Commenter Archive

AvatarComments by Jaybird

On “From Elizabeth Picciuto: The Real Free Speech Violations

I assume it's referring to the phenomenon that Rudi Dutschke called the "long march".


*I* thought it was funny...


I've had conversations with folks who have made the claim and have seen numerous examples of people making it. Should I bother googling it?

In any case, I brought it up because I know that you (and others) have also seen people make that very claim and it's sort of a call-back to the times you've seen the claim made.

A small comedy bit, if you will.


It kinda makes you wonder about Ayishat Akanbi, doesn't it?

Do you think that she's merely wrong or do you think that she's an enemy agent of some kind?

(I know better than to ask if it makes you question any of your own assumptions.)


That wasn't real communism.

On “Remembering The Ice Age

I was reminded that he was involved in the first white-on-white rap beef. 3rd Bass really took umbrage to Ice.

The past is another country.

On “From Elizabeth Picciuto: The Real Free Speech Violations

Is there some neutral objective way to distinguish between them?

I remember a joke that is useful for someone serving cookies.

"What's the difference between sugar and concrete?"
If you get an "I dunno, what's the difference?"
"I hope *YOU* didn't bake these cookies."


No. But I’m also noticing that we’re not particularly close to 100 and we have a lot of space between where we are now and 100 and we can move, and move a good long ways, before the only examples between where we are and 100 is NAMBLA.


Hey, if we know anything at all, it's that physiognomy is real.


And, again, I think that it's more than reasonable to think that he saw the Maoist Struggle Session awaiting him for admitting malice as more unpleasant than the mere retirement that awaited for admitting incompetence.


I admit: I thought that LBJ pushed forward the Johnson Amendment in 1954 to threaten African-American churches (which were the hotbeds of Civil Rights Activism at the time) because he was kinda racist and it passed easily because the country was kinda racist.

I've heard arguments that, no, it was a principled act before but I've never found them persuasive.


If the argument is that I don't *KNOW* that he was lying, you're absolutely right.

If the argument is that it's more plausible to believe that he was telling the truth than that he was lying... well, lemme just stop you there. It ain't.

But if you'd like to put down an argument that it is, I'd love to read it.


Oh, you don't have to take it seriously at all.

Feel free to not.

But noticing patterns is one of those things that brains do and one of the best ways to tell if you're actually noticing a pattern that exists or merely imposing a pattern on noise that contains no pattern is to make predictions.

(And now we can get into the whole issue of whether any given prediction "counts".)


We got into this the other day.

This whole thread was good:

And if you want to read old comments where we were arguing stuff related to this, there's this thread from 2018.


I absolutely *LOVED* this speech.

The argument that "if you allow free speech, then you have to allow (atrocious example)!" is usually a pretty good one. Well, I don't support (atrocious example)... so I guess I have to accept limits?

But I think it's also possible to look where we are now and say "we shouldn't be *HERE*. We should be closer to Free Speech than we are now."


"No. But I'm also noticing that we're not particularly close to 100 and we have a lot of space between where we are now and 100 and we can move, and move a good long ways, before the only examples between where we are and 100 are (atrocious examples)."


It's no more an attack on free speech than the Johnson Amendment was. Is.


Yeah, you probably wouldn't believe the arguments made against people who thought that the Johnson Amendment abridged free speech.


Wait, revocation of Tax-Exempt Status is a threat to free speech?!?!?

I'm pretty sure that that can't be true, Greg.

It's in the first amendment.


So would you compare the people who signed this letter anonymously to supporters of NAMBLA and supporters of ISIS?


Oh, I don't *KNOW* that he didn't read the piece.

I assume that he read it completely dispassionately, scanned it for errors, and then published it.

I don't *KNOW* that he did that... but I assume that he's one of the olds who still had pre-woke ideas about publishing op-eds from senators.

I certainly agree that it's possible that he told the truth. "Nope! Didn't read it! I sure should have, though! Golly! I wouldn't have run it, if I did my job!"

That just strikes me as straining plausibility.

But, hey. Maybe he's an alcoholic. Lemme google.


Oh, the Johnson Amendment? Surely that was passed for good reasons though...

1954... didn't want political advocacy happening in churches...

Yeah, there probably were good reasons that LBJ included that Amendment.


I don't know how I should feel about the whole "I'm afraid to sign my name to stuff for fear of social sanction" thing.

"It's good for people to fear signing their name to bad things and bad for people to fear signing their name to good things!" strikes me as naïve.

Especially since I came of age within a culture that had different ideas of good and bad than society as a whole seems to have now (and, get this, I see society having different ideas of good and bad in another 20 years than what they have now).

So I think I'm more a fan of "don't attack people for speech, really" and "it's shameful that there are people who thought that they'd have to sign this anonymously and speaks poorly to our society" than I am of "the wrong people are signing things anonymously".


Wait, what does "free speech" have to do with "tax-exempt status"?

Has there ever been *ANY* institution in America threatened with loss of tax-exempt status based on speech before?!?!?


How do I know that his options were either:

A: Admit I didn't read it
2: Admit I read it but ran it anyway

Because I can't think of a third that is more plausible than those two.

See it as a limitation of my imagination if you must.

Oooh! Perhaps you could offer a third option!


I think that the most specific example is that bottom part:

Many signatories on our list noted their institutional affiliation but not their name, fearful of professional retaliation. It is a sad fact, and in part why we wrote the letter.