I'm not in a position to debate your or anyone else's personal experience. We don't seem to have raw numbers of any kind we can rely on to get better understanding of how prevalent the harm is, and how to quantify it (happy to consider it if we do have something like that).
I guess my question is, in light of your experience are you comfortable putting someone else through it who was misunderstood and/or misidentified? Or even someone who did say something wrong or ignorant at a weak moment but who is hardly Richard Spencer? If so is it also worth the understanding that retaliation might involve things like calling the Catholic hospital a nurse works for to report something she wrote online favoring federal funding for planned parenthood? Or telling Lockheed about an employee who criticized our military adventurism in a comments section?
The reason I caution the left about it isn't because I think right wing crazies are good or correct but because there's a good chance total war results in defeat for everyone.
I guess in order to have the discussion beyond this point I'd have to understand how prevalent the conduct in question really is, and maybe even more tightly define what types of actions we're talking about. For the record I don't think anyone should take it upon themselves to call other people's employers, make what the law would call true threats, or disseminate another person's personal information. To the extent this is the kind of thing we're talking about its absolutely wrong, and there are (admittedly imperfect) laws on the books.
On the other hand, to the extent we're talking about anonymous people posting nasty or crazy things on the internet I'm just not sure I see the point. I know it's fashionable to 'punch nazi's' right now in some corners. My suspicion is that this attitude is creating a mix of a Streisand effect (i.e. giving a platform to people few would have ever heard of otherwise) and drawing the left al-Qaeda style into escalations they can't win and that make them look equally stupid and/or crazy.
I'm also not so sure that people use these tactics as often as you're saying, at least when it comes to private individuals. This forum is about as civil and thoughtful as any place on the internet but I'm not really sure I'd want everyone knowing the substance of some of my views I've expressed here. The fact that most of us use aliases and pseudonyms I think shows I'm not alone in that, yet we all still post because we know our anonymity is most likely going to remain intact. It would take a lot more convincing for me to risk that norm in order to punish what i suspect aren't more than a handful of really bad actors, the worst of which the law already provides recourse against.
I guess what to do depends on what your goals are, and what it's worth giving up to accomplish them. Once you start playing their game you've conceded that these sorts of activities are acceptable. Maybe I'm wrong and it would be limited to policing the worst of the worst but if not.. well what a big price to pay to get back at some weirdos and trolls online.
I heard that interview too and I thought it was great. Nothing is more amusing than seeing journalists of the bubble exposed to good old fashioned, unbridled humanity.
I think North's instincts are correct. No it isn't the same as the type of discrimination or exclusion faced by LGBT people but these periodic explosions about failures to use proper pronouns or be sufficiently versed in the latest flavor of intersectionality are counter productive. The gay rights movement has succeeded on things like same sex marriage because their tactics generate empathy and cause people to question what it is they're so worried about in the first place. It's much more likely to prevail than hunting apostates with an ever widening net.
I'm told when my great grandmother died they found huge stashes of canned goods and other supplies. We suspect it was because she lived through the German occupation of France and at times had to rely on black market goods for her and my grandmother.
As usual this lost me at 'fire in a crowded theater.' I feel like it should be mandatory to read actual first amendment case law before writing something like that. You dont even have to get into other questionable OWH opinions to note that the Supreme Court has spent the last century walking away from Schenck.
Also the reference to Europe is incredibly ironic in context of this article. I'm wondering if people who look at that kind of nonsense as a model ever stop to think that even if America could constitutionally adopt something similar the enforcement apparatus would almost certainly be run by a federal agency. You know, the kind of institutions that currently answer to Donald Trump.
This is quite right. We also shouldn't forget the Gray Lady's infamously deferential coverage to the administration in the run up to Iraq 2 or the current characterization of the war in Syria.
I think I get where you're coming from. Maybe there's a bigger criticism of pop culture out there, in that it all acts as a sort of soft propaganda that celebrates (and profits from) the status quo, or that in order to be popular it must also be shallow.
I've developed a distaste for these movies but even though I like a lot of independent and foreign film I try to look at them for what they are rather than what they're not. Part of it is that my taste also includes a lot of so bad it's good genre and cult movies that could be dismissed as well, though usually for somewhat different reasons. Of course I don't get anymore butt hurt when someone tells me Return of the Living Dead is garbage than than I do when people say Beyonce is mandatory listening but the Swedish death metal in my iTunes is unlistenable. Its all a matter of taste.
When it comes to the endless cycle of comic book movies I think I'm a lot less bothered by the lightness of the fare than the cloaking of unfettered consumerism in some sort of artistic or political importance.
I think the way the vaguely woke pop-identity politics crowd latches onto these films sets them up for disappointment. These movies are stylized children's entertainment set up to make billions off the lowest common denominator, not change the world. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, just like there's nothing inherently wrong with enjoying a big mac. But when you walk into McDonald's expecting a gourmet meal it's bound to be a let down.
Well it sounds like we are probably more in agreement than not. As I said above to Saul, I think SYG is bad policy. I'm also not happy about Sessions or his supporters, or really much of administration policy so far. That said, my post 9/11 gut check has become to oppose further empowering law enforcement/dis-empowering individuals against the state, even when those calls come from people I share agreement with on many other issues like preservation of the welfare state or the need to curb carbon emissions.
So to make sure I'm following, your belief is that the best way to prevent bad faith claims of self defense is to eliminate it? Does that mean you're comfortable throwing the book at people who in fact did no moral wrong as a sacrifice?
I don't look at the past through rose colored lenses but your logic seems totally backwards. As others have said, people have abused their rights or used them to advance nefarious causes but I don't get why you think disarming everyone of those rights is going to lead to better outcomes. I mean, is the answer for voters who support racist policies curbing suffrage? Given the history of this country is the concept that people should have a vote racist? I dont think so.
Regarding political coalitions maybe that can be useful for electoral success but I'm not sure you'll get a more just world. There's this insane belief that progressive-inspired mass criminalization (which is what you're asking for) is somehow going to turn out differently than conservative-inspired mass criminalization. If you're comfortable with that, that's fine, but don't pretend there's no trade off or that you really care about those who will inevitably bear the brunt of it.
Your first point is just not historically accurate. There are plenty of examples of black armed self defense in this country from former Union soldiers taking their rifles home to sporadic armed resistance to vigilante enforcement of Jim Crow to the Black Panthers.
Your second point, strikes me as saying that the only way to protect civil liberties from those who use them to support policy you don't like is to destroy them. I guess theres a certain ironic truth to that but I don't see how that type of precedent can ever help anyone, much less those already disadvantaged. It's the people I think you fear most who reap the most benefit from such a situation.
That seems more of an issue of stand your ground versus the historical common law approach (duty to retreat, castle doctrine, etc.). Personally I don't favor SYG either but I am comfortable with a duty to retreat except in your own home as the traditional common law would have it. I think it walks a reasonable line between not punishing violence legitimately used for self preservation while also not incentivizing vigilantism or killing the other party to a confrontation so he can't bear witness against you.
That doesn't make it conceptually racist. It does make it another great argument for why law enforcement needs more consistent oversight and accountability.
I just don't get this line of thinking that says the best way to keep minorities from being denied rights is to restrict the rights of everyone more generally.
I can't speak to the teacher guidance piece but I think you may be onto something with the idea that our current system doesn't seem to allow for much failure. There were two instances in law school where I severely screwed up. One was a big fat D on my first graded exam, the other was getting stumped in an oral argument exercise due to my own hubris. I think I learned more from those episodes than any A I ever got.
If the only way to succeed is A's across the board, no blemishes of any kind, then we are making it impossible for students to learn the types of critical thinking skills I think the piece is trying to measure.
I disagree and I think a lot of the pushback at @george-turner is telling in it's lack of substance. Now maybe he is trolling and I'd never articulate some of his points the way he has, but like @burt-likko said above, conceptually none of this stuff is beyond the pale. I live within a few miles of some of the most violent parts of this country, yet my demographic is virtually unimpacted by it. A disproportionate amount of the homicides are committed by (and the victims of it disproportionately are) racial minorities.
Now the reasons for that aren't related to the hue of their skin except to the extent that's resulted in social and economic exclusion. Add in the drug trade, and yes, the culture that's grown out of it, and that's what you get.
It's completely reasonable to respond to gun control advocates who point to Western Europe by noting, that for Americans of European ancestry, the gun homicide statistics really aren't that different. No progressive would be pissed off by this If we were talking about standardized test scores.
I've never found the argument that permitting concealed carry mitigates these situations to be particularly persuasive. That isn't to say it can't or never has but it's too random and the incidents themselves too rare to inform policy. I say this as someone who is largely skeptical of most gun control measures currently floating around in public debate.
That people do that is petty, and quite silly. That anyone thinks they're ever going to convince a big, pluralistic society to agree to follow their personal standards about what should and should not be frowned upon is insane.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Morning Ed: Society {2017.06.14.W}”
I'm not in a position to debate your or anyone else's personal experience. We don't seem to have raw numbers of any kind we can rely on to get better understanding of how prevalent the harm is, and how to quantify it (happy to consider it if we do have something like that).
I guess my question is, in light of your experience are you comfortable putting someone else through it who was misunderstood and/or misidentified? Or even someone who did say something wrong or ignorant at a weak moment but who is hardly Richard Spencer? If so is it also worth the understanding that retaliation might involve things like calling the Catholic hospital a nurse works for to report something she wrote online favoring federal funding for planned parenthood? Or telling Lockheed about an employee who criticized our military adventurism in a comments section?
The reason I caution the left about it isn't because I think right wing crazies are good or correct but because there's a good chance total war results in defeat for everyone.
"
I guess in order to have the discussion beyond this point I'd have to understand how prevalent the conduct in question really is, and maybe even more tightly define what types of actions we're talking about. For the record I don't think anyone should take it upon themselves to call other people's employers, make what the law would call true threats, or disseminate another person's personal information. To the extent this is the kind of thing we're talking about its absolutely wrong, and there are (admittedly imperfect) laws on the books.
On the other hand, to the extent we're talking about anonymous people posting nasty or crazy things on the internet I'm just not sure I see the point. I know it's fashionable to 'punch nazi's' right now in some corners. My suspicion is that this attitude is creating a mix of a Streisand effect (i.e. giving a platform to people few would have ever heard of otherwise) and drawing the left al-Qaeda style into escalations they can't win and that make them look equally stupid and/or crazy.
I'm also not so sure that people use these tactics as often as you're saying, at least when it comes to private individuals. This forum is about as civil and thoughtful as any place on the internet but I'm not really sure I'd want everyone knowing the substance of some of my views I've expressed here. The fact that most of us use aliases and pseudonyms I think shows I'm not alone in that, yet we all still post because we know our anonymity is most likely going to remain intact. It would take a lot more convincing for me to risk that norm in order to punish what i suspect aren't more than a handful of really bad actors, the worst of which the law already provides recourse against.
"
I guess what to do depends on what your goals are, and what it's worth giving up to accomplish them. Once you start playing their game you've conceded that these sorts of activities are acceptable. Maybe I'm wrong and it would be limited to policing the worst of the worst but if not.. well what a big price to pay to get back at some weirdos and trolls online.
"
All the stuff about Tolkien at the Somme is nonsense. He spent the war in a hidden valley of very short people.
"
I heard that interview too and I thought it was great. Nothing is more amusing than seeing journalists of the bubble exposed to good old fashioned, unbridled humanity.
"
I think North's instincts are correct. No it isn't the same as the type of discrimination or exclusion faced by LGBT people but these periodic explosions about failures to use proper pronouns or be sufficiently versed in the latest flavor of intersectionality are counter productive. The gay rights movement has succeeded on things like same sex marriage because their tactics generate empathy and cause people to question what it is they're so worried about in the first place. It's much more likely to prevail than hunting apostates with an ever widening net.
"
Eyewitnesses on the radio this morning claimed the security detail was returning fire almost immediately.
"
I'm told when my great grandmother died they found huge stashes of canned goods and other supplies. We suspect it was because she lived through the German occupation of France and at times had to rely on black market goods for her and my grandmother.
On “Opinion: “Fake News” Claims, Debunked”
And the euphemism of the day prize goes to....
"
As usual this lost me at 'fire in a crowded theater.' I feel like it should be mandatory to read actual first amendment case law before writing something like that. You dont even have to get into other questionable OWH opinions to note that the Supreme Court has spent the last century walking away from Schenck.
Also the reference to Europe is incredibly ironic in context of this article. I'm wondering if people who look at that kind of nonsense as a model ever stop to think that even if America could constitutionally adopt something similar the enforcement apparatus would almost certainly be run by a federal agency. You know, the kind of institutions that currently answer to Donald Trump.
"
This is quite right. We also shouldn't forget the Gray Lady's infamously deferential coverage to the administration in the run up to Iraq 2 or the current characterization of the war in Syria.
On “Morning Ed: Culture {2017.06.08.Th}”
@saul-degraw
I think I get where you're coming from. Maybe there's a bigger criticism of pop culture out there, in that it all acts as a sort of soft propaganda that celebrates (and profits from) the status quo, or that in order to be popular it must also be shallow.
"
No doubt.
"
There was a piece at Salon by Andrew O'Hehir reviewing the Avengers that is a bit closer to my views on the genre.
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/02/the_avengers_will_superhero_movies_never_end/
I've developed a distaste for these movies but even though I like a lot of independent and foreign film I try to look at them for what they are rather than what they're not. Part of it is that my taste also includes a lot of so bad it's good genre and cult movies that could be dismissed as well, though usually for somewhat different reasons. Of course I don't get anymore butt hurt when someone tells me Return of the Living Dead is garbage than than I do when people say Beyonce is mandatory listening but the Swedish death metal in my iTunes is unlistenable. Its all a matter of taste.
When it comes to the endless cycle of comic book movies I think I'm a lot less bothered by the lightness of the fare than the cloaking of unfettered consumerism in some sort of artistic or political importance.
"
I stand in solidarity with you in your curmudgeonly attitude towards the modern super hero film.
"
I think the way the vaguely woke pop-identity politics crowd latches onto these films sets them up for disappointment. These movies are stylized children's entertainment set up to make billions off the lowest common denominator, not change the world. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, just like there's nothing inherently wrong with enjoying a big mac. But when you walk into McDonald's expecting a gourmet meal it's bound to be a let down.
On “Morning Ed: Crime {2017.06.07.W}”
Well it sounds like we are probably more in agreement than not. As I said above to Saul, I think SYG is bad policy. I'm also not happy about Sessions or his supporters, or really much of administration policy so far. That said, my post 9/11 gut check has become to oppose further empowering law enforcement/dis-empowering individuals against the state, even when those calls come from people I share agreement with on many other issues like preservation of the welfare state or the need to curb carbon emissions.
"
So to make sure I'm following, your belief is that the best way to prevent bad faith claims of self defense is to eliminate it? Does that mean you're comfortable throwing the book at people who in fact did no moral wrong as a sacrifice?
I don't look at the past through rose colored lenses but your logic seems totally backwards. As others have said, people have abused their rights or used them to advance nefarious causes but I don't get why you think disarming everyone of those rights is going to lead to better outcomes. I mean, is the answer for voters who support racist policies curbing suffrage? Given the history of this country is the concept that people should have a vote racist? I dont think so.
Regarding political coalitions maybe that can be useful for electoral success but I'm not sure you'll get a more just world. There's this insane belief that progressive-inspired mass criminalization (which is what you're asking for) is somehow going to turn out differently than conservative-inspired mass criminalization. If you're comfortable with that, that's fine, but don't pretend there's no trade off or that you really care about those who will inevitably bear the brunt of it.
"
Your first point is just not historically accurate. There are plenty of examples of black armed self defense in this country from former Union soldiers taking their rifles home to sporadic armed resistance to vigilante enforcement of Jim Crow to the Black Panthers.
Your second point, strikes me as saying that the only way to protect civil liberties from those who use them to support policy you don't like is to destroy them. I guess theres a certain ironic truth to that but I don't see how that type of precedent can ever help anyone, much less those already disadvantaged. It's the people I think you fear most who reap the most benefit from such a situation.
"
That seems more of an issue of stand your ground versus the historical common law approach (duty to retreat, castle doctrine, etc.). Personally I don't favor SYG either but I am comfortable with a duty to retreat except in your own home as the traditional common law would have it. I think it walks a reasonable line between not punishing violence legitimately used for self preservation while also not incentivizing vigilantism or killing the other party to a confrontation so he can't bear witness against you.
"
That doesn't make it conceptually racist. It does make it another great argument for why law enforcement needs more consistent oversight and accountability.
I just don't get this line of thinking that says the best way to keep minorities from being denied rights is to restrict the rights of everyone more generally.
On “The College Try”
I can't speak to the teacher guidance piece but I think you may be onto something with the idea that our current system doesn't seem to allow for much failure. There were two instances in law school where I severely screwed up. One was a big fat D on my first graded exam, the other was getting stumped in an oral argument exercise due to my own hubris. I think I learned more from those episodes than any A I ever got.
If the only way to succeed is A's across the board, no blemishes of any kind, then we are making it impossible for students to learn the types of critical thinking skills I think the piece is trying to measure.
On “In Sadness and In Anger”
I disagree and I think a lot of the pushback at @george-turner is telling in it's lack of substance. Now maybe he is trolling and I'd never articulate some of his points the way he has, but like @burt-likko said above, conceptually none of this stuff is beyond the pale. I live within a few miles of some of the most violent parts of this country, yet my demographic is virtually unimpacted by it. A disproportionate amount of the homicides are committed by (and the victims of it disproportionately are) racial minorities.
Now the reasons for that aren't related to the hue of their skin except to the extent that's resulted in social and economic exclusion. Add in the drug trade, and yes, the culture that's grown out of it, and that's what you get.
It's completely reasonable to respond to gun control advocates who point to Western Europe by noting, that for Americans of European ancestry, the gun homicide statistics really aren't that different. No progressive would be pissed off by this If we were talking about standardized test scores.
"
I've never found the argument that permitting concealed carry mitigates these situations to be particularly persuasive. That isn't to say it can't or never has but it's too random and the incidents themselves too rare to inform policy. I say this as someone who is largely skeptical of most gun control measures currently floating around in public debate.
On “Tempest in a D-Cup”
That people do that is petty, and quite silly. That anyone thinks they're ever going to convince a big, pluralistic society to agree to follow their personal standards about what should and should not be frowned upon is insane.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.