality of the facts and circumstances, as lawyers are wont to say, but IMO this looks a lot more like defamation and incitement to violence. Regardless of the reason why the victim is held up to obloquy.

        Unfortunately, a statement holding transgender people in general up to obloquy probably is protected speech, however crass. But to do that to a specific person (who is not already a public figure)? That crosses a legally significant line in my mind because of the substantial likelihood that this will diminish that person’s reputation and expose that person, uninvited, to a substantially enhanced risk of violence.Report

        • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Burt Likko
          Ignored
          says:

          Well there it is, boys, not protected speech. Now get that damn window down and let’s lynch us a Jew!Report

          • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to DensityDuck
            Ignored
            says:

            Dude, I’m just providing information here. This is not exactly what I intended be done with it, so that’s all on you, bubba.

            (FTR: I intended to suggest that maybe Milo’s speeches really aren’t justified under the First Amendment, so “free speech” might not be a countervailing value in this situation, given the information @veronica-d provided. That’s it.)Report

  2. Avatar Road Scholar
    Ignored
    says:

    I agree with Damon that I find “how people think” interesting. It’s why I’ve been spending a lot more time lurking — and taking notes — than commenting of late.

    Has it occurred to you that maybe these nice, wholesome, conservative kids might just actually agree with the things Milo is spouting, including the odious crap, and that’s why they’re inviting him to campus?Report

    • Avatar Kim in reply to Road Scholar
      Ignored
      says:

      Road,
      Sure. People who actually believe in free speech enough to get banned from First World countries are a rare breed.Report

    • Avatar Roland Dodds in reply to Road Scholar
      Ignored
      says:

      That may be the truth, but then they can dispense with the excuse that he is invited simply to “generate debate.” If they support the positions linked to above then just say so and avoid hiding behind the banal “free speech” argument that seems to dominate every discussion of his appearances.

      I hope they don’t. Not because I am a college Republican but because I believe we need a capable conservative counter on our college campuses. If college Republicans are in agreement with Milo when it comes to the specifics than we really have seen a death of conservatism as a viable political ideology.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Roland Dodds
        Ignored
        says:

        One of the problems is that I can’t tell the difference between a protest against the racist, sexist, homophobic George Will and a protest against the racist, sexist, homophobic Milo Yiannapolous .Report

        • Avatar Roland Dodds in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          I agree. The left has cried wolf so often that when the actual far-right started to show up they had already lost credibility. When no platforming was used to stop people Ayaan Hirsi Ali from speaking at colleges it is clear that activists were willing to stop anyone speaking they were opposed to.

          I will take up that fight another day. I would like to actually ask college Republicans to articulate what they hope to gain from bringing Milo. Is it just to make a splash? Are they in agreement with his positions? When I think of all the great conservative voices that could be invited to challenge left-wing orthodoxy and generate debate, I am saddened to see an obvious provocateur and con-artist routinely get the gig.Report

          • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Roland Dodds
            Ignored
            says:

            I would like to actually ask college Republicans to articulate what they hope to gain from bringing Milo.

            If I had to guess, I would say that the hope is that it will inspire funny protests and allow for a dialectic to be set up. Make passers-by look at the two sides that are arguing and force them to pick a side.

            Do you want to be on the side of the gay guy who is funny and is arguing in service to such concepts as Free Speech?

            Would you rather be on the side of the anarchists using Black Bloc tactics?

            Pick one.

            You do this right, you can make people unsympathetic to the stuff bundled with the side they don’t pick.Report

            • Avatar Roland Dodds in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              If it is true that someone like George Will will generate the same response from the left, why wouldn’t college Republicans bring him then? At least a conservative could justify and support his actual policies. Heck, I would be out in the streets fighting against the left if they were to do what they did in Berkeley to George Will. But for Milo? I am not going to stick my head out for that guy, even if I disagree with black bloc tactics.

              Again, I am trying to have goodwill towards college Republicans. Maybe they don’t invite George Will because they don’t agree with him but think Milo’s ideas are great.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Roland Dodds
                Ignored
                says:

                I suspect that their problem is liberals wouldn’t turn out to protest Will the way they will turn out to protest Milo.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Roland Dodds
                Ignored
                says:

                Back in 2008, Colorado College brought George Will to their campus.

                We went to go see him. We walked past protesters to go see him. Granted, these protesters were only chanting and holding signs, they weren’t lighting anything on fire.

                Even back then, he was a million years old.

                But for Milo? I am not going to stick my head out for that guy, even if I disagree with black bloc tactics.

                Fair enough. But dig this: there will be more College Republicans inviting Milo to speak. And there will be more Black Bloc tactics opposing him.

                As time goes on, there will be more and more posts saying “College Republicans! Quit inviting Milo!”

                But there will also be more and more posts saying “College Liberals! Quit rioting!”

                And the contradictions will heighten. And we will have another election.

                Maybe you’ll be smart enough to look at the candidates and not associate them with the two groups fighting on campus, but a lot of people will be chained to seeing “Trump == Milo” and “(Generic Democrat) == Rioters” and will have to pick a side or manage to forget to vote that day.

                Who will be more dissuaded from voting? Who won’t mind showing up on that particular Tuesday?

                As odious as Milo is, and he is odious, I think that he’ll hold up well against riot footage.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Jay,
                And the powers that be win. If we let them.Report

              • Avatar Roland Dodds in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                “As odious as Milo is, and he is odious, I think that he’ll hold up well against riot footage.”

                I think you are right about that. I hope that those us with a moderate approach to life and discussion can push back against the simplistic narratives that the radical fringes have used for political gain. But that means I ask Republicans to reflect on why they are doing what they do, just as I ask my leftist friends who celebrated acts of violence for weeks following the inauguration what they hope to accomplish from said actions in the long term. I am old enough to know which one of these competing (yet false) narratives will win at the ballot box and it won’t be the left.Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Roland Dodds
                Ignored
                says:

                ” But that means I ask Republicans to reflect on why they are doing what they do”

                They’re giving you a chance to show them who you are.Report

              • Avatar Roland Dodds in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                Then I guess I passed with flying colors much like the entire liberal Bay Area that didn’t show up to riot. 150 anarchists failed said test however.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Roland Dodds
                Ignored
                says:

                I ignored the guy, which is exactly what he deserves.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Mike Schilling
                Ignored
                says:

                *THIS* strikes me as the absolute perfect response.

                The argument that I’ve seen is something to the effect of “if Milo came and was ignored, he’d give a speech to a couple hundred College Republicans. Thanks to the riots, sales of his book are apparently soaring.Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                but…but…but…but HE’S A BAD GUY! A BAD GUY!!Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                Well yes, he’s a piece of shit. But he’s a piece of shit who thrives on attention, so let’s starve him of it.

                Not that you didn’t know that already.Report

              • Avatar notme in reply to Mike Schilling
                Ignored
                says:

                If he is a piece of shit then he has something in common with Bill and Hillary.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to notme
                Ignored
                says:

                Cool segue, man. How did you manage that one?Report

              • Avatar Dave in reply to Mike Schilling
                Ignored
                says:

                @mike-schilling

                If I answered your question, it probably wouldn’t stay up for long.

                Don’t know why there’s an “if” in that statement above. The author of this vile garbage is a piece of shit. There’s no debate. He’s clueless on the fat shaming studies, wants to ignore the issue of weight stigma and weight discrimination, which are quite real and have gotten a lot of attention in healthcare circles for the right reasons, and wants to treat the issue as if it’s political correctness run amok.

                Perfect for right wing neanderthals. Garbage for those of us that care about the issue and know what can happen when people act upon that shame and go off the rails.

                But it’s for their benefit (eyeroll).

                Not sure why there’s nearly 400 comments on this one but whatever. Liked the OP.Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Back in 2008, Colorado College brought George Will to their campus.

                We went to go see him. We walked past protesters to go see him. Granted, these protesters were only chanting and holding signs, they weren’t lighting anything on fire.

                This is very useful context in terms of the OP. The College Republicans do invite George Will, the libs do protest him (though maybe not quite as aggressively as Milo), so the likes of George Will quit coming.Report

              • Avatar Autolukos in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                If your sensibilities are too delicate to handle CC students with signs, I’m not sure how you muster the courage to walk out your front door.Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Autolukos
                Ignored
                says:

                You should be rethinking this. Colorado College is in Colorado Springs, a semi-major city at the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. It’s a typical place for a college to be, in that it’s somewhere in the middle between a major media center and glorified truck stop.

                There are some people who are local to CS (I think James Dobson might be one), but most reasonably prominent college speakers have to travel. Do I really want to travel maybe hundreds of miles to be interrupted, to be dodge civil disturbances, to require a significant security presence. No, it’s easier just to stay home, or meet with friendlier people, or friendlier audiences.

                Libs participation in contemporary culture is significantly about pollution. Libs should quit polluting.Report

              • Avatar Autolukos in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                I know where CC is, having graduated from it in 2010; the protest scene at the time was not impressive.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Autolukos
                Ignored
                says:

                I know where CC is, having graduated from it in 2010;

                Even better than happening to have Marshall McLuhan in your pocket.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                As Citizens United shows, it’s a vital First Amendment right for the obscenely rich to be able to buy elections, but college kids holding signs? Lock them up.Report

          • Avatar Pinky in reply to Roland Dodds
            Ignored
            says:

            “I would like to actually ask college Republicans to articulate what they hope to gain from bringing Milo.”

            My guess is, they believe themselves to be in a fight for free speech. Not Milo’s kind of hateful free speech, but the day-to-day kind where you’re not allowed to talk about certain topics based on your skin color or sex, where certain political opinions that aren’t hateful are deemed so and banned. We’re coming off of an election where publicly supporting one of the major party candidates was treated as a punishable offense on campus, by students, teachers, and administrations.

            The problem is that free speech can be defended intellectually by decent argument, but it has to be defended practically by uncivil speech.Report

            • Avatar Roland Dodds in reply to Pinky
              Ignored
              says:

              “The problem is that free speech can be defended intellectually by decent argument, but it has to be defended practically by uncivil speech.”

              I guess I will have to stick with the former.Report

            • Avatar InMD in reply to Pinky
              Ignored
              says:

              @pinky

              I think there’s some truth to that analysis, and while I don’t want to speak for @roland-dodds it would seem that a more defensible approach would be to get someone from FIRE or a similar organization. Unless of course the goal is, aa others have speculated, simply to bait leftists into painting themselves as the greater of two evils.Report

        • Avatar Pinky in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          As an article on The Federalist says today, If College Students Will Protest Mike Huckabee, They’ll Protest Anybody.Report

          • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Pinky
            Ignored
            says:

            I would have agreed a few years ago, but he’s not exactly Mr. Rogers these days.Report

            • Avatar Pinky in reply to Mike Schilling
              Ignored
              says:

              The Federalist article argues that Huckabee can’t fairly be accused of racism, sexism, or support of police misconduct, and therefore his speaking can’t be opposed by the criteria of modern free speech codes.Report

            • Avatar Brian McCarthy in reply to Mike Schilling
              Ignored
              says:

              @Mike Schilling you seem to always have a “yes, but…” suggestion for what your political opposites might do. Let’s take it to the level of what do you think the 1st am. ought to protect, is it any speech, political speech, speech with certain exceptions, odious and hateful speech??? We are for good or ill linked to the Holmes conception of the marketplace of ideas as a lode star. Do liberals still accept this premise for the analysis of free speech in the abstract?Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Brian McCarthy
                Ignored
                says:

                The first amendment is about state action; it doesn’t have a thing to do with protests against a particular speaker. If we’re going to talk about free speech, we need to distinguish between the different versions or aspects of it.Report

              • Avatar Autolukos in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                The first amendment is about state action; it doesn’t have a thing to do with protests against a particular speaker.

                I take your meaning, but of course it does have something to do with those protests: it protects them.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Autolukos
                Ignored
                says:

                Right, good point. Honestly I think there is an interesting debate to be had about how far the cultural norm of free speech should go and how to think about people using speech to express disapproval of other speakers that has the effect of discouraging or suppressing speech. It’s just that we’re emphatically not having that debate here because it’s so much fun to talk about who is bad and should feel bad.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                At first blush I think that’s great, but then, aren’t social norms the boundaries which, if crossed, make one a “bad person”?

                When people talk about social norms it always seems to sound like some noble and grand thing,but what isn’t discussed much is how we treat the transgressors.

                Traditionally it was by shaming, shunning or more violent forms of censure and coercion.

                I’m not saying thats bad, just that in order to taste the fruits of a stable social order, we need some form of coercion. Most of us tend to flinch at that, since it provokes our intuitive sense of mercy and forgiveness.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Brian McCarthy
                Ignored
                says:

                Protesting a speaker is free speech. I don’t understand what “If College Students Will Protest Mike Huckabee, They’ll Protest Anybody” means. Huckabee is am increasingly belligerent jerk and a Trump toady, not a moral exemplar. If the statement were “If College Students Will Protest Vaclev Havel They’ll Protest Anybody”, Republican Party Reptile Redux might have a point.Report

        • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          @jaybird

          One of the problems is that I can’t tell the difference between a protest against the racist, sexist, homophobic George Will and a protest against the racist, sexist, homophobic Milo Yiannapolous .

          @roland-dodds

          I agree. The left has cried wolf so often that when the actual far-right started to show up they had already lost credibility.

          I am curious as to why this matters at all. I distinctly remember some liberals and leftists called Ron Paul a racist in 2012… and what the fish does that have to do with a discussion about the merits of what Dyalnn Roof did in 2015? I definitely have heard some conservatives disparage all Muslim immigrants (even legal ones) and bash the gay lifestyle on talk radio pretty much every day I listen to it. How relevant is that to a discussion about whether or not we should allow more Omar Mateens?

          Just being clever for clever’s sake isn’t really always all it’s cracked up to be.Report

          • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Tod Kelly
            Ignored
            says:

            I am curious as to why this matters at all.

            Insofar as the Democratic Party election post-mortem seems to be “we won the popular vote and the reason that we lost the Blue Wall is that whiny swing voters were hornswaggled by Republicans yelling about Clinton’s emails”, I think that it matters very, very much.

            Because, from my perspective, Democrats won’t win elections without changing unless Trump gets really, really bad.

            And I don’t mean “really bad from the perspective of someone who lives in Brooklyn”. I mean “really bad from the perspective of someone who lives in Wisconsin.”

            And the general feel that I get from the Democrats is that they have no reason to change.

            Which leads me to the conclusion that they’re going to lose the next couple of elections.Report

            • Avatar gregiank in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              fwiw, i don’t how you filter your info. I’ve heard plenty of D officials types talking about change. Sure some are doing a vareity of what you said, but many aren’t.Report

            • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              the reason that we lost the Blue Wall is that whiny swing voters were hornswaggled by Republicans yelling about Clinton’s emails”,

              If commenter Koz is to be believed, thats exactly, precisely, what happened.
              These Dems are loyal Democrat plantation voters, who love them some abortion rights and labor unions, but emails, man.

              So my question is what happens when Mrs. DemTrump voter goes down to PP to get her thrice-yearly abortion, and finds the doors locked and doctor arrested.

              Or Mr. DemTrump voter loses his health insurance because he had kidneystones a few years ago, and now can’t afford his chemo.

              Or the school that Junior DemTrump goes to closes down, and they have to pay a small fortune to Barron Trump Academy Elementary School.

              IMO, this is going to be bad.

              And I don’t mean “really bad from the perspective of someone who lives in Brooklyn”. I mean “really bad from the perspective of someone who lives in Wisconsin.”Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Here’s a fun fact: less than two months from the deadline, 8 of the 11 Virginia House districts that Clinton won do not have a Democratic candidate running for them.

                #10, #12, #40, #42, #68, #73, #94, and #100.

                (I can’t speak for Koz. I spent a lot of 2010-2012 arguing with him that the Democrats in 2006 and Obama in 2008 were, among other things, a repudiation of Bushism and the Republicans turning their back on Libertarian/Fiscally Conservative ideals his only counter-argument was how much worse the Democrats were. For the record, I also see Trump as a repudiation of Bushism but that seems like one hell of a moot point.)Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Thats political malpractice by the VA Dem party, I agree.

                My objection to the people demanding that Dems “adjust” their views, “moderate” their stance, “compromise” or whatever other euphemism you choose, is towards what?

                No one can name any Trump policy, there exists no coherent Trump idea of economic progress, and to this day no one can formulate a plan to regain jobs in the Midwest without using the term “Underpants Gnomes”.

                So what changes would you suggest the Dems make to their views?
                (“OK, so maybe Muslims ARE an existential threat to America; but lets only imprison half of them, as a compromise“)

                Further, I think Koz is right to a degree, that there are plenty of Trump voters who really don’t want the Trump/ GOP policies.

                How many Trump voters want to dismantle Medicare? Social Security? Planned Parenthood? The ACA?
                Seriously, how many people have you met who want to re-introduce child labor? Or eliminate the minimum wage?

                The error in the concern trolling of the Dems is the assumption that the Ryan/McConnell congress represents the true policy desires of the American people.

                It doesn’t. If anyone disagrees, show your work.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                The error in the concern trolling of the Dems is the assumption that the Ryan/McConnell congress represents the true policy desires of the American people.

                I don’t think that it does.

                But I think it does a less horrible job than the Democrats, on a national level, are articulating.

                They’re, instead, making jokes about how stupid the people who wouldn’t vote for them must be. Oh, and failing to run candidates in winnable districts. But that second problem is kind of not worth investing in if the first isn’t tackled.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                So the Republican message to the country is defined by the statements that the President makes, and the Democrats’ message is defined by a cherry-picked selection of liberals chattering on Twitter?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                If Twitter is the battlefield, that seems vaguely accurate.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Why on earth would twitter be the battlefield? Barely anyone, statistically speaking, actually uses it. And even if it is, why are we assuming that the awful things liberal twitter eggs say are how the whole world perceives liberals?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                Where would you suggest the battlefield be?

                The voting booths?
                The senate floor?
                The front pages of the various newspapers?
                Some amalgam of all of them?

                The main thing I’m looking for is some way to measure who is winning.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Polls? Elections? Something, anything, other than the subjective impressions of one person trying to read the minds of swing voters from his keyboard?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                Fair enough. We’ll wait until 2018 to have a definitive answer.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Jay,
                Disagree. Idaho will vote for a Democrat if the Republican is crazy enough. And Idaho doesn’t really care what Liz Warren is saying.Report

              • Avatar El Muneco in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I have a suspicion – ok, maybe it’s a hope, but I’m putting togrther some disparate anecdata… That trump’s campaign was SO content-neutral, incoherent, and blatantly self-serving… that a not overlarge but still significant fraction of his support voted under the assumption that he was, of course!, lying – to everyone else.
                Women who think he won’t touch Roe. Workers who love the ACA but hate Obamacare and thimk only dark people will lose their insurance.
                Basically everything trump voters think about him is projection because there’s no there there. Every time he actually does somethimg, he’ll lose the people who’d convinced themselves he wouldn’t.
                Some of them. Maybe enough. Our country can hope.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to El Muneco
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s what I am seeing among my Trump friends and relatives.
                They all are convinced that Medicare and the No Pre-existing Conditions clause will still be there when they want it.
                But the illegals will be gone by summer.Report

              • Avatar Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s funny. I saw the comment on the right side of the screen and I could immediately tell that it was you. There’s just a rhythm of superiority to it that you probably don’t intend.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                I should probably attend sensitivity classes.

                Does Milo offer those?Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to El Muneco
                Ignored
                says:

                Muneco,
                Trump can’t do a damn thing about Roe V Wade. Seriously, if we didn’t get it rolled back when there was a conservative majority on the court and it was a BIG Issue, why do you think it’ll get rolled back now?Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                This probably isn’t super topical. Nonetheless….

                (I can’t speak for Koz. I spent a lot of 2010-2012 arguing with him that the Democrats in 2006 and Obama in 2008 were, among other things, a repudiation of Bushism and the Republicans turning their back on Libertarian/Fiscally Conservative ideals….

                Back then, I stipulated to this part.

                his only counter-argument was how much worse the Democrats were. For the record, I also see Trump as a repudiation of Bushism but that seems like one hell of a moot point.)

                But the “only” part is bogus. While it is true that the Demos were worse, my main argument at the time was that the GOP of that time were the representation of limited government and fiscal responsibility in the political sphere, as I think the events of that time and since have fairly conclusively shown.

                Or to put it another way, Jaybird’s argument “because W” is conclusive of nothing.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                So my question is what happens when Mrs. DemTrump voter goes down to PP to get her thrice-yearly abortion, and finds the doors locked and doctor arrested.

                She’s probably rich enough to have one without public money. The poor will suffer until some women die in back alleys and that goes public, but that’s a different issue.

                Or Mr. DemTrump voter loses his health insurance because he had kidneystones a few years ago, and now can’t afford his chemo.

                Without health care reform (as opposed to insurance reform) no one will be able to pay for anything.

                Or the school that Junior DemTrump goes to closes down, and they have to pay a small fortune to Barron Trump Academy Elementary School.

                Charter Schools are public schools. BTW having a charter around is *amazing* at keeping the public school in line. If take the kids charter then I’m taking them “out of the district”.Report

            • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              Oh, so there’s a horse race question to be examined?

              Well then by all means, let’s ignore the content of what’s being done and focus on that.Report

          • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Tod Kelly
            Ignored
            says:

            Rand Paul? Calling Ron a racist does have some facts behind it, even if they’ve been unconvincingly denied.Report

          • Avatar Roland Dodds in reply to Tod Kelly
            Ignored
            says:

            @tod-kelly I think you are addressing two separate things here. Calling Ron Paul a racist in 2012 has nothing to do with talking about racist violence by the likes of Dylan Roof in 2015. I also distinctly remember calling a whole slew of Republicans fascists back in 2002. They were not of course, but now that I am seeing actual far-right figures take power, I recognize that all that hyperbolic language numbed people to the power of those terms.

            It doesn’t mean you don’t call a spade a spade but I recognize I made a mistake in employing that type of language inappropriately. I hope others on the left figure that out as well.Report

            • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Roland Dodds
              Ignored
              says:

              …but now that I am seeing actual far-right figures take power…

              …It doesn’t mean you don’t call a spade a spade but I recognize I made a mistake in employing that type of language inappropriately.

              How many dead bodies are these far-right figures responsible for? How much domestic terrorism? How much violence? Is anyone on the Right endorsing violence? Say, claiming Dylan Roof is misunderstood and should be let go? Has Trump written a book somewhere calling for mass murder?

              As far as I can tell you’re still screaming wolf.

              The Left needs a violent genocidal villain to justify how violent the Left itself is, and there is nothing around like that short of ISIS.

              There are policy differences, opposing open borders, opposing free trade, endorsing school choice, etc, but screaming wolf worked so well for so long that it’s a reflex.Report

    • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Road Scholar
      Ignored
      says:

      Has it occurred to you that maybe these nice, wholesome, conservative kids might just actually agree with the things Milo is spouting, including the odious crap, and that’s why they’re inviting him to campus?

      I find a lot of people these days raise this question when talking about people like Milo. I confess, I am unsure why it makes a difference.Report

      • Avatar gregiank in reply to Tod Kelly
        Ignored
        says:

        It seems like lots of conservatives don’t want to believe the worst conservative trolling/vitriol is a real belief. It’s just torking off liberals so they can ignore it or enjoy since it’s just a game.
        I’ve seen it a lot as a rationalizations for vile Reddit’s and such; those guys are just reacting to PC culture so it’s really the libs fault. That frequent posters to Coontown actually are virulent racists is hard to believe for some. The belief is they are just trolling not true believers. Does that make it okay? well not to me but to some that is plenty good enough.Report

        • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to gregiank
          Ignored
          says:

          I get what the argument is. What I don’t get is why the answer to the question matters.

          “Hey, I know you’re scared that some faceless person sent you a swastika and a note saying that they were going to rape you, but you should know they’re pranksters and might not have meant it in their hearts. They may even like women and Jews deep down inside!”

          Seriously, why the fish does it matter what’s in their hearts?

          I am asking this question in all seriousness.Report

  3. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    I knew he was somewhat sexist, somewhat racist, and a big fan of Gamergate… but I didn’t know he was also a hypocrite! GET HIM!Report

    • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      How is this responsive to Roland’s post?Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Don Zeko
        Ignored
        says:

        Jaybird never can resist unleashing his fake Socratic Method to troll liberalism and liberals.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Don Zeko
        Ignored
        says:

        Here, let me paste some of Roland’s post for you:

        But Milo’s actions are anything but a defense of free speech principles. His attempts to silence those who dare speak of him unkindly (much like our current president) by using his swarm of online acolytes is not a political act that should find support from any ideology or persuasion.

        Worse yet, he has personally attempted to get people fired from their jobs for speaking unkindly of his enterprise.

        The entire last third of his post is dedicated to how Milo isn’t really a fan of free speech despite hiding behind the concept.

        In the circles in which *I* argue, typically, you set up arguments like this:
        Good argument
        Better argument
        Best argument to land the knockout punch.

        Assuming that Roland did that here, his knockout punch has nothing to do with Milo being bad in his own right, but in being a hypocrite.

        I was gently teasing the idea that the appeal to hypocrisy was, in itself, a particularly strong blow to land against someone like Milo especially in an essay that established early on that it wouldn’t “step into the debate around the ethics and worthiness of direct action or no platforming”.

        So it didn’t take a stand on Free Speech, it merely pointed out that Milo had one and concluded, triumphantly, that Milo wasn’t living up to it.

        That’s how it was responsive to Roland’s post.Report

        • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          As I read it, the central thrust of Roland’s post was that college Republicans should pay attention to what Milo actually has to say, what he has done, and whether that’s what they want to be associated with rather than embracing him simply because of how the left treats him. You responded to this by…talking about how the left unfairly shouts him down.Report

          • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Don Zeko
            Ignored
            says:

            You responded to this by…talking about how the left unfairly shouts him down.

            No I didn’t. I wrote “I knew he was somewhat sexist, somewhat racist, and a big fan of Gamergate… but I didn’t know he was also a hypocrite! GET HIM!”

            Then you asked me what that had to do with Roland’s post.

            Seriously, just scroll up. It’s right there.Report

            • Avatar North in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              FWIW I’d say being correctly identified as a hypocrite is a really telling point against Milo.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                When the context that we’re deliberately and explicitly not dwelling on is that his speech got shut down because of a riot as part of a pattern of unpleasant speakers getting shut down on campus?

                There are thousands of things to hate about Yiannapolous.

                Among other things, the fact that he has apparently read and internalized Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

                Moreover, it’s not like this particular variant of his hypocrisy is a hypocrisy that distinguishes him from his opposition among those who actually do espouse the very ideals where he is being a hypocrite. So we’ve got Yiannapolous fighting against the college left (or whatever you’d want to call them) and neither one believes in free speech.

                And the argument here seems to be “if you really believed in free speech, you’d do what just so happens to be what the people who oppose Yiannapolous want you to do”?

                I don’t find that argument likely to change a single mind.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                But it’s not about Milo, it’s about College Republicans. Rolands’ point is that if you wanna be for free speech invite a speaker who’s actually for free speech rather than Milo who appears, per his hypocrisy, to actually be merely for provocation. By inviting Milo instead of some non-hypocritical free speech conservative College Republicans are diminishing themselves.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                By inviting Milo instead of some non-hypocritical free speech conservative College Republicans are diminishing themselves.

                On an absolute level, yes.
                On a positional level, I’d say that the jury is still out.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                So college Republicans should be happy to degrade their own ideas and associate with odious fringe figures so long as it reflects even worse on the left?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                “Should” is above my pay grade.

                There will be college republican groups who will, though. They will be *DELIGHTED* to degrade their own ideas and associate with odious fringe figures so long as it reflects even worse on the left.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                So normative judgments are above your pay grade? I agree that that’s what will happen, but I’m happy to say that milo, the conservatives inviting him, and the people violently protesting him and shouting him down are all being varying levels of bad.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                Normative judgments lead me to “HOLY CRAP THESE PEOPLE ARE RIOTING AND ATTACKING PEOPLE!” before it gets me to Milo.

                As such, I’m not sure that getting me to focus on the normative judgment will get me where you want me to go.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                This is whataboutism. I just said I disagree with how the campus left reacts to Milo. Why can’t you say you disagree with the college Republicans that invite him?Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                “I just said I disagree with how the campus left reacts to Milo. Why can’t you say you disagree with the college Republicans that invite him?”

                What if Jaybird doesn’t disagree with the notion that you should give your political opponents a chance to visibly fail to live up to their stated ideals?Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                Then I’d like him to come out and say it rather than continuing to dance around the question.Report

              • Avatar dragonfrog in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                I can’t say with a perfect lack of uncertainty I didn’t fail to not cancel an odd number of negatives in parsing that sentence.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                I am certain that I disagree with the college Republicans that invite him.

                I think that, absent the riots, they’d be doing damage to their own cause.

                Absent the riots, people would look at Milo and see that he is a transparent fraud and provocateur who is merely a genius when it comes to self-promotion and is standing on no foundation at all.

                Absent the riots, I’m sure that we’d all be able to see that sort of thing.

                Absent the riots.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I find it interesting that no one on this thread is speaking in the first person anymore.

                No one is saying, “Wow those protests changed my political persuasion”.

                Or even in the second hand; “Wow, my friend Steve was totally a Hillary supporter until they rioted against Milo”

                Or even third hand with data: “Wow, polls have really swing in Milo’s favor since they rioted”;

                No, the comments seem to be revolving around some invisible person who can’t really be identified, but can be studied with a detached View From Nowhere that takes no position and sees both sides as bad but is firmly convinced that the liberals are worse.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                a detached View From Nowhere that takes no position and sees both sides as bad but is firmly convinced that the liberals are worse

                Don’t see it as “the liberals are worse” but that “the rioters are worse”.

                Because, in this case, both sides are bad.

                But the rioters are worse.Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                But Jaybird, you have to understand that the rioters are no more with the liberal left than the KKK is with the conservative right!Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Jaybird: Don’t see it as “the liberals are worse” but that “the rioters are worse”.

                Because, in this case, both sides are bad.

                I’m not sure. I’ve gone to listen to people I disagree with, just to hear them talk. I’m pretty sure they were invited to talk by people who didn’t agree with them.

                And what this guy is doing seems more like performance art than serious political speech.

                What he’s doing is bad, but imho whatever college conservative group brought him isn’t sullying their name all that much and the Left is shown to be violent and intolerant (which btw is a bigger problem).

                My “bad” meter for the College group doesn’t ping all that much. Now it would if they said they supported him, but he’s enough of a caricature that seems unlikely.Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                No, the comments seem to be revolving around some invisible person who can’t really be identified,…

                Right, because they are wearing masks and indistinguishable black clothing for the purpose of being able to commit felonies in anonymity.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                No, I was wearing a Guy Fawkes mask.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Chip! Stop Scaring the Scientologists!Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                So you agree with the post, but just can’t bear to discuss Milo without yelling about riots riots riots?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                I don’t think, at this point, it’s possible to talk about Milo without spending a good chunk of time on riots, riots, riots.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                No, we can’t, because any attempt to discuss the behavior of anyone else involved will immediately be met with BUT RIOTS.Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                Really, what else is there to talk about? Like I’m going to care a whole lot about the substance of Milo Yiannopoulos one way or the other.Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                As far as I can tell, the discussion Don Zeko and Chip Daniels want to have is:

                1) Milo is bad
                2) The endReport

              • Avatar Nevermoor in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                What campus left?

                For those who don’t live in the Bay Area, the “black bloc” isn’t some sort of general idea or tactic, it’s specific people who seem to delight in using any number of protests for cover to commit property crimes (for decades, but notably during and after the occupy movement). Who are assholes, but have nothing to do with the “campus left” that seemed poised to protest but not block the other asshole we’re talking about.

                And if anyone here has a problem with protest-but-not-block, I’d love to see your “defender of free speech” credentials.Report

              • Avatar DavidTC in reply to Nevermoor
                Ignored
                says:

                For those who don’t live in the Bay Area, the “black bloc” isn’t some sort of general idea or tactic, it’s specific people who seem to delight in using any number of protests for cover to commit property crimes (for decades, but notably during and after the occupy movement). Who are assholes, but have nothing to do with the “campus left” that seemed poised to protest but not block the other asshole we’re talking about.

                Indeed.

                Milo, as he has been invited around the country, has been met with a steady stream of protests.

                *Protests*. No one is trying to get him barred from campus, they are out there protesting his message.

                *This time*, a particularly Oakland problem shows up: The Black Bloc assholes, who need to be tracked down and fucking arrested for repeated acts of violence and essentially being a terrorist cell, even if their ‘terrorism’ seems limited to street level violence and acts of vandalism.

                This didn’t have anything to do with the campus.

                And you could be asking ‘Why doesn’t the left disavow them?’…except it *does*. The actual left, in any place that deals with them, got sick of them long ago and want them gone. (And it’s worth pointing out that they are, literally, anti-fascist anarchists who want to burn the whole thing down, and think the Democratic party is barely better than Republican party.)

                Stop treating them as ‘the left’, and don’t treat them as ‘the college left’. Start treating them as, well, the same as the damn KKK or whatever. They are, literally, anti-fascist anarchists who want to burn the whole thing down, and think the Democratic party is barely better than Republican party. They are, at best, the ‘far-left’. (The *actual* far left, the neo-nazi equivalent of the far-left. Not, say, Bernie Sanders)

                Or, hell, maybe we should start calling them the alt-left. Apparently, the right was allowed to randomly disassociate their philosophical far-right from their violent and misogynistic and racist far-right by just calling it the ‘alt-right’, so let’s disassociate *our* philosophical far-left from our violent and misogynistic (And possibly racist?) far-left.

                They’re the idiots who killed the Occupy movement in Oakland, incidentally.Report

              • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to DavidTC
                Ignored
                says:

                If you were in the crowd on Sproul Plaza that night, the antifa might have appeared to be a homogenous mass of agents of chaos descending on your “resistance dance party.” This is understandable. Black bloc tactics are primarily designed to protect the identities of the individuals in the bloc from doxxing, surveillance footage and being singled out for arrest. You couldn’t tell who was behind those masks, and that’s the point.

                But don’t get it twisted. We were not, as the news, the chancellor and concerned progressives have alleged, “unaffiliated white anarchists.” Behind those bandanas and black T-shirts were the faces of your fellow UC Berkeley and Berkeley City College students, of women, of people of color, of queer and trans people.

                “Stop treating them as ‘the left’, and don’t treat them as ‘the college left’. Start treating them as, well, the same as the damn KKK”

                Possibly @jaybird is right… if you have a riot problem, thinking you have a Milo problem might be fraught with unintended consequences.

                I will say this though, having now read and watched Milo in action (Thanks Obama OT), my counter intuitive thought for the day is that Milo isn’t there for the Republicans, he’s recruiting the Liberals. The Republicans? They are being subverted by request. Whatever the Alt-Right is (and I’m pretty sure y’all don’t get it), it is a youth movement, and it’s target is Millennials. The millions of views he’s getting? Those aren’t closet conservatives, they are Alt-curious snake people.

                So, Roland is absolutely right, “conservatives” shouldn’t ask Milo to speak to their youth… he’s recruiting, he’s just not recruiting for anything conservative. Possibly he’s recruiting for a new Republican party. But then, the Republican party is a failed project; long live the Republican Party.Report

              • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to DavidTC
                Ignored
                says:

                No one is trying to get him barred from campus

                I haven’t been following all that closely, but from what I can tell, that is exactly what they’re trying to do.Report

              • Avatar DavidTC in reply to Brandon Berg
                Ignored
                says:

                Allow me to rephrase:

                A large amount of students and other people had tried all sorts of ways to have him barred from campus on various grounds. (Grounds that actually seem pretty solid, BTW. There is pretty solid evidence that he *personally calls out students* for various things he doesn’t like, which is almost certainly a violation of university harassment codes.(1))

                The *protesters at the event* were not trying to have him banned, they were, in fact, calling what they were doing a ‘dance party’ and presenting a counter message of love and inclusion, which sounds a bit goofy to me, but whatever. They were not trying to stop Milo from speaking at that point, they were not trying to stop people from entering to hear him speak. (This is also how it has worked at other campuses, AFAIK.)

                Until the antifa showed up and started breaking stuff and threatening people.

                1) Which presents a rather obvious way to solve the entire damn problem of Milo: Hey, group of students trying to invite someone to campus? If they break any university rules, (Especially rules they appear to break *every time they give a speech*, i.e., things you can’t claim ignorance about) you will all get punished as if you had broken them.

                Threaten the College Republican for expulsion based on *Milo’s* behavior. Say you’re basically going to pretend that *each of them* gave his speech, and, BTW, they might want to quickly check the school handbook again for what ‘harassment’ consists of. See how quickly they decide that his stunt show is a bad idea.Report

              • Avatar Iron Tum in reply to DavidTC
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes, the rioters totally weren’t connected to UCB students.

                Except for those students who talked about being part of it in yesterday’s Daily Cal.

                And that staff member bragging about beating people up.

                And those faculty also in yesterday’s paper.

                But other than those, yup. Totally unconnected.Report

              • Avatar veronica d in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                @jaybird — Except I didn’t hear a peep from you when a Milo supporter literally shot a protestor. Nor do you seem particularly bothered by violence from right wing hate groups. For example, your visceral response to the recent Quebec City shooting was — well — it was weird.

                You judge a person not only by their words, but by the passion behind those words. You care a lot about the things the left does, but not so much about things the right does.

                I think I understand. You’re an “aggrieved white guy,” with all the ensuing pathologies. On the other hand, you’re smart enough to see how that is a dead end viewpoint. On the third hand, your visceral reaction show through.

                You are the Milo supporter, even if it tears you up inside.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to veronica d
                Ignored
                says:

                v,
                And I didn’t hear a peep from you when — rather than gamergate amorphous “death threats”, a transsexual decided to murder someone’s mom because a guy SaidSomethingOnTheInternet.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to veronica d
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes. This is another example of the “you are a bad person” argument.

                It has nothing to do with the position, but (instead) with the associations you’re hoping will be made with the other person.

                Except I didn’t hear a peep from you when a Milo supporter literally shot a protestor

                This story. Do you want me to talk about it now or not?

                From the first paragraph:

                Though the details of the incident are shaky, police have confirmed that an anti-Trump protester was non-fatally shot outside of a Milo Yiannapolous event at the University of Washington on Friday. The police took the alleged shooter, described as an Asian man, in custody, but have since released him after he told them he thought the protester was a “white supremacist” and he was simply acting in self-defense.

                I would have turned it into a discussion about why it’s important to not punch Nazis.

                I’d have put emphasis on the whole “it’s not that I don’t think real Nazis shouldn’t be punched, it’s that I don’t trust your Nazi Detectors to the point where I think we should be handing out Nazi Hunting Licenses”.

                But I thought that I made all of those points ad nauseum before.

                In any case, could you point me to the stories you need me to comment on so that I can comment on other stories for the next week?

                Maybe we could make that a thing. “Stories everybody needs to chime in on if they want to comment on stuff next month.”

                For example, your visceral response to the recent Quebec City shooting was — well — it was weird.

                It was an attempt to mock the politicization of attacks. Everybody was holding their breath to find out who the shooter was before they gave one of their two speeches on violence.

                I think I understand. You’re an “aggrieved white guy,” with all the ensuing pathologies. On the other hand, you’re smart enough to see how that is a dead end viewpoint. On the third hand, your visceral reaction show through.

                I will tell you what I told Chip back on Saturday:

                Here’s one of the things that I keep noticing:

                The style of argument that says that when one can make the argument about the other person, one can dismiss the other person’s argument after establishing that the other person is bad.

                So, in the future, let’s assume that I am bad. Just straight from the get-go. Racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, let’s just pile them on.

                There.

                We’ve established that I am bad.

                To use your words, “the Milo supporter”.

                Now what?

                I’m not sure that yelling “THAT PERSON IS BAD!” works anymore. The problem is that it worked so well for so long that a lot of people have forgotten the other ways to argue against people.

                So let’s assume that I am Milo’s biggest fan.

                Do you have an argument beyond that?Report

              • Avatar dragonfrog in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Everybody was holding their breath to find out who the shooter was before they gave one of their two speeches on violence.

                What a mind reader you are.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to veronica d
                Ignored
                says:

                I know I’m not around a ton these days but don’t we usually take people at their word about what they believe rather than divining their true intentions through deeper readings of them as a person?Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to veronica d
                Ignored
                says:

                ” I didn’t hear a peep from you when a Milo supporter literally shot a protestor. ”

                He shot someone with a swastika tattoo who, he thought, attacked him in a scrum. It’s a dumb situation and the guy shouldn’t have been carrying if he was going to act like that, but if you want to make this be a thing where Milo Supporters Are Literally Targeting People For Assassination And Jaybird Doesn’t Care, you’re gonna need something better than that.Report

              • Avatar Damon in reply to veronica d
                Ignored
                says:

                You mean this guy?

                Released. “The man and his wife surrendered to UW police several hours later, claiming he fired in self-defense, according to law-enforcement officials. He was questioned and released. The Seattle Times is not naming the man because he has not been charged with a crime.”

                Assuming no new evidence, he did nothing wrong.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                So college Republicans should be happy to degrade their own ideas and associate with odious fringe figures

                It’s a requirement if they want to grow up to be real Republicans.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Well hell I’m absolutely one of the “stop being violent you idiots; if you actually care about left/liberal causes (and the jury is out on that) being violent hurts them” liberals.
                But this post was about College Republicans and what inviting Milo says about them, regardless of how Liberals do or don’t react.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                But this post was about College Republicans and what inviting Milo says about them, regardless of how Liberals do or don’t react.

                With an emphasis on Milo’s hypocrisy with regards to Free Speech that followed an explicit acknowledgement of the no-platforming that takes place on college campuses.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                No, with an emphasis on how Milo’s behavior is inconsistent with the claimed commitment to free speech by the College Republicans who pay him to speak at their events.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                Yet it’s sadly consistent with the left mentioned in this paragraph:

                I won’t step into the debate around the ethics and worthiness of direct action or no platforming. This is an essential dispute that the various coalitions of the left will need to continuously discuss in the age of Trump and beyond.

                The question of consistency is a question of “consistency in *WHAT*”?

                I mean, if consistency is a virtue at all. (Personally, I see consistency as more of a handmaiden of the virtues than a virtue in and of itself.)Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                What about this? What about that? Ooh, look over there, a squirrel calling someone a racist! We have, have had, and will have plenty of threads in which to talk about whether or not lefty protesters are doing it right or not. Roland was trying to have just one thread about whether or not College Republicans should keep paying Milo money and giving him a forum, and apparently the reasoned judgment of the right-of-center commentariat here is that no, we absolutely cannot talk about that thing, because the lefty protesters are doing it wrong and we need to talk about them, right now, right here, instead of talking about what Roland was trying to talk about.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, I’ll just say this again:

                I am certain that I disagree with the college Republicans that invite him.

                I think that, absent the riots, they’d be doing damage to their own cause.

                Absent the riots, people would look at Milo and see that he is a transparent fraud and provocateur who is merely a genius when it comes to self-promotion and is standing on no foundation at all.

                Absent the riots, I’m sure that we’d all be able to see that sort of thing.

                Absent the riots.Report

            • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              If you want to talk about hypocrisy, I’d say the post wasn’t about Milo’s hypocrosy. It was about how an organization committed to free speech on campus wouldn’t invite Milo to speak because he’s not a supporter of free speech.Report

            • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              But that said, your post sure sounds to me like you were mockingly adopting the voice of a liberal labeling and shouting down Milo. Perhaps I didn’t read your intent correctly, but I don’t think that’s my fault as a reader here.Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                So, if he adopted that voice and says the same things that the liberals shouting down Milo say, does that make those things wrong? If so, why? Are they wrong because Jaybird, or wrong because they’re wrong in themselves?Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                They’re wrong because they are side-stepping the point of the post and, just like the college Republicans Roland was calling out, ignoring the noxious racist bully in the conservative ranks in order to complain about lefty protesters. It’s a move that can be wrong even if the criticism of the lefty protesters is 100% valid and accurate.Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                ” they are side-stepping the point of the post ”

                The point of the post is “forget about the riots, MILO IS BAD”, and that is begging a pretty big question.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                If you want to live in a world where the badness of a thing doesn’t matter at all so long as it is opposed by an arguably worse thing, have fun.Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                “I’m sure that you want to talk about George Zimmerman, but we need to look at the serious problem of neighborhood crime and the inability of police to respond effectively.”Report

              • Avatar Nevermoor in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                All liberals are fairly tarred with anything the dumbest of them says. No republican is fairly tarred with anything even the leadership of the GOP says.

                It’s been sixteen years of this. Until you let me know when you’re responsible for things Trump does, don’t make me responsible for things a group of non-campus east bay degenerates does.Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Nevermoor
                Ignored
                says:

                “All liberals are fairly tarred with anything the dumbest of them says. No republican is fairly tarred with anything even the leadership of the GOP says.”

                what in the hell are you even talking about dude

                “Until you let me know when you’re responsible for things Trump does, don’t make me responsible for things a group of non-campus east bay degenerates does.”

                I got an idea. How about you stop saying “whoa, the KKK endorsed Trump, DOESN’T THAT MEAN SOMETHING” and we’ll stop saying “whoa, anti-Milo protestors set things on fire and smashed windows, that reflects badly on the movement, or maybe it would if there were any unbroken glass left”Report

              • Avatar Nevermoor in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                Ok. How about “Trump wants to arrest 5 year olds because they are Muslims, why do you support that?”Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Nevermoor
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m not sure what point you think you’re making, here, because you’re doing the very thing that you tell me never happens.Report

  4. Avatar notme
    Ignored
    says:

    Maybe if Milo didn’t get all the attention from the rioting snowflakes his shtick might wear thin and eventually no one would care.Report

    • Avatar Troublesome Frog in reply to notme
      Ignored
      says:

      I think you’re probably right. He’d ratchet up his assholery just to the edge of legality in an attempt to get attention, but if it didn’t get him the attention, that would be it. Unfortunately he has a critical mass of supporters that allow him to make trouble for some time without any new attention, so the opportunity to nip him in the bud by simply ignoring him has passed. People being outraged fed him too much and now he has momentum.

      Now people either have to do the hard work of ignoring a big groundswell of assholery for an extended period of time while the lack of attention starves the phenomenon, which is hard, so protesters and people with voices in the media are going to keep playing his game and feeding him. They deserve each other. If only there was a way to avoid making him rich while they clash.Report

    • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to notme
      Ignored
      says:

      When you’re right, you’re right.Report

  5. Avatar Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    I think Road Scholar has it right above. The Republican Party has been turned into the Party of Trump and Breitbart. Trump might be unpopular overall but 81 percent of the GOP base loves him.

    This might have always been the case. A lot of leading conservatives like Coulter cut their teeth mocking liberals on campus in ways that were callous and Milo lite. As to “generating debate”, I think they are a sniveling bunch of cowards hiding behind weasel words.

    There is a liberal meme that I have seen on the net. It showed Trump cruely imitating the disabled reporter for the Times. The picture is accompanied by text that states “I don’t know why this did not disqualify Trump” or some such.

    I know why and I am a liberal. A lot of humans are tribal and cruel and will look for any opportunity to be cruel. It never and will never occur to them that making fun of someone for an immutable trait or background characteristic is wrong. When did my fellow liberals become Pollyannas on human nature?Report

    • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      I don’t know that liberals are exactly naive on human nature. Based on my reading of LGM, a lot of them seem to think that all white people in the United States are evil by birth, especially if they are men. They also think that anybody who disagrees with them on even the most minor point are evil or at best severely misguided. That’s being Calvinistic, not Pollyannish.Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to LeeEsq
        Ignored
        says:

        Of course liberals are naive about human nature. That’s by definition. Liberals believe that all humans should be treated alike. (Under Color of the Law is a sidenote, and a restriction that doesn’t apply to a lot of what the liberals stand for).Report

      • Avatar Brent F in reply to LeeEsq
        Ignored
        says:

        And since this topic is specifically about campus politics, in my recent experience its quite easy to be treated like your a reactionary for being a technocratic liberal rather than a fully committed advocate of social justice as understood by the campus left crowd. I felt pretty sorry for the explicity christian or free-marketer students for how in the minority and shouted down they must have felt.

        On the other hand, what I’m pretty sure the motivation for the campus Repulicans in this case was not “free speech,” but a provcation to make people they don’t like look bad. Which they succeed at because people don’t know better than to not be baited like that.Report

  6. Avatar Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    “I would like to actually ask college Republicans to articulate what they hope to gain from bringing Milo.”

    Make libruls heds assplode.

    The conservative movement has nothing other than Cleek’s Law and spite left.

    What do they believe in?
    What are their motivating principles?

    They have abandoned every single possible principle of conservatism, from free market economics to moral propriety to American defense of the free world.

    We keep analyzing and studying the Trump base, and keep finding the same answer; they are angry, and believe they have been wronged, and want to punish someone.Report

    • Avatar Joe Sal in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      Chip your using an outdated model.Report

      • Avatar North in reply to Joe Sal
        Ignored
        says:

        Do elaborate.Report

        • Avatar Joe Sal in reply to North
          Ignored
          says:

          How many angry conservatives you seen lately?

          I don’t even know who ‘college Republicans’ are supposed to refer to in the essay other than maybe some coastal republican college kids. Maybe they are thumbin’ in the eye of liberals, but what are we talking 10,000 yutes?

          Conservatives are moving nearly every goalpost they can in the direction they want.Report

          • Avatar Joe Sal in reply to Joe Sal
            Ignored
            says:

            Hell if I were to pick a population of angry frothing at the mouth folks like Chip always likes to make fun of, well, who would I be looking at today.Report

            • Avatar Nevermoor in reply to Joe Sal
              Ignored
              says:

              How about the people who finally have to come up with a single effing clue on healthcare, after eight years of dishonest mouth-froth.Report

            • Avatar Troublesome Frog in reply to Joe Sal
              Ignored
              says:

              I think the difference is that the party out of power is always angry, but there seems to be only one side that reliably does stuff primarily because it upsets the other guys. With the exception of gay wedding cake court stunts, I don’t see a lot of, “Because it pisses conservatives off,” as the reason for doing things.

              Milo is definitely a “because he pisses liberals off” phenomenon. If they had to just sit in a room and listen to him without the joy of knowing that upsetting people they don’t like, only the much smaller subset who thinks Ann Coulter is a deep thinker would actually be entertained.Report

              • Avatar Joe Sal in reply to Troublesome Frog
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah the alt-right and Milo are pretty small subsets to be making broad assumptions about.Report

              • Avatar Troublesome Frog in reply to Joe Sal
                Ignored
                says:

                I think I just need to point out that I’ve had a number of discussions on this very forum with people who use, “Because it pisses liberals off,” as a reason they support certain policies. University speaker invitations made out of spite are just another manifestation of the problem that underlies government by spite.Report

              • Avatar Joe Sal in reply to Troublesome Frog
                Ignored
                says:

                There for sure is a state of enmity. Even if a truce were made all the old positions would soon re-apply themselves to the same hills.
                I feel that it comes from the way liberals appear to ‘own’ and progress the social policy world. It is seen as aggressive if not outright coercive in many circumstances.

                Aggressing against an agressor isn’t held in the same light as aggressing against a non-aggressor. That’s why the ‘pissing liberals off’ is kind of a vectored thing.Report

            • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Joe Sal
              Ignored
              says:

              Hell if I were to pick a population of angry frothing at the mouth folks like Chip always likes to make fun of, well, who would I be looking at today.

              Well, lets start with the Frother-in Chief, with his Twitter tirades.Report

          • Avatar Pinky in reply to Joe Sal
            Ignored
            says:

            “Conservatives are moving nearly every goalpost they can in the direction they want.”

            ?Report

          • Avatar North in reply to Joe Sal
            Ignored
            says:

            Lately? Not many, after all their party just ostensibly won the election. I’m not exactly in tune with conservative thought but I’d describe their mood as a combination of delight and terror.

            None of that, however, addresses Chips’ points. In electing Trump the conservatives demonstrated that very few of their ostensible principles are actually central. Character doesn’t matter, defense hawkishness is once again demonstrated as a chimera, social conservatives continues their retreat (albeit now in a more orderly controlled manner credit where it’s due), and the republican versions of libertarianism stand stripped of every veneer of voter support from their own side. What do conservatives actually believe in now days? In the wake of Trump’s election it’s difficult to say for sure beyond spiting liberals- I’m unsure if Trump even knows himself.Report

            • Avatar Joe Sal in reply to North
              Ignored
              says:

              I would have to see some pretty clear attribute data to connect voting for a person in a political system, to someones personal principles or beliefs. Especially given the years of screwed upness of the system in question.Report

            • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to North
              Ignored
              says:

              After Trump’s defense of Putin to Bill O’Reilly, in saying America has a lot of killers too, I wandered thru the comments setion of Gateway Pundit, the most reliable Trump outlet after Breitbart.

              It was interesting/ sad to see a pitched battle between the rightists declaring “Yeah, America has no moral ground to criticize Russia!” and the “b-but Putin is a monster!”

              FWIW, the pro-Russian side appears to be winning the day.
              Matt Levin calls them the “CodePink Republicans” and I gotta say, its an apt description.
              Only 2 years ago anyone voicing such a comment would have been declared a traitor;
              Today, we are friends with Russia, we have always been friends with Russia.

              A few years ago, anyone suggesting that President Obama install a tariff wall to outsourcing, would have received a haughty lesson in “Econ 101”;

              Today, we demand a command and control economy, we have always demanded a command and control economy.

              I mean, seriously can anyone here actually articulate a “conservative” position that is evidenced by the Trump Administration?Report

            • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to North
              Ignored
              says:

              Conservatives believe in using government to make wealthy people wealthier at the expense of everything else and using every rhetorical tactic possible to do so even if it means invoking some of the uglier parts of human nature like raw tribalism.Report

          • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to Joe Sal
            Ignored
            says:

            I think there’s still a market for “say whatever makes liberals’ heads asplode.” It may not be quite the same thing now, but that’s because the agitated policy bromides need to identify some remnant of the Obama Administration or an external threat to agitate against, and then it gets followed by a brand-new coda that I’ve heard a lot of: “And we’re in power and you aren’t so we’re going to do this if we want to. By the way, you changed the rules so you can sit down, shut up, and if you don’t like it, try to win an election sometime you liberal LOSERS!” I’ve seen that, expressed in various ways, a fair amount from the rightward members of my twitterfeed, which usually results in dozens of likes and retweets.Report

            • Avatar Joe Sal in reply to Burt Likko
              Ignored
              says:

              Man, I used twitter once and put it down and never looked back. I catch stuff on the sidebar here on occasion. Not sure that’s the platform of level heads.

              I’m sure if anyone of the right is stuck over there in cali, they probably would be a little hostile. 😉Report

  7. Avatar Pinky
    Ignored
    says:

    Ben Shapiro will energize the crowd and bring out the protesters as much as Milo Yiannopolous, but he’s smart. If you’re thinking about a campus speaker and you’re hoping to trigger some leftist outrage, why not go with the guy who’ll give a meaningful presentation?Report

    • Avatar Troublesome Frog in reply to Pinky
      Ignored
      says:

      That sort of gives away the game. The only thing Milo offers is more leftist anger in exchange for less content. If they’re making that trade off, we know what the audience really wants.Report

      • Avatar Pinky in reply to Troublesome Frog
        Ignored
        says:

        Ben and Milo have both been barred from campuses; they’ve both had events disrupted by protesters. Up until a week ago I would have said that they’re equally controversial. As far as I know they’re equally in circulation on the lecture trail.Report

        • Avatar Troublesome Frog in reply to Pinky
          Ignored
          says:

          I would say they’re equally controversial with the types of people who protest speeches at universities, but Elmo is probably just as controversial as they are with that crowd. Getting the fringe worked up is easy. If you want to get *everybody* who isn’t nuts annoyed at you, you invite Milo.

          For myself, I’m a pretty reliable Democrat but not especially radical in my beliefs and I don’t even really consider Shapiro and Yiannapolous to be the same sort of organism. The only thing they have in common is that they’re on the right and they upset various segments of the left. Beyond that, one of them is a legitimate thinker who believes the things he says and the other is a clown who wouldn’t be making any money if he didn’t have the power to cause riots and will say anything as long as the riots keep happening.Report

          • Avatar Pinky in reply to Troublesome Frog
            Ignored
            says:

            I think we’re mostly in agreement. My problem with your comment about what “the audience really wants” is that is seemed to imply that Milo is significantly more popular than Ben. He may be more popular, but I don’t think it’s a blowout. They look comparable in Youtube view count.Report

            • Avatar Troublesome Frog in reply to Pinky
              Ignored
              says:

              Well, the important thing to remember here is that if there’s one slot, he just needs to get 51% of the votes of whatever small set of people are choosing the speaker. It doesn’t say a heck of a lot about his popularity in the grand scheme of things. As long as he fills an auditorium, he’s popular enough. We’d have to look at turnout numbers for both to know which one is more popular with the actual viewers, but based on my experience with college students attending speaker events, I’d put my money on Milo.

              But to the extent that *some* group of people made the decision, it reveals their preferences pretty neatly.Report

  8. Avatar Pinky
    Ignored
    says:

    “Stop feeding Milo Yiannopolous.”
    =
    “Baby, you’ve got to know better than to talk back to me when I’ve been drinking. It’ll just get your lip split.”Report

  9. Avatar Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    The liberal handwringing over Milo and the people who loudly oppose him seems overwrought.

    The utilitarian argument asserts that the violent protests somehow help him appear sympathetic; I don’t believe this.

    In order for that argument to be true, there has to be a significant set of people who are ambivalent about Milo, but after seeing the violent protests swing in his favor.

    Where are these people, have we heard from them? Or do they exist only in David Broder’s ghost’s head?

    The other idea is some sort of free speech absolutism, the Nazis-in-Skokie thing.

    I can be sympathetic, but my sympathies are very limited.
    Because civil society must have boundaries and taboos and limits.

    If you want to be protected by the umbrella of civil society, you kind of need to establish you are a part of it.Report

    • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      It doesn’t have to be that it makes Milo look good, it just has to be that it plays into (imo unfair and irrational) impressions of marginal voters that liberals are kooks and hippies and rioters. If you look at how these events are covered, it’s all about how bad and scary the protests are rather than how odious and awful the guy the college Republicans are embracing is. It’s unfair, but it’s how the world works.Report

      • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Don Zeko
        Ignored
        says:

        Right, but who are these people who get these impressions?
        The marginal swing voters?
        I doubt it.
        And how could we counter?

        Because you know that the Murdoch press has struggled mightily to portray the millions of people in the Women’s March as paid stooges of George Soros, fringe anarchists, souor grapes Hillary supporters, or any other epithet they could invent.

        As we’ve discussed on other threads, it doesn’t matter what we do, what we say, how we act.
        We aren’t being viewed and judged by an impassive objective jury;

        To frame all of our protests on “How can we prevent Fox News from making us look bad” allows them manipulate us into silence because, you will find out that the only protest that isn’t a violent thuggish fringe is one that celebrates the Dear Leader.Report

    • Avatar North in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      Chip, dude, you and I both know there’s a huge horde of low info voters and their votes count just as much as the votes of the much smaller numbers of high info voters. When they hear about Milo they have no clue what he stands for except A) liberals say he’s a monster and B) some leftists riot and burn property over him. To low info voters A) liberals call everyone monsters and B) people who riot and burn property are unsympathetic and they like to vote against them.
      So it’s not hard for me to see a pretty strong utilitarian argument against violent leftists even before we talk about how these idiots hurt their own causes and are damaging norms that protect leftists and anti-institutionalists far more than they protect the establishment or right wingers. I’m not going to quote Robert Bolt but you know it’s salient here.Report

      • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to North
        Ignored
        says:

        I would like to meet one of these people and see what their impressions of the Bundy gang were.

        Boy, they must surely have become Hillary supporters after that episode!Report

        • Avatar North in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          They’d probably say “Bundy who?”Report

          • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to North
            Ignored
            says:

            And if I asked about the assassinations of abortion providers, they would scratch their heads and knit their brows.
            If I asked about the training camps for white militia groups, the bomb threats to Jewish groups, Eric Rudolph…crickets.

            This is why I think the whole problem is hypersensitivity of the left to our fringe.

            The right loves their bombthrowers, both the metaphorical and literal kind.
            And they don’t suffer from it.
            Why should we?

            The swing voter who might come to our side, but for the black bloc guys;
            but for the Occupy guy who crapped on a cops car;
            but for the MoveOn guy who drew a Hitler mustache on GWB’s photo;
            but for the campus silliness of safe spaces;
            BUT FOR HER EMAILS…

            these people are mythical beasts.Report

            • Avatar North in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              Odd, I usually find that right wingers frantically and angrily denounce people who assassinate abortion providers and claim they’re not true rightists.

              Okay so the mushy center is imaginary? I don’t believe it; the available data doesn’t support it. 2008 happened in the same universe as 2016.

              Let’s turn it around here? Who, exactly, does a masked idiot setting fire to things and breaking windows make go “You know those guys sure make me more enthusiastic about supporting their causes”?Report

            • Avatar Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              Wow, right-wingers must be really stupid. Like, sub-human stupid. Why do you even talk to them?Report

        • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          “I would like to meet one of these people and see what their impressions of the Bundy gang were.”

          “Huh, so the government says that these ranchers aren’t allowed to run cattle? Sounds like the ranchers are gettin’ a shitty deal there. They’re in an armed standoff? That’s kinda dangerous, hope nobody gets hurt like happened at Waco.”Report

    • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      I think I am somewhere between you and Don Zeko.

      I agree that there is a lot of pearl clutching on this issue and the number of people with neutral opinion’s on Milo Y can probably fit very comfortably into a phone booth. On the other hand, the left seems to get lumped together when in truth Anarchists and Communists have very little in common with mainstream liberals like me.

      It is interesting that a lot of people consider me far to the left when I can point to people who make me seem center-right in many ways. But a lot of people (wrongly in my opinion) lump all the protestors together and I also think Steve Bannon would love to see an anti-Trump protest erupt into people throwing things at cops and breaking even more windows.

      I don’t like the Black Bloc. I largely consider them people who want to break things as opposed to people pushing for specific changes.

      One of the reasons I think OWS fell apart is because you initially had working people like cops and teachers who were sympathetic but it was taken over by people who just wanted to burn everything down and start again. The incramentalism v. burn it all down argument will always cripple the left.Report

    • Avatar Koz in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      If you want to be protected by the umbrella of civil society, you kind of need to establish you are a part of it.

      Exactly. I think you’re just mistaken as it pertains to who this is supposed to apply to. Libs think they’re just “resisting” the Trump Administration, but really they’re resisting most of civil society. And society can and likely will take countermeasures.Report

      • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Koz
        Ignored
        says:

        they’re resisting most of civil society.

        By doing what…?Report

        • Avatar Francis in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          … voting for Hillary in greater aggregate numbers than DJT;
          … having a really big march;
          … telling true stories about the importance of the ACA in keeping them alive;
          … thereby scaring off the Republican party from passing its ACA repeal bill
          … truthfully pointing out that Presidential spokespeople are having trouble with telling the truth;
          …. truthfully pointing out DJT’s most notable efforts to date in “shaking things up” have not complied with the law or Constitution;

          … in general, preventing Koz from getting what he (she? lost track) wants (which, as best I can tell, is complete submission by liberals)Report

        • Avatar Koz in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          Specifically, by their attempts to prevent the Trump Administration from performing the day-to-day operations of the Executive Branch.

          More generally, by their pollution of our cultural sphere through their assumptions of territorial control over it, eg, this Milo thing. People need to have the freedom to engage with each other on their own terms. We all have some idea what that’s supposed to entail, and what the reasonable exceptions or caveats might be.

          A lot of libs like to believe this, until it becomes inconvenient, and then the morally defective rationalizations come out. This spoils our public culture. So it’s important to emphasize that the downside to libs goes substantially beyond the relatively narrow confines of politics.Report

          • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Koz
            Ignored
            says:

            their attempts to prevent the Trump Administration from performing the day-to-day operations of the Executive Branch.

            Like, by hiding the light switches?

            …pollution of our cultural sphere…

            I’m tempted to go full “Old School Conservative Chip” and start quoting Russell Kirk, or Moynihan, or Buckley or Muggeridge on you, and go on at length about the need for civil society to stand its ground against the transgressive profanity of Milo and his crowd.

            See, what makes Milo so newsworthy is that he uses the transgressive cultural violence of the countercultural Yippies, in the opposite direction. He is channeling Abbie Hoffman but flips the bird not at the Pentagon but at the staid edifices of modern moral conformity in favor of a radical individualism.Report

            • Avatar Koz in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              Like, by hiding the light switches?

              ?

              I’m tempted to go full “Old School Conservative Chip” and start quoting Russell Kirk, or Moynihan, or Buckley or Muggeridge on you, and go on at length about the need for civil society to stand its ground against the transgressive profanity of Milo and his crowd.

              And if you did, I’d probably be inclined to agree with you. But that’s not what this is about now, is it? But fwiw, I have seen very little of Milo directly but my impressions agrees with yours (Yippies, Abbie Hoffman etc.), which is why I find him vaguely distasteful.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                What has happened over the past few decades is the lefts version of individualism has weakened, and their embrace of solidarity and community norms has strengthened.

                For example in 1972 a liberal view of homosexuality might celebrate no strings attached sexual freedom while a 2016 version celebrates married gay parents and lesbian Scout leaders.

                Most community norms and social culture have now absorbed liberal notions; laws demand access for the handicapped, men marry men, corporations celebrate Happy Holidays instead of Christmas, and women advance in careers that were once reserved for men.

                What the Trump voters reject, is not a change in norms- its far too late for that.

                What they are advocating is revanchism and restoration, to explode the current norms in favor of the old ones.

                Enter Milo, the bombthrower.Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                This is an odd comment, and I don’t think it holds up as written. You’re probably thinking of ancillary situations relative to what you have written.

                For example in 1972 a liberal view of homosexuality might celebrate no strings attached sexual freedom while a 2016 version celebrates married gay parents and lesbian Scout leaders.

                I’m no big expert on homosexuality but this reads wrong for me. But my guess is, in 1972 almost every sort of Leftist (including conventional liberals) would have agreed in the aesthetic revulsion against homosexuality. And as far as making a political point, the more Marxist inclined would have said that it was a late capitalist degeneracy of the alienation from labor (in retrospect, they might have been right).

                Most community norms and social culture have now absorbed liberal notions; laws demand access for the handicapped, men marry men, corporations celebrate Happy Holidays instead of Christmas, and women advance in careers that were once reserved for men.

                The political energy and violence behind this relative to the plausible return doesn’t make sense either, and creates some weird time warps in libs’ minds. Like we have to have stairways in 747s to be ADA compliant, in order to retroactively refight the civil rights movement or women’s suffrage.

                Enter Milo, the bombthrower.

                And this doesn’t work either, at least not directly. Trump is not a revanchist, Milo is especially not a revanchist. I think you think some low-left English triple bank shot logic to make this work.Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Enter Milo, the bombthrower.

                The Milo riots at Berkeley have exposed an interesting lacuna in lib thought over the last couple of weeks or however it’s been.

                So far we’ve seen a few different responses to the riots. Eg, “those were just a few anarchist troublemakers, nothing representative of libs in general.” One the of the libs here took this angle, and to be fair it was substantially more credible when he started that line of argument than it is now.

                Robert Reich insinuated that the rioters were in fact right-wing agents provacateur.

                Some elements of the Berkeley campus Left basically said, yeah Milo sucks, the riots were a good thing.

                Finally, at least one blogpost (linked from here) tried to argue that free speech wasn’t a real principle to respect any more, but a bourgeois conceit or some other Left jargon for something acceptable to disdain. Frankly, that one scares me the most, because I fear that a good number of the libs here are sympathetic to that, or at least would be if they thought about it.

                But for me, there’s an dog that’s not barking here. There’s an obvious alternative that the libs seem to be putting in a decent effort to avoid considering. Specifically, “I, as lib, know at some level that it’s wrong for me to attempt to prevent a generic speaker from meeting with a willing audience. But, in this case at least, I want to assert at least a little bit of control over it anyway. And I did this because I was a bad person.”

                It’s very important for libs to be able to acknowledge this, not just in this one case but in general, even though it could be embarrassing or painful.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                As I said elsewhere, my response is to ignore him, which is also the best way to make him go away. exerting control to stop disliked speech isn’t liberal, it’s Mitch McConnell.Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Mike Schilling
                Ignored
                says:

                I guess that’s another response, which I suppose I could have mentioned, though frankly I didn’t see much of it.

                Fwiw, I didn’t write anything but I agreed with your prior argument about Elizabeth Warren. Ie, that she violated the Senate rule pertaining to Jeff Sessions but the context where she was speaking was in relation to a nominee before the Senate as opposed to a colleague. It doesn’t happen often enough to worry about I guess.Report

              • Avatar notme in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Enter Milo, the bombthrower.

                Neither you nor the left can control the existence of folks like Milo, however, folks can control how they act/react or respond. So far the response doesn’t seem to live up to the better angels of the left’s nature. (assuming there are any)Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to notme
                Ignored
                says:

                Well ok, if Milo is out on a fringe where we expect to see crazy people that can’t be controlled by the center, why are we assuming “the left” can control the people breaking windows? How about the college republicans that invite Milo to speak and pay him money, are they responsible for their actions?Report

              • Avatar notme in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                How about the college republicans that invite Milo to speak and pay him money, are they responsible for their actions?

                Of course they are. I hope this isn’t a sad attempt to compare free speech to violence.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to notme
                Ignored
                says:

                Of course it isn’t; I’ve said repeatedly in this thread that rioting over some guy speaking at a campus event is bad and wrong. I’m just wondering why it is that you think Milo’s general awfulness doesn’t say anything about the right or Republicans, but the rioting of a few dozen or maybe hundred people at this event says something about the left writ large.Report

              • Avatar notme in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                general awfulness

                I’m not sure what that means but it sounds an awful lot like “stuff I don’t like,” which strikes me as whining.Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m not buying the idea that Milo is generally awful. But it’s pretty clear from the aftermath of the riots and other expressions of “resistance” that these riots are fairly associated with the modern Left in America, among other reasons because the Left has made that association themselves.

                The Left has corrupted, in their own minds the rhythm and context of politics in the larger space of the public sphere, and the “resistance” is the current expression of that corruption. So instead of trying to micromanage Milo’s ability to talk on campus or Donald Trump’s Executive Orders, the appropriate move for all parties is for the libs to uncorrupt that first.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                “I’m not buying the idea that Milo is generally awful.”

                Well then…Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                I guess we’re agreed then.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                wondering why it is that you think Milo’s general awfulness doesn’t say anything about the right or Republicans, but the rioting of a few dozen or maybe hundred people at this event says something about the left writ large.

                Two issues.

                First, what Milo is doing is legal. I, as a bystander, am under no obligation to stop him, gather evidence for the police, use my smartphone to take photos, etc. Everyone knows who he is and where he is so there are no problems enforcing the law if he does step over the line.

                For the Protesters, the opposite is true. If my roommate or fellow protester is breaking things or starting fires, then me not turning in my phone’s evidence is a problem, so is me covering for him in any way.

                2nd, we’ve had people on this forum state what Milo is doing isn’t even problematic. That Milo-the-reality is different than Milo-the-Left’s-claim. The Left has a long history of screaming “wolf” for their naked political advantage, and it’s possible they’re doing it yet again.

                It’s possible that Milo *isn’t* “generally awful” and the Left is just using false accusations to stir up trouble and then blaming the Right for their own violence.

                That this is, as usual, about the Left wanting power and not “the Right being awful”.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Well ok, I suppose i shouldn’t have taken @notme ‘s comment distancing himself from Milo seriously. He is a member in good standing of the right and liberals like Ben Shapiro and Ian Tuttle in the National Review are wrong to think that he is, at best, running cover for open racism and anti-semitism. My mistake; I’ll go back to flagellating myself for being on the same side of the political spectrum as some criminals in Berkely that I’ve already condemned repeatedly in this thread.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                I suppose what both of us should do is find a clip of Milo’s act and see if it’s really vile or just somewhat vile or even just on the edge.

                On the other hand I’m not into flagellation so maybe not.Report

              • Avatar DavidTC in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                I haven’t watched his act, but I have read a transcript. The whole thing.

                The thing is, Milo’s act isn’t *that* different than you’d read on a lot of right-wing places. 95% of his act is just completely standard fair. I don’t know how well he is at delivery, but even the text seems funny to me. Hell, he’s *less* offensive than some of the other stuff I’ve read at Breitbart.

                I am aware he’s said some really vile things in *general*, but these speeches aren’t, because he knows his crowd, and these are generic right-leaning college students, not his alt-right twitter base. For example, with the immigration, it’s not ‘We must maintain the purity of the white race’, it’s ‘Poor Mexicans will take our jobs…and people who claim this is about race are idiots.’.

                The problem is the remaining 5%, the 5% that appears to be topical…and by topical, I mean, he starts bringing up specific liberals that *go to the school* he’s giving the speech at, and how bad they are. Identifies them by name, sometimes (not sure how often, but he’s done it) throw up a picture on the wall, etc.

                The speech I happened to read, the person he singled out was someone who had reported harassment for wearing a hijab, and he decided that the harassment claim was bogus, and she was just a liar.

                So, well, if she actually *was* getting harassed…well, it’s probably going to get worse.

                It’s that sort of assholery that people are objecting to. He could avoid those references to current students, hell, he could *use students at other colleges*, just mix up his examples where he’s not specifically *singling out actual students on the campus*, and almost all of the people objecting to him would vanish.

                I certainly wouldn’t be objecting to him speaking. (Although it would still be fair to point out that College Republicans are inviting a speaker who has said some *really* horrible stuff, even if he’s not going to say it there.)

                But his entire shtick is that liberals are just running around *pretending* they are harassed. It’s why his show name calls him ‘Dangerous’, because he’s claiming that liberals are pretending that’s dangerous and it’s not.

                It’s a stunt. Give a *mostly* reasonable speech, claim that he’s being attacked for *that*, claim that liberals will not allow conservative ideas on campus. Meanwhile, everyone on the right is totally outraged by these horrible censoring liberals, and ignore the fact all the left is *actually* complaining about his ‘Single individual students on campus out for possible targeting’ shtick.Report

              • Avatar DavidTC in reply to DavidTC
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh, and incidentally, I don’t want to give them impression that Milo *isn’t* a very vile person. He is. Hell, I stay away from his as much as possible, and even I’ve seen vile tweets from him, and he is the weird sort of gay man who is utterly freaked out by women merely existing. (heterophobic?) Not, like, pretend disgusted, but actually disgusted by the entire concept.

                But the thing is, he’s not *not giving vile speeches* on these campuses. (He would probably get thrown off the stage even by a *right-leaning* crowd at a college if he expressed that sort of thing.)

                He is giving perfectly sounding speeches, gently mocking a bunch of liberal, and even some conservative ideas. These speeches, almost incidentally, happens to talk about how horrible specific liberals are *that go to class with you*, and here’s a bunch of information about those horrible liberals.

                And isn’t it absurd how liberals try to make that out to be dangerous? How they try to pretend he’s dangerous for saying those sorts of things? It’s just information, and it’s not like any minority has ever been attacked before because they got singled out.

                And when they *do* claim that, they’re *lying*.Report

              • Avatar Francis in reply to DavidTC
                Ignored
                says:

                how about gynophobic?Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to DavidTC
                Ignored
                says:

                The speech I happened to read, the person he singled out was someone who had reported harassment for wearing a hijab, and he decided that the harassment claim was bogus, and she was just a liar.

                Didn’t someone on this forum point out that she actually was lying, or am I misremembering?

                As far as I can tell, false claims of victimhood by SJW are pretty common. If he’d come to my old campus, he could have talked about two false claims of rape. One of my ex-inlaws has made five or so.

                If you’re going to make public false claims of abuse, then a public shaming is appropriate.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                “As far as I can tell, false claims of victimhood by SJW are pretty common.”

                More or less common than actual abuses?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                In the days after the election, you wrote a comment to me that contained a number of attacks by, presumably, Trump supporters against, presumably, Clinton supporters.

                I’m trying to google it now but I can’t find it right away.

                I’m wondering how many of the examples you gave me ended up being hoaxes.

                I’m wondering what it would demonstrate if more of them were than not.

                But, as I said, I’m having trouble finding the comment so I can’t prove anything quite yet.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                More or less common than actual abuses?

                Depends a lot on the claim, the details, and the level of self serving-ness.

                So for swastikas made from fecal matter, probably all of them are false. For Rape? I think I remember studies suggesting a hair more than half of rape police reports are false.

                “more or less common than actual” is probably the wrong question. I assume many/most cases of abuse aren’t reported because people have lives. That doesn’t change the level of falsehood on actual reports.

                There are people who *like* the drama, the attention, the sympathy, and the power from being a victim. Support groups offer sympathy and take everything at face value. They don’t ask detailed questions that would show the victim is making it up. This is true in spades for SJW incidents which happen to SJW activists.

                This btw is yet another reason why the police and not colleges should be handling this sort of thing. The *idea* that false claims even happen, much less is a serious problem, is heresy for certain groups.

                If someone says they’re a victim then that’s supposed to be this ultimate trump card. But since we mostly don’t punish for false reporting it’s a very-high-reward very-low-risk move.Report

              • Avatar DavidTC in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Didn’t someone on this forum point out that she actually was lying, or am I misremembering?

                No. I am the only person who mentioned her, because I randomly read *that* specific Milo transcript to find out what he talked about on campuses. In fact, as far as I know, of all the people pointing out horrible Milo behavior, I am literally the only using her as an example, because I *just happened* to stumble across that particular speech and read it. (Note, again, this speech is up on Breitbart, so presumably he’s proud of it.)

                All I said she had not reported it to the police, which Milo took as evidence she was lying.

                Of course, the reason she had not reported it to the police is that it was basically a person she knew tugging at her hijab and making some prejudice comments, and she did not want that person to be arrested for such a stupid thing. She merely reported it to the people at the school in charge of such things, and hoped they would have a discussion with him.

                And, while we’re talking about shaming people, it is worth pointing out *she has not said who it was* publicly because she feels *he* shouldn’t be shamed for it.

                As I’ve asked before, do I need to read *more* of Milo’s idiotic speeches to figure out how he singled out *other* people and what their supposed crime was? Seriously, I picked that speech *at random*, and I’ve actually not see other people mention this example, which makes me wonder what *else* is in his speeches?

                I mean, there was that trans student that was singled out, who he claimed was…lying about being trans, I think? (Of course, as her older pre-transition picture was put on the screen, and *no one recognized her* in the audience, I think we can perhaps assume that she *is* trans and he was completely wrong.)

                He called a professor at West Virginia University a ‘fat faggot’. Which, I suspect, is probably against the student code of conduct.

                As far as I can tell, false claims of victimhood by SJW are pretty common. If he’d come to my old campus, he could have talked about two false claims of rape. One of my ex-inlaws has made five or so.

                Like that guy who is falsely claiming he was shot at a Milo event.

                I mean, was actually shot.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to DavidTC
                Ignored
                says:

                Like that guy who is falsely claiming he was shot at a Milo event.

                (I tried posting the link and my post got axed so here’s a longer quote. I think this is the event in question.)

                Radical leftists staged a violent riot outside of a Seattle speaking event by Milo Yiannopoulos on Friday night. They assaulted people and threw bricks and paint at police officers. Then someone shot a 32 year old white male in the abdomen. The injury was considered life threatening. The victim was still listed as being in critical condition on Saturday. Two men, including the shooter, turned themselves in to University of Washington police a few hours after the shooting.

                Shortly after, a local “Antifa” gang in Seattle announced that the victim is one of their “comrades.” They immediately blamed the shooting on a “Trump supporter.” So-called “Antifa” gangs wear all black and routinely engage in violence…

                The man who was shot was wearing political buttons identifying him as having a far-left/Marxist ideology. Friends told Seattle media that he is a dedicated “anti-racist,”…

                However, the police have now disclosed information about the suspect. He is a fifty year old “Asian.” He told police he was attacked by “some type of white supremacist,” and was forced to shoot the man in self-defense.

                Seattle authorities appear to be treating the shooting as justifiable self-defense.
                Report

              • Avatar DavidTC in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Shortly after, a local “Antifa” gang in Seattle announced that the victim is one of their “comrades.” They immediately blamed the shooting on a “Trump supporter.” So-called “Antifa” gangs wear all black and routinely engage in violence…

                There’s video of the shooting on Reddit.
                http://patch.com/washington/seattle/video-shows-moments-shooting-uw-milo-yiannopoulos-protest

                It’s from a distance and there are people in the way, and it’s really hard to tell when the gun first appeared so it’s hard to interpret events…but the shooting victim’s head and face are clearly uncovered then entire time, and the ‘all black’ outfit he is wearing appears to be some sort of black (leather?) jacket over a black t-shirt with some graphics on it, which is way too identifiable to be an antifa ‘uniform’, which they make themselves out of black cloth.

                The outfit and look screams ‘biker’, actually.

                Antifa might call him a ‘comrade’, but there’s no evidence he was part of antifa.

                However, the police have now disclosed information about the suspect. He is a fifty year old “Asian.” He told police he was attacked by “some type of white supremacist,” and was forced to shoot the man in self-defense.

                And then, after shooting someone in self-defense, he ran away for two hours and did a factory reset on his phone, and *surely* we should believe his story.

                At least the somewhat absurd claim that the shooter was a Sanders supporters has gone away after someone noticed he was attempting to get Milo’s autograph on Facebook, because (The Facebook post claims) *someone stole his MAGA hat* and wanted Milo to sign a new one for him, so, yes, he was a Trump supporter, and a Milo supporter.

                And there were claims the victim was a ‘conservative’, which echoed around for a while, have now disappeared. The victim was there claiming to represent the International Workers of the World!

                It is fairly clear that the shooter ran off, and spent a lot of time trying to come up with a story that isn’t even slightly real. How about…he was just some a Sanders supporter that got attacked by a racist, and had to defend himself! Sounds good! (I wonder how long it took him to realize he needed a story, because he had been filmed by a dozen people and he was going to be found.)

                I don’t know. Maybe he *did* have to defend himself. The video does show him and the victim yelling about something, and the victim did *run over* to the shooter fairly quickly, in a manner that could be threatening…although it really doesn’t seem they were still arguing, or even talking, when the shooting actually happened.

                And, as I said, without knowing when the *gun* came out, it’s sorta hard to tell what is going on. Maybe it’s self defense, who knows?

                But the shooter already thrown around enough lies that I really can’t take his word at anything, because it’s become clear that he came up with a ‘clever narrative’ after the shooting before turning himself in that is just completely made up.

                Hey, look, what is probably a false claim of victimhood…but not by a SJW.

                Seattle authorities appear to be treating the shooting as justifiable self-defense.

                No they don’t. They haven’t made any statements at all about it, except to say they are going through video and phone messages. The claim they are ‘treating it as justifiable self-defense’ is just made-up nonsense that seems to be based in the fact they let the shooter go without bail, but that’s not really uncommon in certain places if they don’t think he’s a flight risk.

                Edit: Oh, also, the search warrant for the phone specifically mentions they are investigating him for first-degree assault.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to DavidTC
                Ignored
                says:

                So I’ve got a bad news article? Wouldn’t be the first (or last) time the media has made stuff up.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to DavidTC
                Ignored
                says:

                SJWs are calling the cops on people wearing Indian Costumes.
                At that point, it’s no longer “conservative ideas aren’t allowed on campus” it is “fun is no longer allowed on campus, and you will be Arrested For It”

                (Also, yes, some liberals are lying about it. Provable fact — TYT had a liar on their election day coverage, and with no pushback from Cenk, who should have been able to hear the “the whole bus clapped” meme.)Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                If he’s too vile for Ben Shapiro, he’s pretty damned vile.Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                I’ve been a fan of National Review for a long time, but I think both of those pieces are pretty weak, not least because arguments based on extrapolations of twitter feuds don’t necessarily have a lot of substantive weight.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                Out of curiosity, can you name any media figures or elected officials on the right that liberals accurately characterize as racist or anti-Semitic?Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m sure there are. Most of them I who are probably too obscure for me to worry about. David Duke certainly would be if he were on the right, which he may be, though I don’t know for sure since I have no reason to worry about him.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                Out of curiosity, can you name any media figures or elected officials on the right that liberals accurately characterize as racist or anti-Semitic?

                Let’s reverse the question.

                Is there anyone on the Left that is characterized as racist or anti-Semitic?

                If memory serves there used to be serious people claiming it was *impossible* for a minority to be racist (apparently even against other minorities, much less against Whites).Report

              • Avatar Road Scholar in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Let me jump in here, DM. I believe the speaker you’re referring to was, clumsily and not terribly accurately, attempting to elucidate the distinction between prejudice and discrimination. Anyone can be prejudiced against someone else for any one of a number of reasons [insert standard EEOC laundry list here]. But in order to discriminate one has to be in a position to actually do something with that prejudice. This implies a power relationship such as employer/employee.

                If you see the various -ism’s as social/cultural phenomena and, correctly, see white/male/hetero/etc as the dominant force in our society, and you see discrimination as the active issue, then that statement sorta makes sense. I don’t completely buy it, but that’s how I would interpret that.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Road Scholar
                Ignored
                says:

                If you see the various -ism’s as social/cultural phenomena and, correctly, see white/male/hetero/etc as the dominant force in our society, and you see discrimination as the active issue, then that statement sorta makes sense.

                There are minority cops, politicians (even Presidents), employers, millionaires, billionaires, cities, and so forth. The concept that they don’t have any power to abuse is laughable.

                IMHO a good translation of that is:
                “Charges of -ism are supposed to be a political club used against the Right, but never against the Left.”

                Far too often this is about political power, not fixing things.Report

            • Avatar Kim in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              Chip,
              I happen to like transgressive profanity. Problem is Milo’s just not so good at it.Report

          • Avatar Francis in reply to Koz
            Ignored
            says:

            “their attempts to prevent the Trump Administration from performing the day-to-day operations of the Executive Branch”

            such as? Marches are legal. Pointing out Administration lies is not only legal but the very purpose of the press. Filing lawsuits is not only legal but a major component of the system of checks and balances.

            Pollution of the cultural sphere? No one’s forcing you to watch HBO. There are still plenty of safe spaces for conservatives. TAC, National Review and Red State are all still publishing, aren’t they?

            (Although demanding a safe space is not exactly a conservative position.)

            What ever happened to the marketplace of ideas?

            (ps: “Pollution” is such an interesting word choice. It suggests that the appropriate response to liberal ideas is to dam them up, prevent them from being heard at all.)Report

            • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Francis
              Ignored
              says:

              Pollution of the cultural sphere? No one’s forcing you to watch HBO

              Ever notice how badly the people screaming about snowflakes and safe spaces seem to be the ones who neec them?

              Darn you liberals! Your stubborn refusal to lie down and die is triggering conservatives everywhere. Have you no shame?Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Morat20
                Ignored
                says:

                Hey, you’re right! Microaggressions are bullshit, trigger warnings are stupid, and safe spaces are a joke.

                Was that where you were going with that?Report

              • Avatar Morat20 in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                I was aiming more for “Isn’t that ironic” and “projection really is a thing” but I might have been too subtle.Report

              • Avatar Francis in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                avoiding microaggressions is what my parents taught me as “politeness”

                trigger warnings should be nothing more than an effective teaching tool. The TV networks have been delivering them for as long as I can remember.

                safe spaces can be nothing more that an exercise of the freedom of association.

                and — most importantly — college kids are somewhere between adults and adolescents. They are going to make stupid mistakes. I went to Dartmouth a year behind Dinesh D’Souza, so I saw liberal-baiting by a true master. He and his team made a few good points, published a fair amount of poorly written shock stuff and also hurt quite a few people. (recording and publishing the transcript of a gay student’s association meeting was particularly low, in my view.)

                As far as the Berkeley incident goes, what really surprises me was the police’s failure to control the anarchists. Protesting != rioting and the Heckler’s Veto sucks no matter who is doing it. But young kids do love getting their rage on.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to Francis
                Ignored
                says:

                Francis,
                Trigger warnings are a fucking joke. If you were to actually put trigger warnings on everything that triggers someone, you’d have to put it on Every Single TV Show out there. (A Friend of mine is triggered by That Fucking Door Noise — as in actual PTSD. I don’t have a lie detector on hand, but I know I could get a GSR just from him listening to it).Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Kim
                Ignored
                says:

                The point of trigger warnings is not to put warnings on everything that might trigger someone, it’s to put warnings for the biggest triggers out there so that people with PTSD from the most common things that cause PTSD can say “you know what, I’m not going to read this article” at the beginning rather than get halfway through and be blindsided by a particularly graphic example.

                The argument is not “don’t put door noises in your show without a ‘trigger warning: door noises'” and has never been.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I’ll grant that, occasionally, some SJW type will show up and start using “trigger warnings” as a justification for why something shouldn’t have been written in the first place.

                This is a stupid act and discredits a practice that is, on its own, a good thing.Report

            • Avatar Koz in reply to Francis
              Ignored
              says:

              such as? Marches are legal. Pointing out Administration lies is not only legal but the very purpose of the press. Filing lawsuits is not only legal but a major component of the system of checks and balances.

              Such as slow-walking the Cabinet and the various disruptions surrounding his inauguration, and the premises behind the anti-Trump energy since then.

              What ever happened to the marketplace of ideas?

              It’s still there obviously but so far at least there is a profound ignorance or undermining of the rhythm of our political culture. In our election season, substantive matters often get stifled because our ability to concentrate is consumed by partisan, factional, or ideological division. Then, we have an election, and those divisions recede from the foreground (or are at least supposed to).

              Last year, Trump was running for President, and we got to hear all sorts of reasons why Trump is unfit, he’s narcissistic, he’s racist, etc, etc. That was last year, this is this year. This year, Trump is President, and libs expect us to entertain their shit like he was still running. Enough already, it’s time to move on, and time for libs to loyally participate in American politics, taking President Donald Trump as a given, or remove themselves from political culture to do other shit, which is also perfectly acceptable.

              (ps: “Pollution” is such an interesting word choice. It suggests that the appropriate response to liberal ideas is to dam them up, prevent them from being heard at all.)

              Pollution in that circumstance is a deliberate word, in contrast to thugs which sometimes conservatives use. It’s certainly fair to describe the Berkeley protestors as thugs, I think, but we should also note that the libs’ intellectual corruptions go way beyond physical violence and threats of violence. Most importantly, it’s an appeal to libs to appreciate that our cultural discourse is a shared resource (as opposed to a propietary resource for them) and we should all steward that resource appropriately.Report

              • Avatar Nevermoor in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                slow-walking the Cabinet

                Well… pick a non-incompetent cabinet and it won’t be slow-walked. Is there anyone on this planet who thinks DeVos is qualified to be secretary of education?Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Nevermoor
                Ignored
                says:

                I think she’s great personally but even if I didn’t Trump is responsible for picking her. Whatever she does is his problem. Show us you want to be part of America, wave her through.Report

              • Avatar El Muneco in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                Hang on a second – I’ll be right back… Just digging up a quote from you saying exactly the same thing about Merrick Garland.
                Oh. My.
                I could be some time…Report

              • Avatar Nevermoor in reply to El Muneco
                Ignored
                says:

                Yup. Liberals should always unilaterally disarm.Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to El Muneco
                Ignored
                says:

                Sigh, it’s easier if you just pretend Merrick Garland doesn’t exist. Mrs. DeVos represents the President, reports to the President, and serves at the pleasure of the President. None of those are true for Justices of the Supreme Court except the first, and sometimes not even then.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                Easier for whom, exactly? Easier for Senate Republicans to pretend they aren’t a bunch hypocrites that take a wrecking ball to any institution that produces outcomes they dislike, I suppose.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                Garland is hardly the first, nor will he be the last, Judge to fail to be confirmed by the Senate. There’s a lot to be said to send the balance of the Court to the voters to decide. The voters appointed Obama in 2012, and they appointed the GOP in 2014 to stop him.

                Think about what happens if Trump sends Garland in there right now. We have a party line vote saying “no”, and then Trump goes back to his list.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Which is why, really, no SCOTUS pick should be confirmed until the people have had a chance to have their say, in 2020.

                Its only reasonable.Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Come on Chip, can’t you be at least a little bit embarrassed for going to that well at least three times (probably more)?

                If you can’t win, at least be happy for our team.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Haven’t you gotten into enough trouble by ignoring the voters?Report

              • Avatar Nevermoor in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Where does it say the will of the voters regarding Supreme Court justices is bound to the electoral college (rather than, say, the popular vote)?Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Nevermoor
                Ignored
                says:

                Where does it say the will of the voters regarding Supreme Court justices is bound to the electoral college (rather than, say, the popular vote)?

                The Constitution.

                That’s the legal document which lays out how the President is elected and how many Senators each state gets.Report

              • Avatar Nevermoor in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Which has what to do with the GOP’s newfound (then cynically abandoned) belief that you need an election to decide who the people want on the Supreme Court? I don’t recall the electoral college being a part of that particular plebiscite.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Nevermoor
                Ignored
                says:

                The GOP? The Biden rule was created by former Vice President Biden.

                And mostly it’s about political power and costs, but the fig-leaf ethical covering is that we have a President attempting to make a Supreme Court choice in an election year while Congress (who faced the voters more recently) was elected on a mandate to stop him.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                “…Congress (who faced the voters more recently) was elected on a mandate to stop him.”

                That isn’t how we elect Congress.Report

              • Avatar Nevermoor in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Remind me which Justice’s nomination Joe Biden refused to vote on again? If you can’t, stop deflecting.

                There was a norm, the GOP broke it. Actions > words and all that…Report

              • Avatar notme in reply to Nevermoor
                Ignored
                says:

                Crazy Uncle Joe would have applied his rule to all nominations.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Nevermoor
                Ignored
                says:

                Remind me which Justice’s nomination Joe Biden refused to vote on again?

                Joe stated he’d refuse to consider *any* Bush nomination during an election year.

                Something about how Presidents historically held themselves back from submitting one at that time, so it’d be unethical and a break in precedence to do so, and the Senate would be ethical and submit it to the voters.

                What Joe thought he was doing was establishing rules he’d then say were defined ahead of time. There’s a lot to be said for that.

                There was a norm, the GOP broke it.

                The norm is that the Pres can submit Supremes (which he did), and the Senate can say “no” (which they did). The norm (and the Constitution) doesn’t cover what form that “no” needs to take, this is the 5th time the Senate has killed a nomination by deliberate inaction. The GOP took the route of maximizing their ability to say no while minimizing the political fall out.

                In theory the President is supposed to go to the voters with this and they’ll punish the Senate for inaction. Instead the voters rewarded the GOP by letting them keep the Senate.

                Given that Trump expressly made which person he’d put on the Court a big point of his election, we have something like judgement via the voters.Report

              • Avatar Nevermoor in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                The norm and the constitution are different.

                I agree the Constitution doesn’t require a vote on a nominee. The norm absolutely has been that nominees get a prompt vote. Biden as a senator never prevented one, so color me unimpressed by motivated conservative quote-hunting.

                Color me equally unimpressed by conservatives’ newfound belief in the will of the voters after they won a close election. Unless you can link me to comments where you poo-pooed attempts to prevent the ACA from passing because Obama “expressly made [the ACA a] big point of his election, we have something like judgement via the voters” I don’t see anything there other than an attempt to claim unwarranted legitimacy and trying to badger Democrats into unilaterally disarming.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Nevermoor
                Ignored
                says:

                Your “political fact” link, while true, cherry picks the dates. This is the longest vacancy we’ve seen in 30 years, but that’s only because the issue hasn’t come up in 30 years.

                This is going to be the 7th or 8th longest vacancy in history.

                http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/26/long-supreme-court-vacancies-used-to-be-more-common/

                conservatives’ newfound belief in the will of the voters after they won a close election.

                Oh, it was expressed before the election when they didn’t think Trump would be making the pick. They even kept it when it looked like Clinton would win and they might lose the Senate.

                Unless you can link me to comments where you poo-pooed attempts to prevent the ACA from passing because Obama “expressly made [the ACA a] big point of his election,

                Considering we had wave of GOP after wave of GOP take office by opposing it, starting with Ted Kennedy’s replacement, maybe “the voters wanted the ACA” isn’t the rock to stand on.

                trying to badger Democrats into unilaterally disarming.

                Eh? It’s impossible for me to picture Joe letting Bush have a Supreme choice when there was a chance to unseat him, and that’s even without Joe expressly saying he wouldn’t. The problem isn’t that things just got worse, things were that bad when Joe laid down his line, and probably even before that.

                If Bush had the option to fill a seat, and Joe had the option to stop him and give it to his replacement (Obama as it turned out), would that help or hurt Joe’s personal election odds?Report

              • Avatar Nevermoor in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Considering we had wave of GOP after wave of GOP take office by opposing it, starting with Ted Kennedy’s replacement, maybe “the voters wanted the ACA” isn’t the rock to stand on.

                Great, so let’s leave the spot open until 2018 and see whether we have a wave of democrats take office. I just don’t think it’s fair not to let the voters weigh in first. /s.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Nevermoor
                Ignored
                says:

                Great, so let’s leave the spot open until 2018 and see whether we have a wave of democrats take office. I just don’t think it’s fair not to let the voters weigh in first.

                What you mean is the voters need to weigh in again and again until they get it right, and they should be ignored otherwise.

                That sounds self destructive.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                /s

                You are apparently not aware of all internet traditions.

                /sReport

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Sarcasm?

                Thank you.Report

              • Avatar Nevermoor in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                No, that’s your position.

                The voters weighed in on who should fill supreme court vacancies occurring in 2016 and picked Obama. Your team didn’t like it, so changed the rules.

                If the standard used to justify this blatant disregard for Supreme Court nomination norms is “let the voters decide on the specifics” then I think it’s wholly unfair to nominate a justice the voters haven’t yet had a chance to consider.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Nevermoor
                Ignored
                says:

                The voters weighed in on who should fill supreme court vacancies occurring in 2016 and picked Obama.

                The voters in 2012 game Obama the ability to pick Supremes for the next four years. Then in 2014 they solidly gave the GOP the ability to stop him. That’s a problem.

                If the standard used to justify this blatant disregard for Supreme Court nomination norms is “let the voters decide on the specifics” then I think it’s wholly unfair to nominate a justice the voters haven’t yet had a chance to consider.

                :Amusement: Trump ran on putting this guy on the court.

                No one has ever done that before, apparently Trump thought people wouldn’t just trust his judgement. The fun part with all that is yet to come, if/when the Dems take back the Senate, does Donald break his word or push through a nominee from that list? Either way it’s probably a trainwreck.

                If you assume he doesn’t have any political ideals, then right now he’s basically handed his SC pick to the Senate in exchange for their support. That’s an interesting dynamic if the Senate switches sides.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Dark Matter: The norm is that the Pres can submit Supremes (which he did), and the Senate can say “no” (which they did).The norm (and the Constitution) doesn’t cover what form that “no” needs to take, this is the 5th time the Senate has killed a nomination by deliberate inaction.The GOP took the route of maximizing their ability to say no while minimizing the political fall out.

                You’re leaving out an important part of this story. After those five nominations went down, the President nominated someone else who was then confirmed. Outright preventing a president from filling a Supreme Court vacancy at all is quite new, and a much bigger deal than forcing a president to settle for a second choice.

                Oh, and there’s also the fact that nobody doing this to Garland even bothered to spell out some kind of problem with Garland as a nominee. Never mind that he was center left and relatively old with a spotless record, he went down sight unseen. If the system were working properly, someone like Garland would have been the compromise candidate Obama had to accept because he didn’t have a friendly majority in the Senate.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                Outright preventing a president from filling a Supreme Court vacancy at all is quite new

                That depends on whether or not Biden was lying about the practice being for Presidents to not try this in an election year.

                Oh, and there’s also the fact that nobody doing this to Garland even bothered to spell out some kind of problem with Garland as a nominee.

                You’re complaining that he wasn’t Borked? That the GOP didn’t make up lies and paint him as a horrible human being? Garland as a judge and as a person are left with their reputations intact. Ethically that’s way better than what the Dems did to Bork and what they’re about to try with Trump’s guy.

                If the system were working properly, someone like Garland would have been the compromise candidate Obama had to accept because he didn’t have a friendly majority in the Senate.

                That “compromise” would shift the Court as a whole pretty seriously to the Left given who he was replacing. Trump’s guy won’t shift the court at all, my expectation is the Left will still throw down a massive attempt to wreck his life.Report

              • Avatar Troublesome Frog in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                You’re complaining that he wasn’t Borked?

                If they “Borked” him and then confirmed Obama’s next nominee afterward like what actually happened during the Bork fiasco, that would have been fine with me.

                It’s almost like the Bork situation was about Bork specifically and the Garland situation was about the very notion that Obama might have the temerity to nominate anybody at all. But that couldn’t be it. Surely there’s a fundamental intellectual principle that makes the Republican behavior this time around totally within historical norms. We just haven’t found it yet.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Troublesome Frog
                Ignored
                says:

                Bork was hard Right, the next guy was a compromise.

                The problem is “compromise” and “will swing the court solidly to the Left” are basically opposite by their very nature.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Don’t forget the justice who withdrew his own nomination after NPR’s Nina Totenberg reported that he smoked pot with his college students!Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                In other words, after Bork, Reagan yielded to the Senate and attempted to replace the Court’s swing vote with another swing vote… and Kennedy is certainly that.

                With Obama replacing Scalia? Obama isn’t going to go with someone hard Right, or even moderate Right, so instead he went with very ethical moderate Left and hoped for the best.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m sure Pat Buchanan disliked that guy. On principle, of course.

                Geez, he was only 41 at the time. (He’s only 71 now.) How long before the GOP starts nominating toddlers?Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                I thought Hard Right was someone principled like Scalia, not a toady with a bizarrely narrow view of the First Amendment.Report

              • Avatar Troublesome Frog in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                The ideological makeup of the court isn’t written into the constitution or built into the fabric of the universe. There’s no reason to assert that the baseline for a new nominee is that he needs to be an ideological replacement for the person whose seat he’s taking. You’re just using it to define your personal preferences as the compromise.

                Taking it to its logical conclusion, if Obama nominated anybody other than a loyal conservative, he’d be swinging the ideological balance of the court, and that’s definitely not a compromise. Until just a short while ago, “compromise” meant finding a nominee both sides could live with (historically with a lot of deference to the President’s choice), not keeping the court’s balance permanently the same.

                The good news is that when it’s time to replace Ginsburg, the Republicans will surely hold to their tradition of supporting ideological continuity and not try to pull the court to the right.

                Seriously, I don’t get why it’s so hard for Republican partisans just to admit that they snatched a court seat because they could rather than coming up with depressingly transparent attempts to invent a post-hoc faux-principled justification for it. The new normal is that if you can steal a seat, you do it. That’s unfortunate for a bunch of reasons, but it is what it is. Why try to hide it?Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Troublesome Frog
                Ignored
                says:

                You’re just using it to define your personal preferences as the compromise.

                No, I’m pointing out that “compromise” was impossible since the two sides had diametrically opposed ideas on whether or not the court should have it’s ideology flipped.

                Trying to claim that it’s a “compromise” to flip the court Left is absurd. Ditto claiming that it’d be a “compromise” to force Obama to submit a Hard Right justice… and those are the only options I see on the table.

                This situation was going to have a winner and a loser.

                The good news is that when it’s time to replace Ginsburg, the Republicans will surely hold to their tradition of supporting ideological continuity and not try to pull the court to the right.

                If the Dems control the Senate then maybe. Trump probably doesn’t have political ideals. It’s easy to picture him copying Reagan and just giving the Senate what they want.

                The new normal is that if you can steal a seat, you do it. That’s unfortunate for a bunch of reasons, but it is what it is. Why try to hide it?

                Why try to claim this is “the new normal” after Biden openly proclaimed this as Dem policy many years ago? My expectation is everyone involved would make the opposite argument if the seats were reversed (and Biden actually has).

                I’m not blaming the Dems for taking us here with Biden or even Bork. The political forces at work transcend any one person, or even any one president. The GOP basically had no choice but do this, and if the issue had come up with Bush the Dems also would have had no choice.

                Partly this is happening because Congress is handing divisive issues to the Court, and otherwise not doing it’s job by creating bad and badly written laws. And partly this is happening because the gov is intruding into every sphere of life.

                We’re not done fighting over the role or makeup of the Court, however this stack up of circumstances doesn’t happen very often.Report

              • Avatar Troublesome Frog in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                No, I’m pointing out that “compromise” was impossible since the two sides had diametrically opposed ideas on whether or not the court should have it’s ideology flipped.

                This is the usual, “If the function’s direction doesn’t support your argument, take the derivative and argue that its rate of change is in the right direction. Repeat as necessary,” trick. The first order question, “Should Obama have to nominate a loyal conservative?” is crazy on its face, so we ask about how it would change the court instead of asking about the nominee’s suitability. If that question had been ridiculous, we’d probably be talking about how quickly the court should be allowed to change.

                The political forces at work transcend any one person, or even any one president. The GOP basically had no choice but do this, and if the issue had come up with Bush the Dems also would have had no choice.

                Nobody ever puts away the weapons they first used during the last battle, and everybody is just waiting for the next set of weapons to be pulled out. The filibuster is probably going away before too much longer (although that’s one I happen to agree should go).

                But the fact remains that whoever uses a weapon first is the one who used it first, so this round of escalation goes to the Republicans, even though I don’t doubt that if we’d waited long enough, a Democractic Senate would have done the same. But now everybody would be crazy to go back, so it’s party-line votes for Supreme Court justices from now on.

                My expectation is everyone involved would make the opposite argument if the seats were reversed (and Biden actually has).

                Quite possibly for most. I would not because I see this a very serious deterioration of the process. I never expected G.W. Bush to nominate liberal justices just because I wanted them, and I wouldn’t have approved of completely stopping him from filing any federal position, just as I wouldn’t approve of completely stopping President Trump. I’d certainly be embarrassed to be making arguments about whether it was OK to shift the balance of the court.

                We’re not done fighting over the role or makeup of the Court, however this stack up of circumstances doesn’t happen very often.

                A split between the White House and the Senate isn’t that uncommon. I expect this one to come back to haunt us pretty regularly. If the party in control of the Senate has any sense, it means no more Supreme Court confirmations without a friendly President in power.

                I don’t know how long before that’s the rule for all federal judges, but it seems like it’s almost guaranteed to happen sooner or later. Overall, it just means fewer centrists and more extremists at every appointed seat as we continue down this road.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Troublesome Frog
                Ignored
                says:

                It also means that the ability of the courts to do their job will degrade steadily over time, as you get more and longer vacancies, and that we’ll see more wild shifts in doctrine when the stars do align and a President happens to get to appoint two or three 45-year-old justices at once.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Troublesome Frog
                Ignored
                says:

                The first order question, “Should Obama have to nominate a loyal conservative?” is crazy on its face…

                Is it? The Senate really did twist Reagan’s arm into nominating a guy who wouldn’t shift the balance of the court.

                Relations between the Prez and the Senate were less poisonous then, and the SC was less of a hot issue, but we’ve actually seen this sort of thing in living memory.

                But the fact remains that whoever uses a weapon first is the one who used it first, so this round of escalation goes to the Republicans…

                Sure.

                even though I don’t doubt that if we’d waited long enough, a Democractic Senate would have done the same.

                Given that Joe announced many years ago that if it happened on his watch, they’d do it? Yes.

                A split between the White House and the Senate isn’t that uncommon. I expect this one to come back to haunt us pretty regularly. If the party in control of the Senate has any sense, it means no more Supreme Court confirmations without a friendly President in power.

                If it’s split, then hopefully we get moderates (presumably Garland or someone like him would have ended up on the Court if Hillary had won but whatever).

                My expectation is that both sides jockey for position, tell lies, and brand the other guy as racist for not doing what they want. So business as usual. Thomas is a good example, the Dems had the choice of either looking anti-black or voting for a conservative.

                Overall, it just means fewer centrists and more extremists at every appointed seat as we continue down this road.

                Yeah. One of the big things which creates civil wars is the gov becomes too important to trust with the other guy.

                We’re not close to that, but everyone who argues for *X* expansion of the government needs to understand the other side will be using *X* sooner or later.

                And, we just elected Trump. My expectation is he’s not even close to what “bottom of the barrel” looks like. Power attracts people who abuse it.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Does it matter… at all… that prior to Obama actually nominating Garland that a prominent Republican suggested Garland — by name — as a fine nominee?

                Or that many Republicans strongly supported his previous appointment?Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Does it matter… at all… that prior to Obama actually nominating Garland that a prominent Republican suggested Garland — by name — as a fine nominee?

                Wasn’t that in the context of Souter or Steven’s replacement?

                Or that many Republicans strongly supported his previous appointment?

                Gorsuch was voted into the 10th circuit *unanimously* by the Senate.Report

              • Avatar Nevermoor in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Under pre-2016 norms Gorsuch would almost certainly be easily confirmed (probably when RBG’s seat opens one way or another).

                Now, however, Democrats have no reason to let the GOP easily complete their theft of a seat.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Nevermoor
                Ignored
                says:

                Now, however, Democrats have no reason to let the GOP easily complete their theft of a seat.

                Depends on whether getting rid of the filibuster is in the best interests of the minority party.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Guys, guys, its all moot now anyway.

                Judging from Trump’s Mad King George impression yesterday, he appears to be in the last year of the presidency anyway.

                And we all know what the rules are for SCOTUS nominations are then!Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                he appears to be in the last year of the presidency anyway.

                President Pence. Has a nice ring to it, no?Report

              • Avatar Troublesome Frog in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Is it?

                Yes, it is. It presupposes that the current ideological makeup of the court is somehow preordained and that changing it is an outcome that both sides should agree is wrong. A permanent conservative majority is not rolled up in Maxwell’s equations or anything like that. I’d expect Obama to want a liberal Justice and Republicans to want a conservative one regardless of who was occupying the seat before, and in a sane world, the outcome of their negotiation would end up somewhere in between.

                The Senate really did twist Reagan’s arm into nominating a guy who wouldn’t shift the balance of the court.

                They twisted Reagan’s arm to get a candidate further from Reagan’s preferences and closer to theirs. The seat they were filling had nothing to do with it. You don’t really think that if they were replacing a Scalia the Senate would have said, “Oh, Bork is fine because it preserves the current balance,” do you? The fact that they were replacing a moderate doesn’t change the incentives or preferences at all.

                If it’s split, then hopefully we get moderates…

                Until this last go-round, the typical operation was to agree on somebody somewhere between and that’s what would happen. But now that we’ve proven conclusively that you can cut the President entirely out of the process, why would the Senate take input from an opposition President again? What’s the limiting factor to prevent the Dems from taking the Senate in 2018 and saying, “We think the Deeply Principled answer is for the next President to decide in 2021, so all nominations are on ice,” and waiting it out?

                The old paradigm produced moderates. The new paradigm is to reject moderates in hope of getting a friendly extremist instead.

                My expectation is he’s not even close to what “bottom of the barrel” looks like. Power attracts people who abuse it.

                We definitely agree on this. I’m just pleasantly surprised he nominated somebody in good standing to the court instead of an old buddy from his Trump University scam. If a Senator right now, I’d probably vote to confirm him even if we had a 51 vote majority.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Troublesome Frog
                Ignored
                says:

                The fact that they were replacing a moderate doesn’t change the incentives or preferences at all.

                I disagree. I think changing the court’s balance increases the stakes. I think people pay attention to that.

                What’s the limiting factor to prevent the Dems from taking the Senate in 2018 and saying, “We think the Deeply Principled answer is for the next President to decide in 2021, so all nominations are on ice,” and waiting it out?

                The “limiting factor” is supposed to be “political cost”. A political fight between Congress and the President is hardly a new thing. The President is supposed to be an expert in politics and increase those costs.

                Obama was decently good at blaming the GOP for these sorts of political fights (witness shutting down the gov). In theory Obama was supposed to give the GOP a choice along the line of what Bush did with Thomas and then beat on them for not putting his guy in.

                However this time opposing the President’s SC pick had political benefits, not costs. It’s possible Joe was correct, that putting in a new Supreme isn’t something that happens in a Presidential election year.

                I’m just pleasantly surprised he nominated somebody in good standing to the court instead of an old buddy from his Trump University scam.

                To be fair Trump is honoring his word and his political promises. It’s also likely he doesn’t understand he’s putting in place someone who takes a dim eye to gov abuses including Trump’s.Report

              • Avatar Nevermoor in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s almost like the Bork situation was about Bork specifically and the Garland situation was about the very notion that Obama might have the temerity to nominate anybody at all.

                The problem is “compromise” and “will swing the court solidly to the Left” are basically opposite by their very nature.

                And the naked partisanship comes out. Affirming Garland is bad because he’s selected by a democrat. Opposing Gorsuch is bad because he’s selected by a republican. And the overriding principle is that republicans must, at all times, have a 5-4 majority. Hey, at least we aren’t pretending there’s a high-minded principle any more.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Nevermoor
                Ignored
                says:

                Hey, at least we aren’t pretending there’s a high-minded principle any more.

                Oh, I thought the Biden rule was clearly not “high-minded” when Joe created it. For that matter Bork (and multiple others on both sides) showcased this.

                The last time we had a Justice opposed for good (meaning non-partisan) reasons was when Bush nominated that airhead.Report

              • Avatar Nevermoor in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Deflectors engaged I see.

                The Democrats have never done what you claim is a “rule,” have confirmed justices they would never have selected (most recently Alito and Roberts), and have rejected nominees only after a hearing (whether or not you personally agree with the rationale). The Republicans rejected a fully-qualified nominee so centrist that Republicans used him as an example of a compromise candidate.

                Your attempt to blame Democrats for this, and to say Democrats should unilaterally disarm now that the norm is shattered is, frankly, silly.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                His nomination is, however, the first time a sitting President has been unable to confirm a nominee to a vacancy to the Supreme Court before the end of his term. It’s not even slightly like Bork, who got hearings and was followed up by another nominee that was easily confirmed.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                Don Zeko:
                His nomination is, however, the first time a sitting President has been unable to confirm a nominee to a vacancy to the Supreme Court before the end of his term.

                That’s right, the Senate invoked the “Biden Rule”, created by Vice President Joe Biden back when he was a Senator.

                Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.

                “Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention,” Mr. Biden said at the time. “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.

                “That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me,” he added, “we will be in deep trouble as an institution.”

                https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.htmlReport

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes, because what one senator argued 25 years ago and didn’t follow up on, and which no party ever actually carried out, amounts to a “rule” governing how Senators ought to behave. Suuuuure.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                one senator

                He’s the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, very well situated to carry out the actions he laid out.

                didn’t follow up on,

                He didn’t have the opportunity because none of the Supremes died.

                As a matter of policy, it actually makes a lot of sense. The Senate’s personal election chances go up by putting their guy on the court. Politicians are unlikely to go out on a limb to help an opposing Prez tilt the Court the “wrong” direction from the standpoint of their constituents.

                That was doubly true in this case because a fair bit of the GOP ran on the platform of reigning in Obama, and their election was more recent than his. And yes, I understand that this rule was only supposed to be used to prevent Republican Presidents from making Supreme choices but whatever.

                The interesting question is “was Biden correct”? Did past Presidents in this situation avoid painting themselves into this corner? Looking at a graph… I don’t think so, although I don’t think the issue comes up a lot. However this is the fifth time a nomination has been killed via lack of action.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_StatesReport

              • Avatar Troublesome Frog in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                So the new highly principled and logically consistent rule is that the sitting President gets no Supreme Court nominees if the Senate is controlled by the other party and gained seats in the last election?

                We’re going to stop there, right? That’s the bedrock Way Things Have Always Been and it won’t get any more antagonistic?

                Because I’m doubting that.Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                Easier for you and the other libs to figure out what you’re going to do without political power instead of trying triple combination bank shots to get it back right away. I mean, I guess there’s some chance that whatever’s going down with Digby or Balloon Juice could work, but what if it doesn’t. I think you’d have to believe that’s more likely at the moment.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                So opposing policies they disagree with, protesting, organizing, and contesting the next round of elections is a triple bank shot? News to me, dude.Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s this mentality of “resistance” in that we sorta hate him for what he does, but we really hate him for who he is, with the expectations of carrying that into the public sphere, and organizing other likeminded people around that.

                That induces sclerosis in governance, which may or may not be the worst thing. But more importantly, it induces antagonism and balkanization among Americans in general outside of politics, and that for sure is a bad thing.Report

              • Avatar Nevermoor in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                In what way is she great? Her complete lack of knowledge about basic educational issues?

                I mean, my wife’s family is full-red fox news consumers in Oklahoma and they know no human beings who think she’s qualified for her job. Which is a LOW bar given those priors.Report

              • Avatar Francis in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                The premises behind the anti-Trump energy are that the new President is a narcissistic thin-skinned bully who has neither the wit, the intelligence nor the stamina to govern intelligently.

                And, conveniently, the POTUS is proving us correct. Rage-tweeting. Flagrantly lying about important issues, like the number of illegal votes cast. Picking fights with allies. Executing an EO that most any attorney could tell him had major legal issues. Executing the EO is a manner so incompetent as to be comparable to the roll-out of the ACA Exchange. Talking absolute nonsense about NAFTA and health care reform. Talking more nonsense about crime.

                If you don’t like the libs’ new-found enthusiasm for a fight, perhaps you should take a look at your own guy. For a conservative, you’re showing a surprising lack of responsibility. I thought that blaming the other side was what libs did, while conservatives owned up. (At least, that’s what I was told for the last 8 years.)

                And if you’re bitter about the lack of a honeymoon, ask Judge Garland how he feels about the way he was treated. It is time for PAYBACK, baby.Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Francis
                Ignored
                says:

                The premises behind the anti-Trump energy are that the new President is a narcissistic thin-skinned bully who has neither the wit, the intelligence nor the stamina to govern intelligently.

                Ok, for the sake of argument let’s stipulate to that. Then what’s the best way forward for America given that person was just elected and inaugurated and he’s going to be POTUS for a while? The answers libs have come up with so far seem to woefully inadequate. Specifically, they all seem to have as a premise that they’ll have political power that they don’t have.

                And if you’re bitter about the lack of a honeymoon, ask Judge Garland how he feels about the way he was treated. It is time for PAYBACK, baby.

                Like this. Nobody cares about Merrick Garland. The most likely outcome for the libs antagonism toward Judge Gorsuch is that they’ll lose politically and substantively.

                Maybe you could try to create some solidarity for Americans across ideologies.Report

              • Avatar Francis in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                ” The answers libs have come up with so far seem to woefully inadequate.”

                The Democratic Party has certain goals. One of them is to preserve as much as possible of the ACA.

                What is the most likely road to success — cave now and start negotiating compromises, or start by total opposition? Why not start with filling town halls with people talking about the ACA being a matter of life-and-death?

                Looking at the lessons from passing the ACA, not to mention the Republican struggles right now to get a bill on the table, it seems to me that total opposition upfront is the better strategy. Compromises can be offered at the last possible minute.Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Francis
                Ignored
                says:

                Looking at the lessons from passing the ACA, not to mention the Republican struggles right now to get a bill on the table, it seems to me that total opposition upfront is the better strategy.

                In terms of inside baseball, this could be right (or might not, but for the sake of argument let’s stipulate that it is). But in context of the outside game where libs and Demos are running a substantial credibility deficit, and are exacerbating that by hyperbolic opposition to Trump, they might be better off trying to build some bandwidth first.Report

              • Avatar Francis in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                “Demos are running a substantial credibility deficit”

                Assumes facts not in evidence.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Francis
                Ignored
                says:

                Insisting that Hillary won the popular vote, that Trump’s inauguration wasn’t the most popular thing ever, that the media does cover terrorism, that the murder rate is down …

                Sad.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                Ok, for the sake of argument let’s stipulate to that.

                Sure. Then the people who voted for him are criminally irresponsible, and should STFU. Any response? (If you’re paying attention that would be a “shake your head ‘no'”.)Report

              • Avatar Maria in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                “Enough already, it’s time to move on, and time for libs to loyally participate in American politics, taking President Donald Trump as a given, or remove themselves from political culture to do other shit, which is also perfectly acceptable.”

                I am getting stuck on the word “loyally” here. What would loyal look like? As a liberal and a Democrat I am honestly interested to know what I could do to have you take me seriously. And I mean me, not libs, not Dems in general, but me – a married, middle-aged, white, middle-class woman. What do I need to do/say to fall into the category of loyal?Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Maria
                Ignored
                says:

                I am getting stuck on the word “loyally” here. What would loyal look like? As a liberal and a Democrat I am honestly interested to know what I could do to have you take me seriously. And I mean me, not libs, not Dems in general, but me – a married, middle-aged, white, middle-class woman. What do I need to do/say to fall into the category of loyal?

                You are correct to focus on “loyal”, that’s the key word. For me, the important thing is some credible attempt at solidarity toward political opponents. Not just conservatives, in fact I think it’s more important to demonstrate some kind engagement with Bernie supporters who stayed home, and “radical centrists”, “Reagan Democrats” “Rust Belt Swing voters” who flipped to Trump.

                From where you are, I think a more fundamental question is to ask what you hoping to accomplish in political culture. Whatever it is, is it realistic or legitimate for where we are right now? Very likely it’s not, but whatever it is, it’s likely to get here faster with some commonality across the ideological divide.Report

              • Avatar Nevermoor in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                Which, presumably, is why you were up in arms about the last eight years. Let me find those criticisms of the GOP’s abject and unprecedented failure to make “some credible attempt at solidarity toward political opponents”

                I’m sure they’re in your posting history…Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Nevermoor
                Ignored
                says:

                Sure, when Mr Obama was President, or when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, or both, the Republicans tried to prevent them from legislating contrary to the their understanding of the best interest of America. They also tried to regain those offices for themselves as the opportunities arose.

                Specifically, there is a rhythm to American politics, any democracy really, but parts of the rhythm of America are unique to it. There are certain things, which are appropriate at one time, which are not appropriate at another. It is certainly likely that the Democrats will want to organize themselves in and out of Washington in such a way that they will be successful in upcoming elections.

                It’s not necessarily clear that means they have to have a stance of hyperbolic opposition now. It’s so difficult to imagine what Trump or Republican officeholders would do that would meet with approval or at least legitimacy in the eyes of liberals, it becomes easier to get by without those things, as in fact the Republicans and the Trump Administration have liberty to do at the moment.

                But even aside from the policy issues, which are important, the possibility of goodwill across ideological lines seems to be completely forgotten. Francis mentioned PPACA above. There will be other PPACA’s. How much is PPACA worth compared to the political antagonism among Americans? If we are fixated on PPACA, do you suppose it’s more likely or less likely to maintain a benefits package you’d be happy with if we think that half or more of the beneficiaries are political enemies we don’t care about anyway?Report

              • Avatar Francis in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                “the possibility of goodwill across ideological lines”

                Okay then! Since you control the House, the Senate and the White House, but lack the 60 votes in the Senate to break the filibuster, it seems to me that it’s incumbent on YOU to make the first move.

                Whatta ya willing to offer for 8 to 10 votes? Or do we now get the Democrats spending 4 years complaining about Republican unwillingness to comprise (hopefully using a less homophobic version of “crammed down our throats”)?

                [the debt ceiling and the sequester both could be interesting.]Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Francis
                Ignored
                says:

                There may be a world where the filibuster in the Senate is the immediate problem. Whatever you can say about that, we’re not in that world now.

                This is about a world where we don’t have to have gratuitous factional antagonism. Wave the nominees through. Avoid the hyperbolics. See if you can find a way to talk with the Republicans, and for that matter Trump himself. It costs quite a bit less than you think.Report

              • Avatar Nevermoor in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                We’ve been waiving the non-terrible ones (i.e. at-least-marginally-qualified) through.

                It’s the unprecedented number of completely terrible and unqualified selections that’s causing the problem. No one has ever picked a less qualified secretary of education. No one has ever picked a less qualified secretary of state. And Sessions was deemed to racist to become a judge in the freaking 80s. None of these things are liberals’ fault, no matter how much you want to ignore that simple fact.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Nevermoor
                Ignored
                says:

                And Sessions was deemed to racist to become a judge in the freaking 80s.

                I spent a minute or two checking on this and he was Borked. The “racist” thing was while Sessions was attempting to put to death a Klan member for killing a black man, Sessions told a gallows humor joke. Everyone in the room knew exactly how heinous the Klan was and exactly what Sessions thought of them.

                That’s the context of Sessions’ “racism”. So the charge is a lie. The Left always trots out the racism charge and that you’re repeating it says more about you than about him.

                No one has ever picked a less qualified secretary of state.

                Obama’s first Sec of State’s big qualification was being married to a successful and popular politician.Report

              • Avatar DavidTC in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                I spent a minute or two checking on this and he was Borked.

                That’s not the allegation in Coretta Scott King’s letter, which were allegations that Sessions decided to investigate totally bogus claims of absentee voting fraud in by black people and in majority black counties in order to suppress votes. This summarizes the events of her letter than the letter:

                https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/magazine/the-voter-fraud-case-jeff-sessions-lost-and-cant-escape.html?_r=0

                It really is hard to see that as anything other than Jeff Sessions using his power as US Attorney to intimidate black voters and try to arrest civil rights leaders who were attempting to help people vote.

                There are, of course, people asserting that those civil rights leaders were guilty. There is at least one family of six people who claim their votes were indeed tampered with. Here’s the other side of the story:

                https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/01/how-black-democrats-stole-votes-in-alabama-and-jeff-sessions-tried-to-stop-it

                Of course, there were 17 people who, when presented with ‘their tampered-with ballot’, said ‘That *is* how I voted.’ (And fact that tampering with 27 of the *seven hundreds* of absentee ballots they collect and mailed seems odd behavior. If most everyone voted for the ‘correct person’, why tamper at all? If they didn’t, surely more tampering was needed!)

                I don’t know. Maybe some ballots were tampered with. Maybe the people who said that was how they voted were lying. Maybe what happened in court was essentially jury nullification as black people didn’t want to convict local civil right’s heroes. It’s possible.

                Or maybe the people who said their votes were tampered with were intimidated into it…and there’s where we get to the point in this case that should stand out *even if you think the defendants were guilt as hell*. It is something you will notice the ‘defense’ of Sessions completely omits:

                The treatment of the *witnesses and supposed victims*. Hauling someone, especially elderly people, 160 miles to give a *disposition* is insane, as is fingerprinting and photographing them. Remember, under the prosecution’s theory, either their ballots were stolen or altered, they had not even possibly committed any crime. They were *victims*.

                The behavior in just that part of the story, which no one seems to dispute, seems like really obvious attempts at punishing black people for voting, and make sure they won’t vote again, which apparently at least three of those people *openly said they wouldn’t do anymore*, as presumably they now understood what happened to black people who voted….they get hauled halfway across the state and fingerprinted and treated like criminals. (Fun fact: The election under discussion was a primary, which means these…well, these interrogations for lack of a better term, happened right before the general election.)

                That, right there. That happened under Jeff Session’s authority. Maybe it happened as part of a bogus investigation, maybe it happened as part of an entirely legitimate one, I have no idea. But it happened, and it’s not acceptable. It was outright voter intimidation *by a US Attorney*.

                And let’s remember this happened in 1984, not the 50s.Report

              • Avatar Nevermoor in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Re Sessions: Nope.

                Re DeVos: at least we seem to agree there.

                Re Sec. State I guess we’ll agree to disagree about whether being a senator makes one more than just someone’s wife.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Nevermoor
                Ignored
                says:

                @davidtc
                @nevermoor
                You’re presenting the “Bork” arguments at face value, often ignoring the context it itself often supplies.

                In big every large bold letters it says he said “The NAACP (etc) are Anti-American”, and in the fine print it turns out he was talking about their support for murderous Pro-Communist rebels in foreign countries, and how that costs them moral authority.

                He said “I thought those guys [the KKK] were OK until I learned they smoked pot”, while he was trying them for murder and the like.

                And Thomas Figures, the now-dead star “witness” for all this (although he wasn’t under oath), is known for things like bribing witnesses, paranoia, and thinking Dan Rather was talking to him specifically through the television.

                (replying to David)
                So when he’s not executing members of the Klan and racially integrating schools, he’s suppressing the black vote?

                Or maybe legit policy differences are being exaggerated and misrepresented so the Dems can once again play the “he’s a racist” card on anyone who isn’t a Dem?

                Since him executing a member of the Klan is portrayed as an act of racism, I find it hard to trust his critics.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Stalin killed Trotsky, so really, I don’t trust anyone who accuses him of being a Communist.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                People who deny the agency of Ramón Mercader deny the agency of People of Color.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Stalin committed enough heinous deeds that we don’t need to make stuff up.

                That people need to spin, putting the death penalty on a Klan member into an act of racism, says Sessions apparently hasn’t. The case against him is so weak that *this* is what they need to resort to.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                How can Stalin be a Communist, when he executed Communists?

                In fact, I think its fair to say Stalin executed more Communists than anyone else in the world.

                People spin the purges as an act of Communism, but since it was directed at Communists, this is unpossible.

                Just like Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, Stalin is a victim of a vicious slur campaign.

                Republicans should like him anyway- He was a strong leader, who often rode shirtless on horseback.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                There is *NO* evidence that Stalin ever killed *ANYONE*.

                You slur a great man with your lies!

                “Oh, but he signed pieces of paper!”

                How many pieces of paper have *YOU* signed? QUICK TRY CHIP FOR MURDER BECAUSE HE SIGNED A PIECE OF PAPERReport

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                There is *NO* evidence that Stalin ever killed *ANYONE*.

                I just googled it up, and you’re right: the consensus seems to be that there is no evidence Stalin ever personally killed anyone.Report

              • Avatar DavidTC in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                So when he’s not executing members of the Klan and racially integrating schools, he’s suppressing the black vote?

                Sessions as *said* he filed lawsuits that forced school integration. He said it, and everyone dutifully repeats he ‘filed several cases to desegregate schools’. The problem is…no, he didn’t:
                https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/which-schools-did-jeff-sessions-desegregate/509867/

                There were some existing school desegregation cases when he became a US Attorney, and basically what he did was…not stop them. No new school desegregation cases were filed at all during the 80s in Alabama, mostly because Alabama was *already under* a court order to desegregate schools, and the three existing cases were just it failing to do that. Some of the court filings in those cases made during his term do have his name on them, but that was apparently a complete formality.

                He *does* have his name on United States v. Conecuh County, a voter fraud case, also a formality because he was the U.S.A. at the time…but that was from, and entirely done by, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, not him. But, to be fair, let’s quote the real attorney on the case:

                John Tanner, former Justice Department attorney and main attorney on the case, told The Atlantic that Sessions was “interested” and “supportive” of the Civil Rights Division attorneys who did most of the work on the case.

                So…there we go. He didn’t shut down desegregation cases, and seems interested and even supportive of a voting fraud case. Yay?

                That doesn’t appear to be fighting for civil rights. It’s not fighting *against* them, but it’s not really fighting for them, either. To be fair, that *literally wasn’t his job* as U.S. Attorney, it was the job of the Civil Rights Division.

                But *he’s* the one running around claiming he *was* fighting for civil rights in as U.S. Attorney, by all these mysterious cases he filed…which was really just another part of the government doing their job.

                And then *he himself* launched a voter fraud case, and *it* ended up hassling black voters and was targeted at civil right leaders attempting to collect absentee ballots.

                Or maybe legit policy differences are being exaggerated and misrepresented so the Dems can once again play the “he’s a racist” card on anyone who isn’t a Dem?

                Legit policy differences like ‘Should black voters who have committed no wrongdoing at all and are, in fact, alleged victims of wrongdoing be hauled for a three hour(1) car trip to give a disposition they could given at the local courthouse, who were treated *like* criminals while giving it, and then had another three hour car trip *back*… Yes or not?’

                …is just a policy difference?

                Wait, are you asserting that was a *policy*? Did this policy apply to everyone, or just blacks?

                It’s worth pointing out that convening the grand jury in Mobile is pretty inexplicable, also. Selma is literally the next county over and contains the *other* District Court for the ‘Southern District of Alabama’. The *actual trial* took place in Selma, after all.

                But he convened the grand jury in Mobile for no reason *cough*whiterjurypool*cough*, resulting in six hour round trip travel time. (Not that any travel time is needed for *dispositions*, which can be taken at the local courthouse, or, really, anywhere a table can be set up.)

                1) I am guessing the time here. Three hour is about the shortest plausible 160 mile car trip. It was probably closer to four once everything is accounted for.Report

              • Avatar DavidTC in reply to DavidTC
                Ignored
                says:

                BTW, for those of you are not aware, a grand jury proceeding consists of a prosecutor (In this case, a US Attorney) presenting the best possible case the government has, with no defense or *witnesses* present. They, instead, quote witness statements.

                There is absolutely no reason to demand witnesses travel to the *location* of a grand jury to *write down their statement*. A grand jury cannot legally interact with witnesses, witnesses cannot be called in to testify, witnesses cannot be cross examined. They are questioned by only the state’s attorneys beforehand, and their statement (Or whatever part of it most supports the case.) is presented to the grand jury.

                Sessions hauled these *victims* of vote tampering to Mobile for…what? Fun? Spite?

                He was the US Attorney, they were witnesses, he could indeed legally compel them to ‘testify’ in whatever manner he wanted at whatever location he wanted, but, seriously, his behavior is *literally completely inexplicably* unless his goal was to intimidate them. Intimidate them into testifying how he wanted, intimidate them into never voting again, whatever, I don’t know, but that is not acceptable behavior of a US Attorney, and it is certainly not acceptable behavior for *the* US Attorney General.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to DavidTC
                Ignored
                says:

                Sessions hauled these *victims* of vote tampering to Mobile for…what? Fun? Spite?

                I’ve no clue. But let’s just recap.

                Sessions was accused of racism…

                …and the best piece of evidence against him (the KKK) turns out to be a politically motivated lie…

                …and the 2nd best piece of evidence against him turns out to be the word of a guy with mental problems including paranoia, and it also looks like a politically motivated lie.

                Those are the two points (out of two) that I bothered to research.

                But hey, gosh darn it, the Dems called him a racist and they never use that word for politics, so he’s got to be a racist somehow. So, knowing that he’s a racist, we’ll look at his entire career and just assume racism was why he did anything we can’t explain or don’t have the details on, and we won’t check the accuracy or whatever.

                Better still would be to find accounts where we *can’t* check the accuracy, because that deals with all these annoying issues and we can finally hold the racist accountable for his racist views.

                So, no, I’m not going to bother doing more research on Sessions’ racism. The first two points didn’t convince you, if I find a third you’ll just move to a fourth. I’ll just assume he’s not a Democrat, because that seems to be what you really mean.Report

              • Avatar DavidTC in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                So, no, I’m not going to bother doing more research on Sessions’ racism. The first two points didn’t convince you, if I find a third you’ll just move to a fourth. I’ll just assume he’s not a Democrat, because that seems to be what you really mean.

                No. The two points that I had not, in fact, ever heard of and I did not advance at all, being disproved, did not somehow convince me that my *actual researched* point was invalid.

                No one even made the argument you’ve shot down *on this site*. You went out and found it. Asserting that *I* moved on to a third (Third? What was the second?) claim is nonsense, I didn’t make any other claim to start with! *You* were the one who decided that the case against Sessions was just some jokes he said.

                Maybe, if *you* were going to research one (or two?) specific example, you should have either asked here, or, here’s a weird idea, research the case *being referenced by Democrats on the floor of the Senate that just made the news*, because they made Warren stop reading a letter about it.

                On one hand, the Democrats in the Senate are making serious allegations of Session’s behavior as US Attorney, citing apparent abuse of power and active voter suppression. On the other hand, some liberal web sites say he joked about the KKK. Which shall Dark Matter investigate!?

                The jokes! Which are, of course, nothing and stupid. (1)

                But, hey, this is new and exciting. You know, I’ve been hearing all bad things about Hillary Clinton, and I did some research and it turns out those allegations are made up. There *isn’t* a pedophilia ring being operated out of the basement of a pizza parlor! It doesn’t even have a basement!

                And thus, with a single paragraph, Clinton is cleared of all possible wrongdoing forever.

                1) Frankly, that joke would be nothing even if *not* in the context it was made. A *joke* like that requires being the opposite of what is expected. His joke only works if everyone thinks the KKK is really bad, and drug use isn’t (Or at least is nowhere near as bad as the KKK), because the *joke* is that he took offense to the wrong thing. If everyone didn’t think that way, *it would not be a joke*…and the structure of it is clearly intended to be a joke.

                Please note, however, someone can dislike the KKK and *still actively work to suppress black votes*.Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Nevermoor
                Ignored
                says:

                We’ve been waiving the non-terrible ones (i.e. at-least-marginally-qualified) through.

                Oh bullshit. The activist libs in America have successfully been browbeating the Demos in Congress into “resistance” against the Trump Administration in a particularly mindless and antagonistic way.

                Presumably the intention is to come up with a reverse Tea Party. That may or may not work. But it’s a horrible idea regardless. Supposedly we have to put any kind of positive governance on hold until at least the midterms of 2018 in order to give the Demos a chance to exact some political revenge.

                Suppose the Republicans win again then (which is at least plausible, maybe even likely)? What do you suppose an appropriate punishment for the libs should be in that case?Report

              • Avatar Nevermoor in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                If you’re going to call bullshit, point me to the heavy opposition to, for example, Nikki Haley.

                If you can’t, then I trust your retraction will be prompt and heartfelt, because you’re an honest commenter, not a partisan hack.Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to Koz
        Ignored
        says:

        I’m tempted to quote something out of Encyclopedia Dramatica to explain to you what being outside of civil society is, and what the consequences are.

        I don’t think it would survive the editors around here, so I shall desist.Report

    • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      In the past weeks I’ve seen those very people in comment threads all over the Internet, and they include a great many Democrats.

      They are part of the former Democrat base of working-class, blue-collar people who drive trucks and don’t like masked thugs attacking people on the streets. A great many of them switched parties and voted for Trump. Protests like Berkeley’s are causing a great many more who stayed loyal in November to go ahead and abandon the Democrat party. I know that because I’m seeing so many of them say it in the comments sections of mainstream media articles.

      It’s been said that the Vietnam war kept going for several years because of the reaction of a vast swath of the public to the antics of the left-coast anti-war protesters, who, based on polling data, increased the popularity of the war.Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to George Turner
        Ignored
        says:

        George,
        Hey there! Welcome!
        Sorry, but I think you’re thinking of someone you have met, some old sod who ain’t terribly relevant anymore.

        Dirty Fucking Hippies doesn’t play very well anymore, ya know?

        Besides, 2016 was peak SJW. Did you hear what happened to the Tea Party grifters?Report

      • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to George Turner
        Ignored
        says:

        So these commenters you see all over the internet were really, all set to vote Team Hillary, until, what, her emails? A guy they saw on Fox News breaking a window in Oakland?

        Then they were forced, forced, to vote Trump, and Ryan/ McConnell too?

        They said, “I’ll never vote for those black clad guys.
        They just make me so mad, by God, I wanna dismantle Social Security, Medicare, and the ACA!
        And repeal Davis-Bacon!
        And pass national Right To Work laws!
        And overturn Roe and make abortion illegal!”
        And reinstate child labor!
        And dismantle public schools!
        And deport millions of Mexicans!
        And register those damn Muslims!

        But yeah, I’ll miss voting for the Democrat Party.”Report

        • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          The one’s who drew the line at Hillary’s e-mails voted for Trump. What I’m seeing now are ones who voted for Hillary but who are now renouncing the Democrat party because of things like the Berkeley riots. They say there are just fed up. Some of this was already going on because of all the other post-election protests, too.

          What seems to be happening is that the old dividing line of liberals versus conservatives is being redrawn as breathless angry progressives versus normal people.Report

          • Avatar Kim in reply to George Turner
            Ignored
            says:

            George,
            Remind me why the Republicans voted for a lifelong Democrat from New York City?Report

            • Avatar George Turner in reply to Kim
              Ignored
              says:

              Because, like Milo, he’s FABULOUS!

              The election flows from the assertion that the critical issue facing the United States is political correctness. With political correctness there can be no honest, open discussion and people can’t make decisions based on their true thoughts and feelings because those are suppressed. Thus the decisions won’t reflect either the wisdom or desires of the populace, created a vast disconnect.

              Trump was the candidate who saw that, and he exploited it masterfully.Report

          • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to George Turner
            Ignored
            says:

            In order for this crossover to be true then, wouldn’t it stand to reason that there exist now millions of Trump voters who are still friendly to labor unions, abortion rights, government regulation public schools and Muslims?

            Or did they somehow change all these views because, y’know, emails.Report

            • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              Yep. Trump has redrawn the electoral map and the political breakdown of the two parties, upending decades of relative stability. After his meeting with union leaders, Trump got the wholehearted support and effusive praise from the head of the AFL-CIO and the head of the Teamsters. Trump is stealing the Democrats’ base by delivering for American workers instead of throwing them empty promises while gutting their industries and towns.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                Uh huh.
                Did they comment on the proposed elimination of Davis Bacon and the new national Right To Work act?
                I’ll bet they are just grinning ear to ear now, dontcha think?

                I wonder how the Trump voters in the midwest are reacting to the Trump’s reinstatement of the pre-existing conditions clause, or his proposal to allow health insurers to charge 50 year olds more than is allowed under the ACA?

                I wonder how those middle aged Trump voters like that their retirement managers are now allowed to take money from hedge funds to steer them to ruinous underperforming accounts, now that they no longer have a fiduciary duty?

                I bet those low income Trump voters dig the fact that they no longer can go to Planned Parenthood for low cost reproductive services.

                Yeah, he’s delivering for the workers, all right.

                As I like to ask,
                Hows that Trumpey Changey thing workin out for ya?Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                What good does it do to oppose a right-to-work act when the factory is moving to China?

                Trump won Ohio. He won Michigan. He won Wisconsin. He won Pennsylvania. He won West Virginia. He took the rust belt, the Democrats “blue wall” away from them.

                Union voters were turning out in droves for him.

                Saying things like “Planned Parenthood provides low cost reproductive services” is why Hillary lost. Well, that and her unbelievable corruption, rapist husband, and all the rest. She lost among white women. and now is busily trying to turn the DNC into the party of unmarried liberal white women and coastal metrosexuals who still live with their parents.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh heavens no, we wouldn’t want to have a corrupt rapist in the White House.Report

              • Avatar notme in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                So you want Bill Clinton back in the White House?Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                OK, so the way Trump is delivering for the working class is to bust the union and drive their wages lower?
                And let their insurance company drop them because they got sick once?
                Or charge them more because they are older?
                And have their IRA get funneled into a loser account because the fund manager was paid to offload the dogs?

                Man, those lucky Trump voters. Wonder when they will get tired of winning.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                No. Trumps way to help the workers is to stop the mass importation of millions of illegal aliens who drive wages down, and to stop the mass export of the factories that provided union jobs.

                Both he, the rust belt union workers, and other “deplorables” that the GOP was intent on ignoring have a gut feeling that globalism and free trade is screwing us over. All they have to do is drive around town looking at the empty factories to know something is amiss. Both Democrats and Republicans keep promising them that free trade benefits everybody, in aggregate, but if it did why are they working part time at Dairy Queen instead of their old job as a machine tool operator?

                The problem is that standard economic theory assumes that comparative advantage is a relative constant that determines what is being traded, not the thing being traded. Yet now both factories and the intellectual capital to run them efficiently can be boxed up, commoditized, and shipped overseas just as easily as the appliances they produce.

                Unemployed workers are sitting at home watching TV and ads come on bragging about how UPS can manage “your” company’s entire logistic chain from Bejing to your customers in Memphis.

                The Chinese, not steeped in Adam Smith and orthodox economics, doesn’t want the benefits of trade with us, they want our means of production.

                Why buy a British Rover when they can just buy the Rover factory and move it to China? So the elites tell us that with globalization we’ll benefit from replacing those Rover jobs with IT jobs, which we’ll then outsource to Bangalore. About the only job we can’t export is gardening, but then all those gardening jobs are being filled by illegal Guatemalans.

                The stock holders and factory owners are of course making a fortune by doing this, but American workers are dumped by the wayside. We might as well just dump them in the slums of Calcutta.

                Trump, and the people who voted for him, say this nonsense has to stop. If we export all the factories and businesses that gave us the highest standard of living, we won’t have the highest standard of living, the country that bought all our means of production will. We’ll be stuck trading them corn and wheat for all the manufactured goods and electronics that used to be built here, by us.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                Seriously, no one is a more fierce critic of our “free trade” policies than I, so kudos to your paragraphs on that.

                But I have to wonder; lets assume the gardener is now the American Trump voter.
                How much is he getting paid?
                Assuming the Republicans get their way and the minimum wage is abolished, of course.

                And how is Trump going to keep the jobs from moving to China, again? Some sort of tariff thingy? Or poison their executives with polonium?

                Or the bigger question, of how Trump stops UPS from replacing its humans with software, and Uber replaces its drivers with robo-cars.
                Is Trump going to Tweet them into submission?

                Has anyone who actually grasps economics weighed in on this proposal?Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Chip,
                Minimum Wage increases are now a rightwing thing.
                Think it through, and then get back to me.

                You want an actual populist thing? You gotta go Mandatory Minimum Income.Report

              • Avatar Nevermoor in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                … so let’s DEFINITELY do everything we can to cripple unions.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Nevermoor
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s why all the labor union bosses are praising the hell out of President Donald J Trump. Hillary would have happily arrested them to make license plates in Chinese sweat shops.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                Wait, what? HRC would have arrested union leaders?Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                Heck, she’d sell Chelsea to the circus if she thought she’d make money off it.Report

              • Avatar El Muneco in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                In addition to what Chip pointed out – mass importation of illegal immigrants on the scale of millions?
                Net immigration – with the exception of Central Americans fleeing gang violence (and therefore problematic because that’s not protected, so they’re not officially refugees) – net immigration, legal and illegal, is trending neutral. Illegals (to use notme’s charming term) are for the most part, at this time, long-term residents.
                There is not a flood of wetbacks that can be stopped by a wall. There just isn’t.
                Mind you, if there was a proposal to build a wall as an old-school money-vomiting WPA program that would help out the people who are in danger of losing their livelihoods but can’t fathom retraining to work on a computer – well, I’d consolidwr supporting that…Report

            • Avatar Koz in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              In order for this crossover to be true then, wouldn’t it stand to reason that there exist now millions of Trump voters who are still friendly to labor unions, abortion rights, government regulation public schools and Muslims?

              Well yeah, that’s exactly what happened. Is that really something you’re invested in disputing, Chip?

              Beyond that, they don’t believe the answers they’re hearing from mainstream libs, and think they’re being lied to, eg, emails.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                If so, is there any rational case to be made that these folks didn’t make a huge mistake in voting for Trump?Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                I think I misunderstood you on first reading. You’re asking if there are credible reasons to believe these voters made the right choice?

                I think it’s pretty clear that there are, from lots of different angles. The two most obvious reasons for me are first, a rejection of lib Establishment’s self-issued lie license, eg, emails. Second, a rejection of modern lib multiculturalism. That’s just for starters.Report

              • Avatar Troublesome Frog in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                Going down the wish list of Trump voters, I can’t help but think they’re going to be mostly disappointed on issues ranging from “draining the swamp” to reducing corruption to bringing back those manufacturing jobs, but I will admit that if your hot-button issue is fighting against multiculturalism, Trump voters are going to get more or less what they hoped for. And taking the temperature anecdotally, it seems like it’s not a minor issue.Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Troublesome Frog
                Ignored
                says:

                For the white working class Rust-Belters, I don’t think they expect Trump or the political class in general to solve their problems. They understand how deep they are if nothing else.

                But they’re not buying the coastal libs’ multicultural worldview, transgender this, undocumented that, Muslim that other thing. Even if we were sympathetic with lib narrative relating to those things, there’s no reason to think that libs have the cultural resources they need to implement what they want to do. And probably most important, there’s the sense that America needs to be healed from the inside out. That the libs do-gooder multicultural narrative is a distraction from their duties of loyalty and solidarity toward America.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to Troublesome Frog
                Ignored
                says:

                tf,
                Trump voters in the Midwest knew they were probably going to get screwed by him. They knew they were definitely going to be screwed worse by Hillary, though.

                A Vote for Trump was a vote to kick washington in the balls. (also, please remember that Trump ran left on economics — way way past Hillary into protectionism).Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                Wait, you’re claiming there is a large number of Trump voters who are friendly to labor unions, abortion rights, government regulation, public schools and Muslims??

                Care to point me to some? Like, a blog, a poll, or something?Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Secondarily, yes, which should give you cause to reconsider some of your ideas about American demographics. Ie, that even if this or that group of Americans supposedly favor labor unions, abortion rights, etc., there’s profound limits and how much they are going to be willing to allow doctrinaire libs such as yourself to pull them in whichever direction you want them to go when they’re out voting for Donald Trump.

                In fact, it’s because of the similar obstinate mentality of the Clinton campaign and the libs who enabled it that we have President Donald Trump in the first place. I mean I’ve seem lots of libs make snarky asides about “Emails?” (you included) without making any kind of meaningful effort to appreciate how that issue got as much traction as it did.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                So, since you’re better plugged into the Trump camp than I am, how are these millions of DemTrump voters reacting to the Muslim EO, defunding of Planned Parenthood, Davis Bacon, Right to Work legislation, and so on?

                Are they hopping mad, banging their sippy cups (cuz they’re Dems, after all), or are they cool with all that?

                P.S.
                Oh, and how are they feeling about Trump’s unsecured private email server? Man, that oughta get some traction!Report

              • Avatar Koz in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                So, since you’re better plugged into the Trump camp than I am, how are these millions of DemTrump voters reacting to the Muslim EO, defunding of Planned Parenthood, Davis Bacon, Right to Work legislation, and so on?

                I have no special knowledge of the Trump camp, but my guess is they would be pretty noncommittal about the whole bunch.

                They might be mildly in favor of the EO, but it’s a small piece early in the game. The rest of them are even earlier, I don’t think one of them is even in force. Frankly I haven’t heard of them myself as it relates to recent actions of the Trump Administration.Report

              • Avatar El Muneco in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Unsecured e-mail server.
                Official favors to Wall Street figures who contributed.
                Self-aggrandizing military action throwing away US servicemen’s lives over the heada of their commandwrs who knew better.
                “Charitable” foundation that didn’t just play fast and loose with regulations but just ignored them.
                Every ethical concern thar was leveled at Clinton has proven true afainst trump. And we haven’t heard boo from principled conservatives.
                And that doesn’t even include the unsecured hotline to Russia or putative selfies of someone’s best R. Kelly impression.
                He must actually be the Antichrist.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to El Muneco
                Ignored
                says:

                And we haven’t heard boo from principled conservatives.

                You mean, other than “never Trump” and the 3% (ish) of the GOP voted for Hillary. Awkwardly this was balanced or outweighed by the Dems who voted for Trump.

                But now he’s in office, and we’ll see how he does. It’s possible my vote against him was a mistake and I shouldn’t have judged his words so literally. Maybe he’ll do good things. It’s also possible we’re in the middle of a great reshuffle which will end with me flipping parties.

                He must actually be the Antichrist.

                Or the media could be having a melt down and exaggerating yet again.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to El Muneco
                Ignored
                says:

                principled conservatives

                Both of them, you mean?Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to El Muneco
                Ignored
                says:

                El Muneco,
                So I know a guy in a position to know just how many enemies Trump is making.
                He gives Trump 50/50 of lasting his first term in office.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Chip,
                Hey, I’m here (and voted for Trump). Rather fight with Trump trying to shoot me in the face than Hillary stabbing the left in the back.Report

  10. Avatar Aaron David
    Ignored
    says:

    From the post:

    When I walked into the University of California, Santa Cruz I was a committed leftist and was right at home with the political tone the university maintained. I experienced a slow move away from the radical groups and policies I had spent years defending but could never fathom leaving the left behind.

    And from your comments:

    I hope they don’t. Not because I am a college Republican but because I believe we need a capable conservative counter on our college campuses. If college Republicans are in agreement with Milo when it comes to the specifics than we really have seen a death of conservatism as a viable political ideology.

    This puts you in a very precarious position to be the one to judge hypocrisy. Putting aside the fact that you, as a leftist of some sort of veracity, are setting yourself as the judge of conservatism, you are letting the ways and means of your beliefs decide whether or not others are following theirs. From your point of view, obviously he is a hypocrite, but that says nothing of whether he, and indeed conservatives in general, feel he is being such. When you state “But Milo’s actions are anything but a defense of free speech principles. His attempts to silence those who dare speak of him unkindly (much like our current president) by using his swarm of online acolytes is not a political act that should find support from any ideology or persuasion.” you don’t explain how this actually works, nor show example of it in action so we, and by extension any possible conservative readers here, to help us judge.

    It seems more that you are using your definitions of what is good and proper in the way of Free Speech to paint him as a hypocrite rather than how his actions don’t lead to his own definition , or that of the right in general. It could be that conservatives on campus, like conservatives in general, feel that they need something/someone to break down the walls of conventional definitions of Free Speech, or that they feel that they aren’t able to actually have FS due to constraints placed upon their ideology and how to enact it by those who are actively hostile to that viewpoint. That, indeed, there is no way to get a message across without shattering many ideas regarding FS, which they most likely feel are shibboleths.

    Given how often conservatives talk about PC culture and how corrosive it is, it would seem that this is right up their alley.Report

    • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Aaron David
      Ignored
      says:

      What, then, is your proposed definition of free speech that Milo’s actions are compatible with but that Milo’s liberal critics violate?Report

    • Avatar Roland Dodds in reply to Aaron David
      Ignored
      says:

      Few things.

      1. I left out a lot of my personal political journey for brevity’s sake. I came to reject a lot of my leftist politics. I recognize I supported all kinds of ideas and individuals that anyone who cares about liberty and human rights should be embarrassed by.

      2. You said, “you are letting the ways and means of your beliefs decide whether or not others are following theirs.” That is only half true. As noted in the piece, I had friends who were conservatives. The fact that they rejected the rolling mindset of some in their movement was part of my assessment of said points.

      Having said that, I have no problem looking at someone else’s ideas and principles through my own ideological lens and assessing it based on my own criteria. My criteria and understand of those ideas may change with debate and honest discourse over time. This brings us back to the issue of Milo; if he does not help create that discussion and debate than what good is her to college Republicans? If “conservatives” are now radicals, demanding a destruction of our common institutions and rules of decency, then fine. I simply won’t let them claim to be anything less.Report

      • Avatar Aaron David in reply to Roland Dodds
        Ignored
        says:

        In response @roland-dodds (and thank you for the response) two things.

        1. I understand that brevity is important and that all sorts of things end up on the cutting room floor, but in this case remember that you are talking about one groups opinion from a decade ago. And even then, you state that there were others on campus, of that political suasion, who even then were in disagreement with your interpretation of how conservatives should act. What has changed, if anything? As this was before the Obama admin, did that poison discourse for them? And what are those people you knew then saying now, are they with Milo are against Milo, or worse, indifferent?

        2. You are absolutely correct that you get to use your beliefs to look at and judge others actions, I alluded to that in my original response. But, that said, that only carries as much weight as the other gives it. And going back to my first point, if their opinions (the right) have changed in how they regard your opinions, well, yours might carry less water than you think, indeed might incite rather that mollify.Report

        • Avatar Roland Dodds in reply to Aaron David
          Ignored
          says:

          @aaron-david

          1. Good question. I am in contact with a portion of this conservative group I noted (as this was before Facebook/Twitter I simply lost any contact and can’t even remember their names). All the conservatives that avoided the sensationalist paper noted in my piece supported Rubio/Bush/Walker at some point in the campaign. None of them ever went to Trump, although I do see some effort to defend his presidency now that he has been elected.

          They are all middle class and have families/careers. They are not the types to jump in with the alt-right/lite. They are saying the same thing many of us are here (“Milo is bad. Riots also bad. What happened to my country?” etc.)

          2. My opinions carry weight with the conservatives I know personally, and their opinions matter to me. I stay in contact with them because I enjoy their company and we all like honest debate. We have a relationship and thus don’t put words in each other’s mouths that we wish to argue against. That “the right” has gone against the type of conservatism my friends represent says a lot about how the political sphere has changed in the last few years. Obviously, many on the right would just say I’m “tone policing” and giving unwarranted advice to a group I care little about. That’s fine, but I think I have made more of an effort to talk about things the hard-right has wanted to discuss than many liberals/leftists. One would hope that gets me their ear for at least a few minutes.Report

  11. Avatar Doctor Jay
    Ignored
    says:

    This isn’t what Roland said, so much as what this post reminds me of. I too, had many a friend who was conservative in my college days, and some even now. We could talk about things.

    The election left me with a sense of betrayal by many of those people. The polls make it clear that there were a lot of people who didn’t really approve of Trump, but voted for him anyway.

    Similarly, there are probably a lot of people in those audiences who don’t like Milo, but sponsor him anyway. This gives me a senses of betrayal as well. I know plenty of conservatives who know what constitutes good behavior and what doesn’t, and are well able to tell what a slimeball Milo is. But apparently they don’t care about that any more. The level of spite running around the country is at an all-time high.

    I’ve been in “WTF?” mode for several months now.Report

    • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Doctor Jay
      Ignored
      says:

      ” I know plenty of conservatives who know what constitutes good behavior and what doesn’t…”

      You know, you’re right. You’re absolutely right. And they also know that, when given a chance, liberals will proudly and publicly demonstrate that they have no god damn clue about these things.

      Or, y’know. #notallliberals. But if the conservative philosophy can be blamed and held responsible for encouraging the KKK, for encouraging hate crimes against Muslims, then why can’t the liberal movement be blamed for anarchists smashing windows, setting things on fire, throwing bombs at police?Report

    • Avatar Kim in reply to Doctor Jay
      Ignored
      says:

      I voted for Trump out of a sincere understanding that Hillary would be worse (And I know someone who works for Hillary). That Hillary’s mental stability had deteriorated drastically within the last 12 months, and that someone I would have been okay voting for in January was not someone I could endorse in November.Report

  12. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    One of the funny points I saw made on the twitters was a comparison of the Milo Riots to the Mohammed Cartoon riots.

    Is your initial response to say “well, they shouldn’t have printed that” when you see the riots?Report

    • Avatar Roland Dodds in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      A good question. My first reaction would be to ask what is the point of the publication? I thought it was silly for folks to argue all magazines and papers should publish the cartoons “to make a point.” Is it fitting with the style and structure of the publication? The NYT is not in the business of goading people just to get a rise. Charlie Hebdo is.

      I also don’t mind Milo publishing his ideas and for people to discuss and debate them (like we are doing now). But I question the wisdom of a Republican organization aligning with him if they claim to be conservatives. Would I have supported Charlie Hebdo if they were staging protests outside Mosques and hand out their paper? Probably not.Report

  13. Avatar Damon
    Ignored
    says:

    Yes, continue to feed the troll.

    Light the torches and bring the pitchforks.

    Burn it all down.

    Be careful what you wish for. Don’t come crying to me when the same things happens to you. I’ll laugh or shoot you in the face.Report

  14. Avatar Koz
    Ignored
    says:

    Rather, I want to address my Republican comrades that keep inviting Milo to speak at their respective universities.

    For me at least, the reason the College Republicans are doing this is to demonstrate that they can. Ie, we invite him, people bitch, some people protest, security keeps order, and nothing really bad happens. In the case of Berkeley it seems that this was a failure.Report

    • Avatar George Turner in reply to Koz
      Ignored
      says:

      The reason to invite Milo is that his talks are wildly entertaining. The Youtube videos of his campus talks get 150,000 to over a million views each. He’s THAT fabulous.

      And more entertaining is the way the left screams and bangs their sippy cups because they no longer know how to form a remotely coherent argument or an attack that makes a lick of sense. They screech that Milo is a white nationalist, but he’s a Greek/British Jewish foreigner, so exactly what nation would he be a nationalist of? They scream he’s a racist – but he’s devoted to black dick. It’s all so amusing.Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to George Turner
        Ignored
        says:

        The reason to invite Milo is that he’ll show up, and he’ll talk Right.

        I know plenty more entertaining people than him, and people with more caltrops to put afore everyone’s ideological hobbyhorses.Report

        • Avatar George Turner in reply to Kim
          Ignored
          says:

          Yes, but how many Youtube views do their speeches get?

          Let’s look.

          George Will at Purdue University: 6,855 views.
          George Will at the Illinois College of Law: 1,257 views.

          Some of Will’s other talks get somewhat more views, but not much more.

          From page 1 on Milo.

          Milo Thrashes Heckling Muslim Woman at New Mexico: 1,390,798 views.
          Milo at UC Colorado Springs: 171,528 views.
          Milo at UW-Milwaukee: 323,493 views.Report