"When has the left ever tried to chill someone's speech?", he asked in the thread where someone opened with "where are the free speech absolutists now?"
"Ha! Where are the people who were arguing against me when I was arguing for limits on free speech *NOW*?" is not as devastating a question as you think.
I'm curious as to whether the upsides of free speech absolutism are a bit more obvious than they were when you were arguing against the absolutists.
For my part, of FREAKIN' COURSE IT'S NOT AIDING AND ABETTING TERRORISM.
And now I look forward to the next time that my speech is chilled because of this or that new fatwa that the left issues.
Apparently, a guy went down to the address and, when the lady who lives there came out of his house, he asked her if Ms. James lives there and the woman said that she hasn't seen Ms. James for a long time.
So there are *NO* residency problems. Letisha James does not live in that house.
The good news is that the article itself goes back to the good term:
Department data shows nearly half of rubbish fires involve a person experiencing homelessness. The union says all those extra calls drive up response times when resources are already lacking.
We should be able to determine whether this was a case of "protestor shouting down" versus "constituent speaking to politician" pretty quickly, if there's footage.
What makes this headline so infuriating is that we agreed to use the term "people temporarily experiencing houselessness" years ago. (Also, the person who wrote it needed an editor.)
See, you say "hypothetical limits" when I think back about a few decades' worth of various speakers getting shouted down. Like, not hypothetical ones, but actual ones. And you know what? That's what happened here too. Protestors tried to shout down a speaker and were then removed from the venue.
Is the argument that protestors should be able to shout down speakers?
Because even free speech absolutists acknowledge stuff like "well, the heckler's veto *DOES* create *SOME* problems, in theory."
Even people who mock the idea of freeze peach should acknowledge that.
My suspicion is that he has *MAJOR* mental health issues and hates anybody who is remotely adjacent to government due to, among other things, his eviction and divorce and this and that and the other thing and he would have done the same thing if the governor was a Native American, Haitian Immigrant, or even a boring old white dude.
He then figured that his best play was *NOT* to lean on "I'm a loser" but, instead, to pick up some of that free-floating Luigi energy that seems to attach itself to folks who have acted sufficiently as agents of the unheard.
But that's just a theory.
Maybe he is just upset about Shapiro's relationship to Israel/Gaza.
On “Open Mic for the Week of 4/14/2025”
Well, do everything you can in the meantime to explain how "freedom of speech doesn't mean *THAT*" to people. "Of course it has to have limits!"
Personally, I hope you fail to win that argument.
I suspect you'll succeed at making it, though. Good and hard.
"
The first happened during my childhood (note, I'm in my early 50s). Why do you ask?
"
It exists to prevent the day when you will be crying out "where are the people who believe in free speech?"
"
The norm of "free speech" does not exist to protect Right Wingers from the wrong (perhaps even evil) things that they might want to say out loud.
That is a by-product, sure.
But that's not why it's important.
"
"Punishing people for speech falls under the umbrella of free speech!"
Here's what you ordered, sir.
I hope you enjoy it.
"
"When has the left ever tried to chill someone's speech?", he asked in the thread where someone opened with "where are the free speech absolutists now?"
"
"Ha! Where are the people who were arguing against me when I was arguing for limits on free speech *NOW*?" is not as devastating a question as you think.
I'm curious as to whether the upsides of free speech absolutism are a bit more obvious than they were when you were arguing against the absolutists.
For my part, of FREAKIN' COURSE IT'S NOT AIDING AND ABETTING TERRORISM.
And now I look forward to the next time that my speech is chilled because of this or that new fatwa that the left issues.
"
Grad student from GMU. Or a Fed. One of those.
"
The "When Must We Kill Them?" essays have started making the rounds.
On “The Lawless Lying Duplicitous Bastards of Abrego Garcia”
So your opinion on the tariffs is immigration?
"
How you feeling about the whole "Republicans are the party of fiscal sanity" thing given the tariffs?
On “From Marginal Revolution: o3 and AGI, is April 16th AGI day?”
The benchmark that makes sense to me: Can it beat Pokemon?
10-year-olds can beat Pokemon.
On “Open Mic for the Week of 4/14/2025”
Apparently, a guy went down to the address and, when the lady who lives there came out of his house, he asked her if Ms. James lives there and the woman said that she hasn't seen Ms. James for a long time.
So there are *NO* residency problems. Letisha James does not live in that house.
"
The extent to which that thought is comforting compared to "the government is feckless if not malicious" gives me pause.
What if stupid/malicious people are just not very good at doing stuff?
More funding? More sensitivity education for people who do stuff like read newspaper stories about audits?
"
Eh, it's fixing the problems you can talk about instead of the problems you can't talk about.
And, as you know, of that which one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
"
The good news is that the article itself goes back to the good term:
Gotta work on those headlines, though.
"
The Newsweek article talks about stuff from 2023.
But, hey. People make mistakes. Does the government really need to make a civil case out of honest mistakes?
"
My goodness. Is there footage of the event?
We should be able to determine whether this was a case of "protestor shouting down" versus "constituent speaking to politician" pretty quickly, if there's footage.
"
The New York Times has a newer article.
"
Fires temporarily experiencing rubbish.
"
From LA's ABC affiliate: Nearly a third of LA's fires last six years involved homeless people, new report shows
What makes this headline so infuriating is that we agreed to use the term "people temporarily experiencing houselessness" years ago. (Also, the person who wrote it needed an editor.)
"
See, you say "hypothetical limits" when I think back about a few decades' worth of various speakers getting shouted down. Like, not hypothetical ones, but actual ones. And you know what? That's what happened here too. Protestors tried to shout down a speaker and were then removed from the venue.
Is the argument that protestors should be able to shout down speakers?
Because even free speech absolutists acknowledge stuff like "well, the heckler's veto *DOES* create *SOME* problems, in theory."
Even people who mock the idea of freeze peach should acknowledge that.
On “The Lawless Lying Duplicitous Bastards of Abrego Garcia”
Martha's Vineyard Trutherism.
I am in ecstasy.
On “Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s Residence Attacked, Suspect Arrested”
My suspicion is that he has *MAJOR* mental health issues and hates anybody who is remotely adjacent to government due to, among other things, his eviction and divorce and this and that and the other thing and he would have done the same thing if the governor was a Native American, Haitian Immigrant, or even a boring old white dude.
He then figured that his best play was *NOT* to lean on "I'm a loser" but, instead, to pick up some of that free-floating Luigi energy that seems to attach itself to folks who have acted sufficiently as agents of the unheard.
But that's just a theory.
Maybe he is just upset about Shapiro's relationship to Israel/Gaza.
On “The Lawless Lying Duplicitous Bastards of Abrego Garcia”
It's really unfortunate that quite so many Democratic leaders complained about the undocumented visitors who got bussed into their communities.
Remember the Martha's Vineyard story?
(From what I understand, a couple of them moved back and now do domestic help for the people there.)