My interest in the Pope has for decades been purely nostalgic, and I leave the present club members to debate the question of who ought to get the big hat now. That said, Mr. Bergoglio seemed to be a good and decent man and as good a Pope as someone of my sensibilities could reasonably expect. I'm genuinely sorry that he's gone.
If you didn't understand, you could have said so, but now that you've asked.....
Free speech as we currently understand it in America is roughly 100 years old, and has never been popular when push comes to shove. There is a long history of who tries to crack down on it when and how far they manage to succeed. As a matter of legal, political, and social fact, we are freer to speak now than we have been in living memory -- though that may change, owing to the ongoing efforts of the political heirs of those who have, in the past, been most successful at imposing actual, tangible punishments for disfavored speech. (Bill Maher might do well to remember who actually succeeded in getting him cancelled and who merely annoys him.)
Note the "actual, tangible punishments." It has never been the case, will never be the case, and there is no reason that it ought to be the case, that you can say unpopular things and expect to be popular. Loose talk about speech police and leftist fatwas is just that -- loose talk. Bubble-wrapped sophomores who feel inhibited from saying things they think they think, and might even believe they stand for, that are predictably unpopular with some crowd that, for whatever reason, they care about, have a right to free speech. But what does that mean? It means they can say what they want (assuming it's germane -- you can't interrupt a chemistry class to espouse race realism any more than you can interrupt it to bemoan the management of the New York Giants). And they can't be fined or imprisoned or deprived of generally-applicable benefits and protections. (Including such things as generally-applicable "platforming" rules. Nobody is obliged to platform anyone, but they can be held to whatever rules they say they have.) What it doesn't mean is that people -- even government people -- can't talk back, point and laugh, or refuse to give you the time of day. All of that is their free speech; there is no first speaker privilege. It doesn't mean the government can't ask you, or try to persuade you, not to publish something, like the Pentagon Papers or medical misinformation. As I said, you are free to tell the government to pound sand. Not everyone has the balls to do it, that has always been the case, and always will be. But unless the government does more than talk, "government oppression" is more loose talk. We know that Meta, for example, is spineless in a bipartisan way, folding in the face of talk. (If there were actual or implied threats going beyond talk, we would probably know about them. And if we don't, claims that there was some undue pressure are simply expressions of distaste for whatever administration Meta folded for.)
Ultimately, for the time being, we have more freedom of speech than most of us have any interest in using. Social pressure is a real thing, and it would be a lot easier for people to exercise their free speech if we were all more polite about it. But we can't insist on it without infringing free speech itself. And any attempt to create rules of discourse protecting those who haven't the courage of what they think are their convictions from the honest reactions of people who don't like what you want to say is futile. (And whenever I hear someone try to formulate such rules, my reaction is almost always: "You first.") Robust free speech is often contentious and rude. It's a contact sport. It has ever been so, and always will be. Most people don't want to play, and that's their right. Free speech is not a free ride, and you can't make it one.
Well, yes. The government has a right to ask publishers not to publish something it thinks would not be in the public interest to publish. And the publisher has the right to tell the government to pound sand. But just as freedom of the press is for people who own one, freedom of speech is for people with the gonadal endowment to speak. Now if the government threatens to have the FCC pull your broadcasting license or does something else a lot worse than jawboning, that's another matter, but there's no reliable information on that.
Meta has long since proved itself to be a spineless organization no matter who runs the government. They could have said "no," to everyone who "pressured" them, whatever that means.
I recall the late Lars-Erik Nelson on C-Span, pre-internet, listening to someone rant about how the press was covering up Clinton administration scandals upon which he reclaimed in great detail. Nelson congratulated him on his wealth of information and asked, "Where did you learn about them?"
That would depend on what you told us about what you experienced. I wouldn't dream of telling you "that wasn't a big deal" or the like unless I knew what "that" was.
Because I thought, silly me, that having brought your experiences into the discussion you might want to tell us more about them. But if you don't, that's your business.
Sadly, substantial numbers of people agree with that kind of sentiment in general, and always have agreed with it. Our modern notion of free speech is a relatively recent legal development and not especially popular.
I'm not sure about that. I'm older than RFK, Jr., and I remember when I was in 8th grade and homerooms 106 and 107, where, perhaps not coincidentally, the kids bussed in from the south side that year all ended up, were known as the "retard rooms." This was not meant politely.
Something very weird is going on. The comments have things like this:
Deprecated: explode(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/ordina27/public_html/wp-content/plugins/commenter-ignore-button/cib-button.php on line 328
Deprecated: explode(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/ordina27/public_html/wp-content/plugins/commenter-ignore-button/cib-button.php on line 328
Deprecated: explode(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/ordina27/public_html/wp-content/plugins/commenter-ignore-button/cib-button.php on line 328
Deprecated: explode(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/ordina27/public_html/wp-content/plugins/commenter-ignore-button/cib-button.php on line 328
It may be "entirely possible," but it seems unlikely. And if they do actually wonder about it, they're not likely to be receptive to anything that approximates an accurate explanation.
It took you a week to come up with that? There may not be a judge, but there is, more or less, a jury, and I'm content with its verdict on who's playing games instead of providing answers and who isn't.
On “Pope Francis Dead at 88”
My interest in the Pope has for decades been purely nostalgic, and I leave the present club members to debate the question of who ought to get the big hat now. That said, Mr. Bergoglio seemed to be a good and decent man and as good a Pope as someone of my sensibilities could reasonably expect. I'm genuinely sorry that he's gone.
On “Open Mic for the Week of 4/14/2025”
If you didn't understand, you could have said so, but now that you've asked.....
Free speech as we currently understand it in America is roughly 100 years old, and has never been popular when push comes to shove. There is a long history of who tries to crack down on it when and how far they manage to succeed. As a matter of legal, political, and social fact, we are freer to speak now than we have been in living memory -- though that may change, owing to the ongoing efforts of the political heirs of those who have, in the past, been most successful at imposing actual, tangible punishments for disfavored speech. (Bill Maher might do well to remember who actually succeeded in getting him cancelled and who merely annoys him.)
Note the "actual, tangible punishments." It has never been the case, will never be the case, and there is no reason that it ought to be the case, that you can say unpopular things and expect to be popular. Loose talk about speech police and leftist fatwas is just that -- loose talk. Bubble-wrapped sophomores who feel inhibited from saying things they think they think, and might even believe they stand for, that are predictably unpopular with some crowd that, for whatever reason, they care about, have a right to free speech. But what does that mean? It means they can say what they want (assuming it's germane -- you can't interrupt a chemistry class to espouse race realism any more than you can interrupt it to bemoan the management of the New York Giants). And they can't be fined or imprisoned or deprived of generally-applicable benefits and protections. (Including such things as generally-applicable "platforming" rules. Nobody is obliged to platform anyone, but they can be held to whatever rules they say they have.) What it doesn't mean is that people -- even government people -- can't talk back, point and laugh, or refuse to give you the time of day. All of that is their free speech; there is no first speaker privilege. It doesn't mean the government can't ask you, or try to persuade you, not to publish something, like the Pentagon Papers or medical misinformation. As I said, you are free to tell the government to pound sand. Not everyone has the balls to do it, that has always been the case, and always will be. But unless the government does more than talk, "government oppression" is more loose talk. We know that Meta, for example, is spineless in a bipartisan way, folding in the face of talk. (If there were actual or implied threats going beyond talk, we would probably know about them. And if we don't, claims that there was some undue pressure are simply expressions of distaste for whatever administration Meta folded for.)
Ultimately, for the time being, we have more freedom of speech than most of us have any interest in using. Social pressure is a real thing, and it would be a lot easier for people to exercise their free speech if we were all more polite about it. But we can't insist on it without infringing free speech itself. And any attempt to create rules of discourse protecting those who haven't the courage of what they think are their convictions from the honest reactions of people who don't like what you want to say is futile. (And whenever I hear someone try to formulate such rules, my reaction is almost always: "You first.") Robust free speech is often contentious and rude. It's a contact sport. It has ever been so, and always will be. Most people don't want to play, and that's their right. Free speech is not a free ride, and you can't make it one.
"
Um, no. Try reading.
"
Well, yes. The government has a right to ask publishers not to publish something it thinks would not be in the public interest to publish. And the publisher has the right to tell the government to pound sand. But just as freedom of the press is for people who own one, freedom of speech is for people with the gonadal endowment to speak. Now if the government threatens to have the FCC pull your broadcasting license or does something else a lot worse than jawboning, that's another matter, but there's no reliable information on that.
"
Meta has long since proved itself to be a spineless organization no matter who runs the government. They could have said "no," to everyone who "pressured" them, whatever that means.
"
I recall the late Lars-Erik Nelson on C-Span, pre-internet, listening to someone rant about how the press was covering up Clinton administration scandals upon which he reclaimed in great detail. Nelson congratulated him on his wealth of information and asked, "Where did you learn about them?"
"
And no one will "censor" you for the opposite. Pointing and laughing isn't censorship.
"
I was there. They weren't.
"
That would depend on what you told us about what you experienced. I wouldn't dream of telling you "that wasn't a big deal" or the like unless I knew what "that" was.
"
Because I thought, silly me, that having brought your experiences into the discussion you might want to tell us more about them. But if you don't, that's your business.
"
If you don't want to answer the question asked* rather than the one you put (and didn't answer), that's your prerogative.
*JB: 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.
Me: “Next time”? When was the first?
"
"Next time"? When was the first?
"
Sadly, substantial numbers of people agree with that kind of sentiment in general, and always have agreed with it. Our modern notion of free speech is a relatively recent legal development and not especially popular.
On “Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s Residence Attacked, Suspect Arrested”
Don't give anyone any ideas. This crowd would very much favor having socialists register.
On “The Lawless Lying Duplicitous Bastards of Abrego Garcia”
William Miller would like a word.
"
I take this prediction of "divorce or war" exactly as seriously as I have taken your many previous predictions.
"
Why would this be any different?
On “Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s Residence Attacked, Suspect Arrested”
Two things can be true at once. Even crazies need a permission structure.
On “Open Mic for the Week of 4/7/2025”
I'm not sure about that. I'm older than RFK, Jr., and I remember when I was in 8th grade and homerooms 106 and 107, where, perhaps not coincidentally, the kids bussed in from the south side that year all ended up, were known as the "retard rooms." This was not meant politely.
On “Why Trump is Losing the Trade War”
Test.
On “From Freddie de Boer: Abundance, Up To A Point”
Something very weird is going on. The comments have things like this:
Deprecated: explode(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/ordina27/public_html/wp-content/plugins/commenter-ignore-button/cib-button.php on line 328
Deprecated: explode(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/ordina27/public_html/wp-content/plugins/commenter-ignore-button/cib-button.php on line 328
Deprecated: explode(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/ordina27/public_html/wp-content/plugins/commenter-ignore-button/cib-button.php on line 328
Deprecated: explode(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/ordina27/public_html/wp-content/plugins/commenter-ignore-button/cib-button.php on line 328
I doubt it's just me.
On “What To Expect When You’re Expecting a Trade War”
It may be "entirely possible," but it seems unlikely. And if they do actually wonder about it, they're not likely to be receptive to anything that approximates an accurate explanation.
"
It would almost be funny if the Trump administration collapsed because he stood on one of the few principles he seems to have.
On “Martin Niemöller, and Who First They Came For”
It took you a week to come up with that? There may not be a judge, but there is, more or less, a jury, and I'm content with its verdict on who's playing games instead of providing answers and who isn't.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/31/25”
There was no tariff plan you would have been okay with. Hell, I doubt there is much of anything President Trump could do that you would agree with.
I don't think that's quite the own you seem to think it is.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.