Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

So. You're discussing online pornography somewhere - perhaps irl, but more likely online. You mention a concern about coercion - effect of pornography on the brain - etc. Someone disagrees with you; they wave away your concern, and roll out an eloquent, slightly hackneyed panegyric to Freedom of Expression. Censorship would be worse, they say, although you hadn't suggested censorship.

Scenario two. You're discussing the middle east, and perhaps sharia law. Someone comes along with a praise of 'life's wholesome, natural pleasures', 'wine, women'; they become misty-eyed as they say how sad it is that some people, blinded by fanaticism, would seek to restrict these things. Their descriptions of worldly pleasures seem - slightly stiff? Slightly rote?

Scenario three. Subject is racial abuse. The by now familiar figure I've been portraying rolls up to tell you that 'However unfortunate it may be that some people feel offended by another individual's choice of words', censorship would still be worse, stifling the natural flow of free conversations. Again, you hadn't suggested censorship.

Does this type of person actually exist? I am describing three different people, who I have actually encountered over the last five years or so; but I mean, have I encountered a style, or set of ideas, that is bigger than these three people? If it does exist, is it fair to call it 'Creepy Liberalism'? Is there already a name for it?

I am unsure whether this thread is worth doing, because it being of interest to anyone apart from me depends on the type of person I'm thinking of actually existing. But still.

cardamon, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 03:06 (five years ago) Permalink

seems like the common thread for this fellow is a conflation of legal permissiveness (along the axis of "freed of expression" vs "censorship") and moral/ethical endorsement of that thing? as in, they dont seem to understand that you can offer full throated opposition to something without at the same time calling for governmental/legal recourse in order to rectify it.

ryan, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 03:10 (five years ago) Permalink

i'm w/ u man. fuck free speech. xxp

Mordy , Tuesday, 2 July 2013 03:10 (five years ago) Permalink

But yes, those people/person do exist. Why call it "creepy liberalism"? I haven't encountered any true liberals that have been this way, it has usually always been conservatives/libertarians or just plain ignorants.

Yes, there's a definite misunderstanding of what 'freedom of speech'/First Amendment refers to in the general public, and I even last week had to explain to someone how Kickstarter pulling a fundraiser for its content was not a violation of said amendment, but at this point I think the only way to solve that problem is to follow the example of the ending of Return of the Living Dead

Neanderthal, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 03:11 (five years ago) Permalink

really the best way to reply to these clowns is just to quote the First Amendment, given how short it is.

Neanderthal, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 03:14 (five years ago) Permalink

I think a better description of this attitude is "ignorant and/or uneducated"... obv. tho I don't think its cool to curtail free speech just because its not the government doing it. "Free Speech" has larger connotations than merely the purview of the first amendment.

This Is My Design, and I Used Helvetica (Viceroy), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 03:23 (five years ago) Permalink

viceroy otm

Mordy , Tuesday, 2 July 2013 03:24 (five years ago) Permalink

but free speech isn't being curtailed if the government isn't preventing it. There's a reason why I can't just walk into my business and shout "EY, SUCK MY OLIVE-OIL SCENTED DICK K THX" and expect to still have my job the next day.

Neanderthal, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 03:30 (five years ago) Permalink

like if your business removes your posts from the company e-bulletin board, it's lame, but while it's corporate censorship, really isn't a violation of free speech.

Neanderthal, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 03:34 (five years ago) Permalink

most of these sound like early-20s white libertarian-leaning dude opinions

mh, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 03:34 (five years ago) Permalink

N.B.

Am aware that my OP there may look as if I'm trying to ridicule people I've disagreed with/make out that people who happened to disagree with me on said issues = weirdo.

I'm not - I do think the idea of free speech is a very important one.

Also: this was in a UK context, which may or may not be important.

cardamon, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 03:41 (five years ago) Permalink

Ryan:

seems like the common thread for this fellow is a conflation of legal permissiveness (along the axis of "freed of expression" vs "censorship") and moral/ethical endorsement of that thing? as in, they dont seem to understand that you can offer full throated opposition to something without at the same time calling for governmental/legal recourse in order to rectify it.

Yeah, that conflation of the legal and the ethical is definitely part of this style. I've wondered if there's a persecution complex at work here - person always seeing state oppression everywhere, but not in a clear-sighted way. That hunted, haunted psyche might be where the 'creepy' is coming from.

It may also be, as neanderthal says

I haven't encountered any true liberals that have been this way, it has usually always been conservatives/libertarians or just plain ignorants.

i.e. the hijacking of 'free speech' as an idea by people who are not really in full sympathy with it, or only want to instrumentalise it. Disjunction between the demeanour and the actual politics thus being the source of creepy.

cardamon, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 03:46 (five years ago) Permalink

you're harping on the lib vs conservative angle but Caring Way Too Much About False Instances of Censorship is a pleasure enjoyed equally by assholes of both orientations

ty based gay dead computer god (zachlyon), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 08:22 (five years ago) Permalink

Am aware that my OP there may look as if I'm trying to ridicule people I've disagreed with/make out that people who happened to disagree with me on said issues = weirdo.

Wellll, maybe just a little

dj hollingsworth vs dj perry (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 08:26 (five years ago) Permalink

I feel that this group maybe intersects with the people who call anyone who criticizes any particular group "racist". Like, recently there was incident here in Finland where a local conservative politician posted some blatantly racist, eugenics-influenced comments on his Facebook profile, which unsurprisingly lead to people calling him a Nazi... And then a totally clueless celebrity radio host decided to chide in, saying that it was wrong to criticize the politician, because that's "racist against the Nazis", and he should be free to post whatever he wants.

But yeah, I think these kind of people generally fall into two groups, neither of which I'd call "liberal" in the political sense of the word:

1) Libertarians, who think that having political/civil rights equals being free to say whatever you want about any person or group with no consequences.

2) Conservatives, who twist liberal concepts to benefit their own goals. Racism debates such as the above, where anti-racism is condemned as a "form of racism too", are a particularly good example of this.

Tuomas, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 08:44 (five years ago) Permalink

i suspect that an unquestioning defence of free speech without recognizing the complexities of edge cases is something that can only come from a position of privilege, ultimately

for many people a really special folder makes a huge difference (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 09:47 (five years ago) Permalink

hang on i think i mean that "free speech" only really exists as a legal concept and that's okay and an important concept but it has never really been a trump card in any legal system, it feels simple-minded to adhere to it as such

for many people a really special folder makes a huge difference (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 09:54 (five years ago) Permalink

Scenario two. You're discussing the middle east, and perhaps sharia law. Someone comes along with a praise of 'life's wholesome, natural pleasures', 'wine, women'; they become misty-eyed as they say how sad it is that some people, blinded by fanaticism, would seek to restrict these things. Their descriptions of worldly pleasures seem - slightly stiff? Slightly rote?

Certainly though cardamom, even if you don't care about the consumption of alcohol or equal rights for women, you surely must be appalled by sharia's strictures against music, right?

how's life, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 10:08 (five years ago) Permalink

I mean, this board is called I Love Music.

how's life, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 10:09 (five years ago) Permalink

fp

dj hollingsworth vs dj perry (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 10:17 (five years ago) Permalink

This board is called "I Love Everything", though. So I assume we love the pleasures of flesh just as much as music.

Tuomas, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 10:27 (five years ago) Permalink

Surely the free speech argument works in both directions here? If you have a problem with p0rn or sharia you're covered by the 1st amendment just as much as the other guy, no? I'm not saying you should have to have a debate about free speech in order to raise your concerns, but it might be a way to shut down arguments with idiots.

29 facepalms, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 10:31 (five years ago) Permalink

Rly we need the details and positions held during these arguments if this thread is to be any more than 'i talked to a bad man and another bad man' response 'oh no u talked to a bad man oh no'

dj hollingsworth vs dj perry (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 10:53 (five years ago) Permalink

most of these sound like early-20s white libertarian-leaning dude opinions

Mostly this, although I've also heard some of them from ppl who were not young or white or dudes.

Tottenham Heelspur (in orbit), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 11:00 (five years ago) Permalink

most of these sound like early-20s white libertarian-leaning dude opinions

― mh, Monday, July 1, 2013 10:34 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yah, not sure what exactly is novel about "creepy liberals"

xp

well if it isn't old 11 cameras simon (gbx), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 11:05 (five years ago) Permalink

@ darraghmac - I know, and my inability to supply more details kind of undercuts my question. I mean I can't even be sure I'm not remembering a strawman.

@ how's life - I wasn't in favour of sharia law at the time. It was more that of all the ways one might criticise it, this person's seemed to have something a bit odd about it.

cardamon, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 11:55 (five years ago) Permalink

but now you are in favor of sharia law, right?

call all destroyer, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 12:00 (five years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I knew what you were saying. I was just fucking around. xp

how's life, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 12:01 (five years ago) Permalink

xp Well, the mu'atizil school of ethics is interesting, but I can only access their ideas in translation

cardamon, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 12:01 (five years ago) Permalink

Screw my spelling today. It's Mu'tazilah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27tazila

cardamon, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 12:04 (five years ago) Permalink

gbx otm. liberals are often creepy.

Me and my pool noodle (contenderizer), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 12:08 (five years ago) Permalink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThrZ9-sS6aM

abcfsk, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 12:35 (five years ago) Permalink

Conservatives, who twist liberal concepts to benefit their own goals.

this sort of bad faith argument is so common on the right i wish it had a name. the general strategy is almost a reductio ad absurdum in which, say, some concept of fairness that leads the left to things like affirmative action is then the same idea that leads conservatives to decry affirmative action as "discriminatory." ("Blacks are the real racists because they talk about race so much," is another favorite one.)

the irony to all this is that it's an absolutely self-defeating gesture because while it's intended to push back against some imagined liberal hegemony, it's instead parasitic on it--there's really no such thing as contemporary conservatism beyond this automatic adolescent rebellion against the left and liberalism. you could almost say it takes place within the assumptions of liberalism in that notions of "social justice" and fairness are equally central but "twisted" into a parody version of themselves. i guess this is what happens when conservatism is unmoored from anything like tradition and replaces it with radical individualism/autonomy (ie, freedom from society).

ryan, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 13:35 (five years ago) Permalink

there's really no such thing as contemporary conservatism beyond this automatic adolescent rebellion against the left and liberalism

This is v. interesting

cardamon, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 14:15 (five years ago) Permalink

it's an overstatement, but i think it applies at least in part to the "media" version of conservatism (talk radio, NRO, etc...)

ryan, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 14:15 (five years ago) Permalink

this is what i'd describe as football fan politics, more akin to cheering for a nebulous team, right or wrong, and it definitely has a leftist equivalent

for many people a really special folder makes a huge difference (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 14:17 (five years ago) Permalink

Definitely. The bad faith characterisation aspect too.

dj hollingsworth vs dj perry (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 14:18 (five years ago) Permalink

just came across an interesting passage from Aldous Huxley who defines being a partisan as "egotism at one remove"--a mechanism which allows you to indulge in just about any vice and call it virtue.

ryan, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 14:22 (five years ago) Permalink

there's also a strong element of the coopting of weighted language -- there are phrases that are commonly used, such as "gun control," which are relatively useless when used as intended because they bring up the baggage attached by groups against the concept

mh, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 14:26 (five years ago) Permalink

or, god help us, what people think "feminism" means

mh, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 14:26 (five years ago) Permalink

when the right invokes 'free speech' or 'racism' to undermine a common leftist position/belief, is that analogous in any way to the left evoking 'security' as a reason why eg the united states shouldn't use drone strikes. (bc they're undermining their own security by radicalizing more terrorists.) in both cases these aren't ideals that are generally associated w/ the political side and you suspect that maybe they're only being brought up as ideological concern trolling.

Mordy , Tuesday, 2 July 2013 15:12 (five years ago) Permalink

i think it's fair game to address an opposition position and try to show that it fails on its own terms as long as you're honest in what you're doing

for many people a really special folder makes a huge difference (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 15:32 (five years ago) Permalink

Mordy, doesn't it depend on whether the ideal is inherent in the original critique or just bolted on?

cardamon, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 18:39 (five years ago) Permalink

Why call it "creepy liberalism"? I haven't encountered any true liberals that have been this way, it has usually always been conservatives/libertarians or just plain ignorants.

― Neanderthal, Tuesday, July 2, 2013 5:11 AM (17 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Really? I see liberals (you know people who read the Guardian or the NYT) making comments like the ones mentioned in the OP very often, especially the third type. like if you followed the recent discussions around the EDL in the UK you'd see self identified "lefties" (ugh @ that term, but I use it specifically to differentiate from leftists) saying "well yeah the EDL are bigots but hey - free speech" or condemning antifash groups for confronting fascists instead of "engaging in reasoned debate" or some bullshit (also see the Tea Defence League thing or a typical Guardian CiF thread). Usually the people invoking free speech in this context aren't the ones who are affected by the bigotry in question, makes it easy.

My god. Pure ideology. (ey), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:00 (five years ago) Permalink

how do lefties vs leftists pls

dj hollingsworth vs dj perry (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:01 (five years ago) Permalink

i mean i suppose people on all sides do it, I did when I was 19, but just didn't get why he picked that side in his description

Neanderthal, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:03 (five years ago) Permalink

i assume "leftie" = kneejerk football fan leftists and "leftist" = anybody who holds left-leaning political views

for many people a really special folder makes a huge difference (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:04 (five years ago) Permalink

lol fuckin splitters

dj hollingsworth vs dj perry (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:09 (five years ago) Permalink

nah cos the former is a subsection of the latter? i mean, i am avowedly a leftist but i try hard not to be a leftie on the whole

for many people a really special folder makes a huge difference (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:10 (five years ago) Permalink

If you hate TSoM you *are* the Nazis basically

I Accept the Word of Santa (Noodle Vague), Friday, 7 December 2018 23:36 (five months ago) Permalink

This sounds a bit silly.

Never changed username before (cardamon), Saturday, 8 December 2018 01:43 (five months ago) Permalink

This sounds fine with me. I don't really need the Nazis in The Sound of Music to have authentic period uniforms for me to know they're Nazis.

Guayaquil (eephus!), Saturday, 8 December 2018 04:11 (five months ago) Permalink

yes, plus TRIGGERS! OOOH, TRIGGGERSSSSSSSS

sensssssssitivity > history

pick a different fucking play

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 8 December 2018 06:52 (five months ago) Permalink

I understand instead of goose-stepping, they'll be popping and locking

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 8 December 2018 06:53 (five months ago) Permalink

*'knuck if you buck' plays* smile if you heil

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 8 December 2018 07:16 (five months ago) Permalink

lollll

j., Saturday, 8 December 2018 07:36 (five months ago) Permalink

:D that's gonna be stuck in my head all day

I Accept the Word of Santa (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 8 December 2018 09:36 (five months ago) Permalink

three months pass...

and he did the Sugar High blog

that's nuts

We were never Breeting Borting (President Keyes), Monday, 18 March 2019 18:31 (two months ago) Permalink

there are lots of examples of hypocrisy re free speech but i'm not sure this is one. would anyone get away with calling for a the murder of minorities even as a joke? it's obviously a different character of offense than what normally makes the "free speech on college campus" beat rounds.

Mordy, Monday, 18 March 2019 18:33 (two months ago) Permalink

I agree. I kinda doubt the left is going to rally around him since white guys talking about killing a bunch of people are not a popular groups nowadays

We were never Breeting Borting (President Keyes), Monday, 18 March 2019 18:44 (two months ago) Permalink

there are lots of examples of hypocrisy re free speech but i'm not sure this is one. would anyone get away with calling for a the murder of minorities even as a joke? it's obviously a different character of offense than what normally makes the "free speech on college campus" beat rounds.

― Mordy, Monday, March 18, 2019 2:33 PM (thirteen minutes ago)

the police are not a protected class

I'm also not really outraged or anything, seems like the only people who care about this are republicans, let them wear themselves out and if he gets fired I'll be mad

k3vin k., Monday, 18 March 2019 18:49 (two months ago) Permalink

i don't see why they're being a protected class or not has to do with anything and i don't think clover should lose his job. but i don't think it's some terrible hypocrisy that the right is going after this guy for calling for police to be killed while defending right wingers for less dramatic statements. if you can show me right wing media rallying around someone calling for anyone to be killed (protected class or not) as a free speech issue then i'd agree w/ the original tweeter's conceit.

Mordy, Monday, 18 March 2019 18:54 (two months ago) Permalink

the point of free speech is that it's supposed to not be dependent upon the content of the speech, so calling for his head for this speech while defending other speech is kind of by definition hypocritical

I think maybe we agree broadly that there is a lot of cherry-picking that goes on whenever people write these sorts of "why isn't anyone paying aTtEnTiOn to tHiS" pieces. often there are people 'talking about it' that the writer chooses not to highlight. also, not every example is interesting or worth writing about (this one prob is tho!)

sorry just talking to myself now

k3vin k., Monday, 18 March 2019 18:59 (two months ago) Permalink

You guys are right on the question of the will to defend Clover, but of course it's hypocrisy. Sure, swapping in "minorities" for cops makes it seem real bad, but how about: “People think that terrorists need to be reformed. They need to be killed.”

rob, Monday, 18 March 2019 19:04 (two months ago) Permalink

bad analogy. people talk about killing terrorists all the time

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Monday, 18 March 2019 19:06 (two months ago) Permalink

At first I read that as 'People that think terrorists need to be reformed should be killed.'

pomenitul, Monday, 18 March 2019 19:08 (two months ago) Permalink

xpost that is exactly my point? If a professor were fired for saying that about terrorists, right-wing "free speech" advocates would obviously be outraged. I don't see any difference in 1A terms.

rob, Monday, 18 March 2019 19:11 (two months ago) Permalink

"terrorists should be killed" isn't quite the same since "terrorist" is essentially synonymous with "bad guy," but if they said, "liberals should be killed," i imagine there'd be a good chance they'd be fired and a small chance republicans would try to defend it as protected speech.

Mordy, Monday, 18 March 2019 19:14 (two months ago) Permalink

even tho both "cops should be killed" and "liberals should be killed" should both be protected speech and also both should be protected vis-a-vis academic freedom. but the hypocrisy charge in general is a lazy one and here seems particularly dumb to me.

Mordy, Monday, 18 March 2019 19:15 (two months ago) Permalink

Mordy, my dude -- there's a conservative provocateur who literally called for gunning down journalists

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/06/28/milo-yiannopoulos-confirms-his-gunning-down-journalists-comments/743561002/

and who SPECIALIZES in showing up on college campuses and complaining that his free speech is being shut down by liberals, including a few months ago at NYU:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/10/students-call-nyu-cancel-milo-yiannopoulos-lecture-181030170250806.html

Guayaquil (eephus!), Monday, 18 March 2019 19:27 (two months ago) Permalink

The professor who invited him to talk has the Twitter handle "antipcnyuprof" for the love of God

Guayaquil (eephus!), Monday, 18 March 2019 19:28 (two months ago) Permalink

I still don't get why this doesn't count as hypocrisy, but I would def agree that hypocrisy is an ineffective line of attack

rob, Monday, 18 March 2019 19:32 (two months ago) Permalink

I mean here is Ann Coulter's famous quote on the Muslim world and she, too, is someone college students are widely counseled to welcome to their campuses lest they deprive themselves of the benefit of exposure to her ideas:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

Guayaquil (eephus!), Monday, 18 March 2019 19:33 (two months ago) Permalink

tbc they're gross + often hypocritical but also milo and coulter have both lost jobs bc of their comments

Mordy, Monday, 18 March 2019 19:34 (two months ago) Permalink

Free speech, in the "anti-PC get over it snowflakes" sense, has ALWAYS included "speakers have the right to advocate the killing of disfavored classes of people and if you don't like it you should argue against it in the marketplace of ideas." ALWAYS.

Guayaquil (eephus!), Monday, 18 March 2019 19:36 (two months ago) Permalink

iirc coulter lost her NR job specifically bc of the invasion comment above?

Mordy, Monday, 18 March 2019 19:37 (two months ago) Permalink

petitions and protests are forms of speech too I've been told

We were never Breeting Borting (President Keyes), Monday, 18 March 2019 19:37 (two months ago) Permalink

Clover was never properly punished for his writing as "Jane Dark" so I'm OK with this.

grawlix (unperson), Monday, 18 March 2019 20:21 (two months ago) Permalink

I think that many stupid people on the internet (forums and Facebook and Twitter etc) probably can be found who are all for letting murder advocates speak but would then change their tune as soon as someone advocates killing 'goodies' instead of baddies

I don't know how often that obvious hypocrisy is enacted by paid and official conservative politicians and journos though so I can see what mordy's saying

Never changed username before (cardamon), Monday, 18 March 2019 21:19 (two months ago) Permalink

I think a v common stumbling block is for people to advocate general freedom of speech without thinking through or acknowledging all those kinds of speech they, in fact, don't agree with

Never changed username before (cardamon), Monday, 18 March 2019 21:22 (two months ago) Permalink

coulter's comment mostly offends me because it's completely fucking factually wrong.

the scientology of mountains (rushomancy), Monday, 18 March 2019 21:24 (two months ago) Permalink

She has no interest in actual WW2 history or how that might relate to USA versus Islamists in our century

Never changed username before (cardamon), Monday, 18 March 2019 21:59 (two months ago) Permalink

Sometimes you see people who advocate for free speech not based on the importance of speech, but because they believe it's completely impotent.

Leaghaidh am brón an t-anam bochd (dowd), Monday, 18 March 2019 22:36 (two months ago) Permalink

tangent, but the jarring thing about this for me is that the photo they're using is the Wikimedia Commons photo (i.e. why they're probably using it) of his 2015 EMP Pop Conference panel that I was also on

theorizing your yells (katherine), Monday, 18 March 2019 22:48 (two months ago) Permalink

right wing idiots conflate freedom of speech with freedom from
consequences of being asswipes

maura, Tuesday, 19 March 2019 03:15 (two months ago) Permalink

The mayor of Old Forge, PA said on FB that Nancy Pelosi, Andrew Cuomo, and Chuck Schumer "should be shot"

https://wnep.com/2019/03/06/old-forge-mayors-facebook-post-calls-for-high-profile-democrats-to-be-shot/

He still has his job. And conservative response is "obviously this is not an actual threat" which surely is equally true of an English professor.

Guayaquil (eephus!), Tuesday, 19 March 2019 03:24 (two months ago) Permalink

but his influence over the young

j., Tuesday, 19 March 2019 03:34 (two months ago) Permalink

jeez. i find clover to be an insufferable (but very clever) ass (and the internet hardman comments that inspired this whole fiasco are sadly totally in character), but seeing what is happening to him is terrifying. i wouldn't wish this sort of fascist pogrom on my worst enemy.

affects breves telnet (Gummy Gummy), Tuesday, 19 March 2019 06:38 (two months ago) Permalink

it doesn't help that of all the mundane fascistic details of everyday american life, i find cop-worship the most despicable.

affects breves telnet (Gummy Gummy), Tuesday, 19 March 2019 06:39 (two months ago) Permalink

yeah clover is exactly the sort of dumb tankie asshole i can't imagine defending in any other context but this one.

coulter also said that the only bad thing about tim mcveigh was that he didn't blow up the NYT building. she's made some thinly veiled anti-semitic remarks too iirc. right-wingers basically never suffer any consequences for this shit.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, 19 March 2019 07:04 (two months ago) Permalink

he has an incredible way with words. he's incredibly sharp and pointed. i actually enjoy, for a certain amount of time, reading his poetry and prose. but it all sours quickly because the common denominator -- the thing that really seems to animate his work, beyond his putative political commitments -- is self-regard.

it'd be easy to accuse him of performative radicalism, because i do think that's what a fair bit of his writing is, but it'd be too easy, because he's definitely put his own privilege on the line at times, by design and (seemingly, now) by accident.

affects breves telnet (Gummy Gummy), Tuesday, 19 March 2019 08:04 (two months ago) Permalink

whats his login

fremme nette his simplicitte (darraghmac), Tuesday, 19 March 2019 08:15 (two months ago) Permalink

well now

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/fake-outrage-machine-right-radical-professors/

There’s no reasonable defense for Clover to call for the death of cops. And, by the way, there’s no reasonable defense for Carlson calling Iraqis “semiliterate primitive monkeys.” Criticizing or condemning Clover and Carlson is proper and justifiable. As I tweeted when the Carlson story broke, if the trending hashtag was #CriticizeTucker, then I was all-in, but since it was #FireTucker, I was all-out. Similarly, attempts to fire Clover (absent concrete evidence of on-the-job misconduct) are not just improper, they’re almost certainly unlawful.

We were never Breeting Borting (President Keyes), Tuesday, 19 March 2019 13:48 (two months ago) Permalink

Who really cares what an English professor at Davis thinks about police violence? Who really cares about what a random Fresno State teacher thinks about Barbara Bush? No one does. Not really. They have no meaningful impact on any public debate.

This is kinda where the analogy breaks down, though, as what Tucker Carlson thinks about Muslims actually does have a meaningful impact in many many ways.

Frederik B, Tuesday, 19 March 2019 14:01 (two months ago) Permalink

I've never seen a political analogy that actually works though.

We were never Breeting Borting (President Keyes), Tuesday, 19 March 2019 14:16 (two months ago) Permalink

French basically right about the difference between being dragged for your expression of personal views and getting harrassed or fired. Honestly, if I were Clover's department chair or dean and saw that tweet, I would feel fully within my professional responsibilities to say "hey I can't tell you what to say on Twitter but please remember that some of your students could be police officers or people planning to be police officers and you might be compromising your ability to be an effective mentor to those students, so I would prefer if you toned it down" and you know what, maybe his department chair did say that, because it doesn't seem like Clover has tweeted that stuff particularly recently, and maybe it's not because he's under a chilling threat of losing his job for his free speech, maybe he just realized he was being kind of a dick.

Guayaquil (eephus!), Tuesday, 19 March 2019 14:20 (two months ago) Permalink

Who really cares what an English professor at Davis thinks about police violence? Who really cares about what a random Fresno State teacher thinks about Barbara Bush? No one does. Not really. They have no meaningful impact on any public debate.

This is kinda where the analogy breaks down, though, as what Tucker Carlson thinks about Muslims actually does have a meaningful impact in many many ways.

― Frederik B, Tuesday, March 19, 2019 10:01 AM (twenty-three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

right. Tucker deserves to be out of a job far less for what he said on a radio show 10 years ago than for what he says to millions of TV viewers every night in 2019.

Evans on Hammond (evol j), Tuesday, 19 March 2019 14:27 (two months ago) Permalink

This is kinda where the analogy breaks down, though, as what Tucker Carlson thinks about Muslims actually does have a meaningful impact in many many ways.

lol the commenters see this in the exact opposite way--Tucker is just a opinionator, Clover is TEACHING OUR CHILDREN and being PAID WITH OUR TAX MONEY

We were never Breeting Borting (President Keyes), Tuesday, 19 March 2019 16:00 (two months ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.