The all-encompassing nature of mass media is relatively new to the human experience. By and large, humans throughout history have only been immersed in the “news” of their family and their neighbors. News, in the regional, national, and global sense, was a triviality ridden into town on the back of a camel, a donkey, or a horse. It wasn’t until the 19th century that reliable, near-real-time national media coverage was normalized through national daily newspapers. It wasn’t until the mid-20th century that the nation, and later the world, was shrunk down and neatly packaged in a tiny box in every family’s living room. That growing scope of awareness, combined with the growth of media titans created what is now known as the “mainstream media.”
Run aground
These days, the power of the mainstream media wanes. Internet-based alternatives have exposed people to stories that the mainstream media deemed “unfit to print.” Gaffe after gaffe has eroded the trust society once had in the mainstream media. However, Rome didn’t fall in a day, nor will the mainstream media. Their power to craft narratives still exists, and is still quite powerful.
What power does the media hold over society and voters?
There are essentially two theories about the level of power the media holds over their customers. The Agenda-Setting Theory asserts that media can set the cultural agenda. They can’t control what people think, but they can control what people think about. For any observant consumer of media, this is obvious. It’s quite curious how Confederate statues that have been standing for a century are all of a sudden a “crisis.” People in the real world are talking about racism because the media has been hammering on the “alt-right nazis” incessantly for months. On the other hand, hardly anybody is talking about the looming debt ceiling issue? Of course, once the Nazi crisis subsides, the debt ceiling will become front-page news, and Trump will be “leading from behind” and “holding the American people hostage” and a dozen other focus group tested insults with no substance.
That leads into the second theory, the Framing Theory, which asserts that media can alter people’s opinions on topics by “framing” the issue in a way that lends toward one conclusion. In the past, subtle framing was required. The media would put a “thumb on the scale.” These days, the “mask has slipped,” and media sets a whole body-positive intersectional feminist on the Progressive side of the scale. Framing can work in many ways, but two of them are the favorites of mainstream media outlets. “Telegraphing” is the use of value biased terms and phrases in the description of an issue, subtly (or not so subtly) telling consumers who the “good guys” and the “bad guys” are.
For example, let’s contrast CNN’s coverage of Trump’s struggles getting the wall funded with the Telegraph’s coverage:
Two articles from two news services. Both critical of Trump. CNN sows dissent between GOP leadership and Trump. The Telegraph highlights Trump’s lack of leadership on getting the wall built. CNN’s framing of the issue furthers their narrative that “even the right-wingers think Trump’s unhinged.” It fuels the “fractures within the party” narrative that is tied to the “Trump’s unhinged” one.
In contrast, The Telegraph is pushing the narrative that Trump is a loose cannon, and can’t actually get anything done. The “impotent president” narrative is disfavored in US media right now (because he needs to be seen as a potent purveyor of racism given the crisis du jour), but in the UK media, the “impotent president” narrative is king.
Media is showing that the Framing Theory is correct. They can not only set the agenda, but they can also influence the beliefs of their consumers. People are seeing Nazis under their bed, and the media are the ones who are fueling this hallucination.
Narrative Crafting Tactic #1: “Scientific” “Credibility” through “Experts” and “Studies”
Mad Scientist
Many people can see right through the transparent BS of a commentator spewing their unsupported opinions. Only the true believers are swayed by an emotional screed (pathos… speech 101). However, a well-sourced and dispassionately asserted scientific truth is compelling to a neutral audience (logos… again, speech 101). The media have leveraged this to the utmost, using “experts” and “studies” to push their social and political goals in a way that compels the neutral audience. As libertarians, we tend to be skeptical of the BS social science journalism that ends up filling a 30 second segment at the end of the nightly news. However, the diseaseismuchmorewidespreadthanthat.
Let’s do a case study. I’ve pulled a random health article from CNN.com.
(CNN)Despite a 23-year campaign urging that babies be put to bed on their backs, only 43.7% of US mothers report that they both intend to use this method and actually do so all the time, according to a new study.
This sounds like an epidemic!!! Well, let’s go to the study:
RESULTS: Of the 3297 mothers, 77.3% reported they usually placed their infants in the supine position for sleep
Wait, what?? What’s the difference here? Well, the devil is in the details.
Only 43.7% of mothers reported that they both intended to and then actually placed their infants exclusively supine.
So, this article is based on the fact that mothers only usually placed babies on their back, but didn’t always do so. In order to warrant an article in the health section of an esteemed news outlet like CNN, the risk from babies sleeping on their stomachs must be enormous!
There were about 3,700 sudden unexpected infant deaths in the US in 2015, according to the CDC. SIDS account for 1,600of those while 1,200 are due to unknown causes and 900 were due to accidental suffocation and strangulation while in bed.
Douchebag Frat Bro and the Federal Reserve Chairman
1600 babies per year (39.4 deaths per 100,000 live births) isn’t a lot, and it’s not clear how many of those babies would have survived if they slept on their back (and how many of those SIDS babies were sleeping on their back). See, SIDS is not particularly well understood, so it’s quite unclear how safe or unsafe babies are by sleeping on their backs. Even assuming that EVERY. SINGLE. SIDS. DEATH. was because the baby was on their stomach instead of their back, babies are 0.039% safer than they were when mothers were less concerned with their baby’s sleeping position. Yet somehow, the title of the article SCIENTIFICALLY asserts that MOMS ARE ENDANGERING THEIR CHILDREN by putting them to sleep unsafely.
This is but one way that media crafts a narrative by abusing scientific studies to push a social goal or undercurrent (in this case, it’s the insufficiency of mothers in taking care of their children without TOP MEN overseeing them). This doesn’t even get into the perverse incentives between government bureaucracy, the media, and university social science departments.
In Part Two, I’ll discuss Narrative Crafting Tactic #2: “Contributors” and other talking heads as intellectuals.
The following is in no way the views of Glibs in General, but more a view from Glibville, IMO.
I met an Armenian customer today, inspecting his flooded furnace, and being a businessman himself, we got to talking. He explained that his very nice neighborhood was once run down, but the Armenians came in and fixed the place up, improved property values and generally made a nice place to live and have their kids grow up; not bad. We compared prices for similar homes, mine $295k. The equivalent house in his neighborhood? $760k. (Disclaimer: I live in the sticks, 46 miles East of Glendale.)
We did speak briefly of the Armenian Genocide at the hands of the the Turks (who still won’t cop to it, after over 100 years? and Germany?, Fuck the Turks). SoCal has a large Armenian Diaspora. Weather, maybe?
I told him stories of Chinese people who HAD to win, at any cost, and I just jack up the initial price, knowing I will win my price and they “save” face, which is important to them.
When I was growing up, I remember the whole “Jews are shysters and con artists”, banker thing. Try ANY culture from the Middle East, they’re all Jews when it comes to haggling. Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrians, it doesn’t matter, everything is “Too much, Lower price”. (I don’t adhere to the Jew Concept, it’s a Middle Eastern thing.)
So many of the immigrants I meet are so proud to be here and be able to haggle in peace, it’s no wonder they want to be here. I often wish they would “fix” their own homeland but I get that it can be hard, if not impossible to do, that’s why they left. Think about that for a moment, you have to leave the place where you were born, your culture, lifestyle, all of it, due to fear of a lack of freedom. I say FUCK YEAH!
I actually love these interactions, I learn a lot about other cultures, but the one thing I have learned in 30 years of Customer service is everyone is different, don’t assume anything. Cultures are different, but the melting pot still exists, is very powerful, and immigrants are very valuable to our country. And some I assume are good people. We at least need to remind people that neo nazis, antifa and all the others aren’t who we are. Hell, I can’t see ’em in my world, and I cover most of SoCal.
Most People living in the U.S. are too busy working to pay much attention, IMO, and the antifa/nazi thing is just so much hot air. If I am wrong, well, at least we are all armed. (You are armed, correct?)
Notice the use of the word immigrant. I refer to legal immigrants. I know too many illegals and they are a strain on our system, like dead voters, democrats, feral Dogs and STEVE SMITH.
P.S. I’m told that you Canucks are but redheaded stepchildren to us in the U.S. of A.
At least the Canadians get Caps!
/Canada!
Rush!
Celine Dion!
Kids in the Hall!
/Feel better?
In the first installment I went on and on about how Charlottesville was a perfect test to preserve and protect the sanctity of freedom of speech, expression and assembly.
I’ll let you all determine if Americans get a passing grade.
In this post, I want to touch on a specific example of how the left is not seeing things properly when it comes to freedom of opinion.
A recent development in left-wing dogma is the notion that if you disagree with speech you deem ‘hateful’, it doesn’t deserve First Amendment protection. In Canada, we didn’t even bother to have a debate about it and just scribbled in ‘hate speech’ laws into our Charter. Government balances free speech. It is known.
A charter that isn’t worth shit (I can’t even bring myself to capitalize it) because when taken to its logical end, the government has final say on individual sovereignty and our rights to freedom of expression.
In other words, you’re kinda free until you’re not in Canada.
Sha-wing!
Just ask Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant learned when they got their asses hauled in before the court, and unelected monstrosities like the Human Rights Commission for the crime of wrongthink.
List of punchables please.
HRC talking bacterial virus: “Please explain to us, dear friend, why you hate the environment, Mark? Why won’t you be a good boy and side with science? We fucking love science, so be sciencey with us! Prove to us why we shouldn’t send you to Camp Krusty.”
The idea, if you can call it that, is grotesque for where it can all lead. One of those intellectual cul-de-sacs is thought control. For example, Smugpipi Longnanny commands, “You have white privilege ergo you’re racist but you don’t know it. You just need to accept it and this is why we’re controlling speech or else…”
A variation of this is if you don’t denounce something they deem offensive enough, they will take the moral decision to claim you ‘tacitly accept’ insert bad thing here.
By their admitted logic, because the left refuses to ‘tacitly denounce Islamic terrorism to the degree some may demand’, they’re terrorists. See? Fun.
So if you dare to defend – in the context of Charlottesville – that racists have a right to free speech means you support them.
Oh, the lazy stupidity of it all!
Let’s keep going. I’ve read quite a few of these self-righteous zealots argue that it’s okay to punch a Nazi. Emotionally, sure. The urge to hit something you loathe is great. I loathe Marxist thinking, communist ideology and socialism because they’re illiberal ideologies with a documented track record of murder and mayhem that robs and steals humans of their soul handing it over to a bureaucracy of superiors who control your life. Nothing can be more anti-humanist than these ideologies. I also can’t handle clowns. Clowns are scary.
It was my understanding there’d be no retaliation to the initiation of force.
Am I justified in going to punch out such people in the street?
Or. Let us take this accurate statement of ‘Not all Muslim are terrorists but the majority of political terrorism are committed by Islamic terrorists”. Does this accord me the right to go punch out my Muslim neighbour? No, seriously, a Muslim family live three houses me.
And what happens if the Nazi, Muslim or any body else punches back? Have you considered those inevitable consequences?
Moving goal posts is God’s work.
Are they not in their right to defend themselves since you admitted throwing the first punch is a duty?
I don’t think these people have thought things through. They just want to project and emote arrogantly setting the rules. Like a good game of Calvin Ball.
Let me expand.
If they’re in the moral and intellectual right, as they claim, why do they need violence then? Because history of the Nazis show this is what needs to be done? Again, can’t this be applied to Muslim terrorism? I reckon they won’t want to extend this rope to that end, right?
Progressive visions.
As is always the case with them, they get to determine the parameters of free speech (as we see on campuses and safe spaces). And just like they get to arbitrarily set the rules, the idea violence starts when the other side retaliates gives them one long leash to lash out with impunity.
By not ‘tacitly’ denouncing Antifa’s own antics in Charlottesville, do I get to go punch those people out?
How barbaric, no?
But, Rufus, I fear your monocle is on too tight and squeezing your brain. Antifa is love and peace! They just want to spread their love!
Pish-posh. You have not seen love until you witness the love libertarians have of their orphans.
At best, I see ‘two wrongs make a right’ or ‘might makes right’.
Antifa is a violent, illiterate, and problematic hate group in of itself. That they *claim* to speak for righteousness is hollow and tenuous. Witch-hunters thought they were doing good too. So do villains who feel they’ve been wronged and seek to ‘right’ a perceived injustice.
Speaking of which, I do question the judgment of someone who claims Antifa is good. An identity group that doxxes people resulting in major consequences for the people impacted is a misguided and misplaced act of justice.
For a group that claims to be compassionate and humanist, how can they not see this action destroys (often) innocent lives needlessly? They may see themselves as righteous vigilantes but in effect they’re just lawless renegades with a confused moral and intellectual compass.
How would you feel if that was your son or daughter or friend or cousin who lost their jobs to a wrongful doxxing? Humanize your actions.
People who claim Antifa are not violent are out to lunch. Either they’re ignoring their behaviour or are just plain uninformed. Or they don’t care and aren’t admitting it. Regardless, none of it is good and not supported by documented reports of what we know about them.
Not provoking a bear is a universal principle applied pretty much across the West. It’s basic kindergarten stuff. If you punch first, you were reprimanded. Conversely, if the person struck back, they too would be held to account for their actions.
Even the NHL understands this basic law of nature. It’s called the ‘Instigator rule’. Don’t provoke or else you’ll get the penalty; usefulness of the rule notwithstanding. It’s believed it’s better to let the two parties have a go with the thinking it will police and sort itself out. Maybe this is what needs to be done here. Let these faux-resisters and racists keep banging each other over the heads. Eventually they’ll get the message that their actions are futile and not furthering their respective agendas. No one in the end can tolerate endless, mindless violence. Not even that degenerate, left-wing Berkeley professor who smashed that kid with a bike lock.
Beats the Outer Banks.
He’s a prime example of a coward who would take advantage of the instigator rule in hockey. He’d hit and run away without facing justice. Of course, if someone did hit him back, coward that he is, he’d scream like a little baby about how he faced violence and injustice. After all, this gutless coward has the moral obligation to smash people up, correct?
If a fellow gang member comes up to you and says we need to go take care of the Ducky Boys, the gang is going to carefully consider the possible outcomes and consequences of the provocation. You all understand if you go and provoke them, they will fight back. So someone among you may say, ‘hey man, don’t go and do that. They outnumber us’. Or they’ll conclude, ‘it’s not worth it.’
But none of the considerations are “they will just take what they have coming’.
Only The Wanders can take on the Ducky Boys.
It’s illogical and naive for people who think violence wasn’t inevitable in the context of Charlottesville.
No matter how you dice this thing up, Antifa doesn’t come out looking any better.
Worse even if you ask me.
No, you don’t have a right to punch a Nazi because, by all accounts, you’re are not nice people and don’t hold the higher moral ground.
Do us all a favour and stop pretending you represent the conscience of people, quit pretending you care about civil liberties and put on your blue caps. Here are some ideas you’d wear well.
‘…it is not always important that individuals reason well, it is sufficient that they reason; from their individual thought, freedom is born.’’ Montesquieu
Once again, the irrational jackals looking for their pound of blood and flesh have pounced and pummelled into oblivion any remaining shred of rational thought they possessed.
This time they’re outraged! Really, really, outraged! 25%, no, 33.33% more outrage. So salty they are with Trump – ooo, that son of a bitch – Campbell’s is jealous with all the salt they use.
I’m not going to rehash what we already know and what led to this. The transcripts of what he said are available on the Internet.
Suffice to say, for me, there are no winners here as all sides have some culpability (white supremacists, Antifa, the media and the town); though, unpopular as it is it say, I do think the police stand down order, Antifa’s provocation and the media’s deliberate distortion of the facts on the ground hold the bigger slice of blame here. I worry less about a bunch of idiots congregating to spew venomous rhetoric (hey, sounds like SJW) and more about the principles of freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble.
This is a cornerstone of our Western values that can’t be compromised and must be protected.
And like these events sometimes show, the issue becomes what possible negative outcomes are there for free speech, expression and assembly.
Here, there’s no question it is the progressive left who are a bigger threat and danger.
There have been logical fallacies a plenty. From it’s ‘okay to punch a Nazi’ to ‘if you defend their right to free speech that makes you a Nazi’ to ‘Antifa is justified in provoking’ and so on. It’s been said, I am told, Antifa are the new liberators.
If so, we’re doomed.
I think noted pillar of reading comprehension Kevin Durant spoke on behalf of all illiterates everywhere when he said, ‘…I don’t agree with what he (Trump) agrees with.’
You’re not helping.
Do we really know what Trump ‘agrees with’? Based on the full transcript of what I read I’m still not sure.
Though one must wonder if people like Durant get flustered at the abnormal amount of times prominent Democrats and progressives call for the assassination of Trump. It kinda unnerves me because murder, you know? I mean, we all know the left embrace violence, but come on, dudes! I musta missed all those times Republicans suggested Obama be killed. Alas, until Trump invites the KKK to the White House in the same manner Obama invited BLM soon after the murder of five officers, I’m gonna keep this one on ice for now.
Nonetheless, no need to keep perspective.
Let the virtue signalling commence!
Hoo-boy.
Off the charts!
It’s like watching teenagers with lobotomies interpret Thomas Paine’s argument with Edmund Burke.
I just read the CFL in Canada began a ‘Diversity is strength’ campaign in response to Trump’s alleged hate for diversity. What is it with these vapid slogans? Are they some sort of Linus security blanket for people? All that was missing was Justin Trudeau as a spokesperson (heaven forbid you call Justin a spokesman) dressed in drag for an exclamation point.
Yes, because the left love diversity of ideas. And I think the word he was gunning for was pluralism.
‘Diversity by other means’ is the very definition of discrimination. Google? What they do in the name of diversity? Discrimination. The Liberal party of Canada and their degenerate style of identity governance? Discrimination.
If one group is negatively impacted through punitive measures (however subtle), in order to prop another you have…discrimination.
Even a muppet understands this. Play Safe, CFL! You’re libel to lose an eye if you keep this up.
/TSN personality nods agreeing then realizes it’s not part of the script and the nods become contorted grimaces of disagreement.
We must diverse like we never diversed before!
To cite Orwell’s 1984, the overall point was this: A world depicted in his novel is possible if man is unaware of his assaults on personal freedoms; that if he loses his right to his own thoughts we’re doomed as a free people.
This is the lesson from Charlottesville.
Well, that and the message that it’s okay to go provoke people who are allowed to congregate regardless of what you think of them.
Lemme ask, does it look like we’re winning?
Just when ‘business leaders’ weren’t already an insufferable breed of twats, they decide to resign from some useless council because of Trump’s reaction. I hope those bum taps and smug winks were worth making them look like clowns to the rest of us.
‘I swear I meant to diverse more.’
It’s interesting limousine liberal, bourgeois CEO’s blindly play into Antifa’s hands given how much the left hates corporations, no? Once ensnared, no amount of faux-right think posturing would save them from the left’s reign of terror. It’s like they don’t know the story of Murat. For those of you not in the loop, he was done in by a Girodin who were a branch of…the Jacobins.
I hope they have bigger bath tubs.
*********
Which brings me to my first digression. Years ago I went to a notary. In the back ground, as I prepared pay the $1500 fee, I noticed pictures of Cuba and Che. I wondered if he found it odd to have pictures of left-wing sociopaths who purged and killed peasants and intellectuals who would probably shoot him too for being a ‘capitalist pig’. I wondered further if it would bother him if, say, Che Tremblay (it’s Quebec) came to power and capped what he could charge customers?
This made me think of an (depressing but revealing) end note in Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago:
31. One of our school friends was nearly arrested because of me at this time. It was an enormous relief to me to learn later that he was still free! But then, twenty-two years later, he wrote to me: “On the basis of your published works I conclude that you take a one-sided view of life…Objectively speaking, you have become the standard-bearer of Fascist reactionaries in the West, in West Germany and the United States, for example….Lenin, whom, I’m convinced, you love and honour just as much as you uses to, yes, and old Marx and Engels, too, would have condemned you in the severest fashion. Think about that!” Indeed, I do think about that: How sorry I am that you didn’t get arrested then! How much you lost!
Glibertarians hardest hit.
Moving along.
It’s….cute.
Of course, to those of us not robbed of our senses and rational bearings, Charlottesville is just another example of the collective intellectual and moral shallowness that grips hyper-partisans stalking Americans; and the West in general including my home country of Canada.
I think, as a starting point and ultimately a moot one, everyone can agree the KKK are douchebags. And that white supremacy, whatever the source of its recent little spike, is not exactly an endearing quality in a free and pluralist society.
But therein lies what’s so infuriating to the left: In a free and pluralist civilization there will be people and ideas you disagree with. I disagree with just about everything the progressive left argues. Heck, I think they’re essentially blue capped anti-humanists but this is the cross we must bear in a free world, eh?
Soon, they’ll be branding wrong think with tattoo serial numbers. What’s another tattoo for millennials? But for some of us old farts who can’t bear to ruin our skin, this is a frightening thought. I just made the jump from Irish Spring (soap for Leprechauns) to Old Spice, considering it ‘edgy’ because of the commercials.
Behind the smellful humour is a dreadful message. Modern progressive activists project their mean-spirited know-nothing drool-babblings revealing a a hideous intellectual and moral decadence very much in line with communism, socialism and fascism. There’s a rather large trail of unbecoming evidence pointing to their dark souls.
Until they admit they’re Marxist and therefore illiberal, we can never have an ‘honest conversation’ with progressives.
From holding college deans hostage to smashing people’s skulls with bike locks (so hipster-douchey, no?), to bullying random strangers in the streets, to a Berniebro shooting Republicans at a baseball game to a BLM sympathizer killing five cops (Time and again, when given the chance to truly tower above the racial divide, Obama chose to swim in with the swine), I think we can discern a pattern of behaviour here as a matter of established fact.
As if that’s not enough, they have the nerve to compare themselves to World War II veterans who fought the Axis powers and gave their lives to it in the most destructive war in world history. The horror of humanity they saw, Antifa can’t imagine from their safe spaces.
Antifa are nothing like war heroes. They’re thugs; not liberators. They just haven’t gotten around to choosing their color is all.
We’re told to fear white supremacists, but we should worry about the left more.
No one is talking about taking Mr. Jefferson’s deluxe apartment in the sky away, but progressive reprobates are trying to remove your right to free speech and expression.
Back to Charlottesville.
I think it’s pretty obvious what happened. A group got a permit to exercise their right to assemble. Another group not liking the message went to protest them. Both came prepared to fight. And found it with a tragic result. There are no winners and there is plenty of blame to go around. But we’re led to believe there’s only one party to blame?
I don’t think so.
Now the spill over of doxxing people begins and has already claimed an innocent victim.
The last part is probably the most disturbing trend. They search out people’s backgrounds and without a shred of evidence or context will publicly shame them with the aim of destroying their lives. It’s reminiscent of The Ox-Bow Incident about how a mob driven by revenge kill innocent people without evidence.
It’s Salem 2.0 is what it is.
And they’re supposed to be the good guys? What happens when they mistakenly dox another person and this time a life is lost? What then?
Progressive calculus.
Let’s take a look at this from another angle. Had white supremacists crashed the ‘March for Women’ and violence ensued, how would people react and the media respond?
I can’t believe we have to keep repeating this: People and groups are allowed freedom to associate and assembly regardless of message or of what others think of their beliefs.
I thought the ‘March for science’ was the usual vacuous showcase in numbskullery. The speeches I heard there and at the ‘March for Women’ were offensive and useful only to the loose lint on your couch where actual advancement of philosophical discourse is concerned.
But I would never ever demand their voices be silenced. They had every right to march and be heard, however idiotic. What possible purpose could be served in shutting down speech even if I think it’s dangerous to science? I can but offer a counter argument and keep them engaged.
When speech is seen as violence by the government, we may as well abandon The Constitution (and The Charter here in Canada – however, feeble in its commitment to liberty) and wipe the crumbs from our mouths with it.
Even if you feel morally upset by such persons or groups it doesn’t accord you the right to violently suppress their rights.
Repeat after me and Grover: You don’t have the right to violently suppress people’s right to free speech, expression and assembly on any grounds because you feel offended.
That goes for anyone and any group. There is no middle ground where our right to express ourselves is concerned.
If you do not accept this, then you’re exactly what you claim to be fighting and are driven by a tribal, emotional, misguided and distorted righteousness thus making you as dangerous to liberty as the persons or groups you abhor. You’ve conceded you won’t (or can’t) sell or promote your ideas in the realm of civil discourse.
In other words, you’re mob rule. What you advocate, lazily, is to legitimize government force against your opponents.
I’m horrified by how easily people are prepared to allow the jack boot of the government on the necks of people who happen to hold a different opinion.
To repeat. You can’t keep attacking innocent people physically and verbally, shutting down streets, shouting down people debating differing points of views, changing the language of discourse to suit your narratives, accosting people through guilt by association and so on and not expect retaliation.
Either you have freedom of speech and expression or you don’t. There’s no such thing as ‘balanced’ speech. If you believe there is, then you’re half-way to censorship.
At this point, I’d like to theorize that both these groups have little to do with anything our common liberal heritage bestowed upon our wretched, undeserving souls.
As collectivist identity groups, it’s less a left versus right battle and more of a left versus left engagement I theorize. Just like we saw in the early 20th century when communists fought socialists and both fought fascists.
Each of these ideologies were under the socialist umbrella with fascism lying to the right of communism and socialism.
Euphemisms for cucks’n cults.
In other words, it was a fight among illiberals and this event in Virginia was no different. If you’re identity hinges on collectivism or notions of the ‘greater good’ via government coercion, you’re illiberal.
Or, if you prefer pop culture analogies, it’s like a SJW version of The Riddler fighting The Penguin over who is more of a victim of the patriarchy.
Other than that, they’re also a bunch of illiterates deliberately mangling the facts of history through circular logic to fit their half-assed narratives and theories rooted in false premises and unhinged logical fallacies. No, that you defend the KKK’s right to free speech doesn’t mean you ‘tacitly’ condone them. If this passes as an argument, all I can say is go buy yourself a helmet because you’re in danger of getting a concussion.
Moreover, if they want to be taken seriously they should probably stop depicting Trump as both a Nazi and a fascist. Pick one and stick to it.
No, indeed, it’s not about the principle or the morality.
Standing for principles are the ones where you accept under all circumstances the right to free speech, expression and assembly when it’s in distress and under assault while not advocating for violence yourself.
Now, at this point, some may wonder why should a Canadian care? Oh, care we must. The United States is not alone in dealing with this and their bad ideas tend to find its way up here. They’re just the biggest black head on the face of Western civilization that everyone sees. America serves as the perfect distraction for the rest of the world.
Lucky them. Or us. Whatever.
There’s an uncomfortable adherence to a left-wing ideology which is a beautiful martini on the surface, but it’s a poisonous virus deep below and transcends national borders. So where principals over principles prevail, a loss of perspective easily pulls people in.
We all lose if liberty is lost. What’s the point of existing if you have no freedom to express your opinion? Note, I am not suggesting if you’re opinion is bad there can’t be consequences but that’s best for a free society to determine and not through the coercive action of the state. If the state regulates speech, you’re not free.
Simple.
One of the valuable lessons in Solzhenitsyn’s writings is to describe in detail how destructively slow this process really is. It’s almost impossible to criticize it without being told you have a ‘one-sided view of life’. The left always claim to have a nuanced view on life but when you examine and explore their views and arguments further, you realize it’s anything but. It’s just cold, naked, anti-humanism and always somehow ends up in death.
It’s communism by other means. Antifa and its ilk doesn’t care for principles of liberty. Their movement is not predicated on the philosophy of advancing liberty in the context of classical Western value. Far from it in fact. Indeed, they are hostile to it.
Antifa is where one finds notions of ‘white privilege’ and the West being a racist and murderous civilization.
Nothing more dangerous than a group of people thinking they can right the wrongs of the past and present in an effort to control the future.
Their entire outlook sits on a bedrock of illiberalism. If they were to ever achieve power they’d behave exactly like the Taliban, Jacobins or Bolsheviks slowly purging wrong think.
I’d be lined up against the wall. So would all of you here. And those useful idiots in the CEO ranks.
This is true.
Who will take to the streets in defence of freedom of speech, expression and assembly? Who will speak for it? This is the question.
I do see a boatload of petty opportunistic buffoons willing to squish and squash speech in a misguided attempt to stupidly ‘civilize’ discourse though. Nothing could be more barbaric I say!
Don’t let Trump or any other politician allow us to forget this cherished principle.
Boy, did it really take me this long to say the left are not nice people who project their rage and anger and live a miserable, empty existence void of any principles?
You wanna piece of me racist?
Moving forward, expect no ‘peak derp’ while the creepy and cowardly molluscum cult (led by intellectually deficient celebrities and fake journalists toeing a splendidly regressive narrative wallowing in their cheap, unreasonable, unhelpful, smug didactics) will continue to get their cues from a vapid Obamabot tweet.
The left are living in a post-retard bizarro world and we get to watch them burn down any shred of moral decency and intellectual currency they had left; a world where they get to be Super-Man while acting like Lex Luthor. Where they simultaneously get to co-opt bravery with veterans while denigrating Western civilization and its values.
If you ask this uncucked Canuck, it seems to me this petty band of illiberal, dilapidated delusional clowns are a direct danger to liberal values because they hold more influence over policy at the moment.
I don’t know what will come of this and if there will be a tipping point. I do know one thing though. Glibertarians will never be able to solve the deep-dish divide and we’re definitely on someone’s blackball list somewhere in Leftopia.
Update: Currently, as I began this post (forcing me to revise it a couple of times), there’s a right-wing rally along with a counter-protest in Boston. By all accounts it’s peaceful so far.
Item originally published here. Republished with author’s consent.
Not Robert E. Lee.
Let me say up front I am not a Nazi, a white nationalist, or a sympathizer of them. I am a military history buff who knows a lot about the Civil War and am firmly pro-union and very unsympathetic to the southern cause. I don’t buy a word of the lost cause or other mythologizing of the old south. So, anyone reading this can please not waste their time accusing me of being a white nationalist or confederate sympathizer. I am most certainly not.
Second, before we get onto the important work of using the events of yesterday to slander our political enemies, I think we might want to at least look at the facts as we know them. The facts are, as best I can tell, as follows. A white nationalist organization known as Unite the Right decided to have a national rally in Charlottesville, VA, to protest the removal of the city’s Robert E. Lee statue.
After months of work and hype on social media, Unite the Right managed to get 200 marchers to show up in Charlottesville Friday. On Friday night they marched around with tiki torches and waved flags without incident. On Saturday a group of Antifa counter protesters showed up. The counter protesters proceeded to attack the Unite the Right Marchers and a riot broke out.
According the the Virginia ACLU, the Charlottesville police stood down and did nothing to control the situation. During this riot, a supporter of the march, it is unclear if he is a member of any of the organizations there, slammed his car into a crowd of counter protesters, killing one person and injuring 19 others. It is unclear if the driver had planned to do this to any counter protesters before the march or if he just took the riot as an excuse to do it.
Those are the facts as we know them currently. What they mean can be debated. Any debate about this subject should be based upon facts, not assumptions or hasty generalizations. What can we reasonably conclude from the known facts? Three things, I think.
First, the white nationalist movement is still the same small, insignificant movement it always has been. Despite months of hype and work, the Unite the Right rally drew 200 people. The white nationalist KKK movement has been able to draw a couple hundred people at a national rally for my entire lifetime. So let’s stop with the nonsense about this being some significant rally or that the white nationalists are any more popular or emboldened today than they ever have been. They are not. It’s the same small group of morons that have always been there. The proof of that is in the numbers. If there had been 10,000 people at that rally, I might reconsider that. But there wasn’t.
Second, what played out yesterday in Charlottesville is just a repeat of what happened in Berkeley, Middleburg, NYU, and other places over the last year and a half. Some group Antifa finds objectionable has a speech or a rally. Then Antifa shows up and starts assaulting people and the police stand down, let them do it, and let the riot happen. That is exactly what happened yesterday. It should surprise no one that one of these riots has now resulted in someone’s death. The fact that the death was the result of the actions of the enemies of Antifa, rather than Antifa itself, changes nothing. This was going to happen eventually.
Third, this is exactly what Antifa wanted. Their plan is always to attack their enemies hoping they fight back and then get blamed for the resulting violence. And time and again the police let them do it. Every time some self-righteous writer like David French gets up and talks about this being the result of the “alt right,” whatever that is, they are doing nothing but emboldening Antifa and encouraging this to happen more in the future.
You want this stuff to stop, and you should, don’t waste your time virtue signaling about the dreaded Virginia Nazis. They are an insignificant group that are defended by no one and whose only use seems to be to allow Democrats and writers like David French to slander their political opponents. Prosecuting and condemning the person who did this is an essential start. But you can’t undo the harm he did and you can’t deter or prevent the actions of truly violent people.
What can be done is to hold local police accountable for doing their jobs and preventing situations like the one in Charlottesville from happening in the first place. As the President said, the solution to this is for police to restore law and order. There are no other answers or deeper lessons here. It is just that simple.
Editor’s note (8:32 pm central): there are several people involved at Glibs. I took it upon myself personally and without discussion to post this article. I thought it was well-written and would provoke a respectful and engaging discussion from the readers. It is in no way the consensus opinion of everyone involved and shouldn’t be considered such. -sloopyinca
10″The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” – H. L. Mencken
Let’s start with a couple of quick, short, non-scholarly definitions. What is free speech? I would say the right to express whatever you goddamn feel like. Wait a damn minute! “Obscene speech is not free speech!” (it like totally is), “hate speech is not free speech!” (I beg to differ) or “you can’t yell “fire!” in a crowded theater!” (I tried it once, it seems I could).
Great Balls of You Cant Say That
Is hate speech really free speech? Mea culpa, as the ancient Dacians used to say. There is, in fact, no such thing as hate speech, as there is no possible objective definition of it. There is no such thing as obscene speech, intolerant speech, and offensive speech. All these things are in the ear of the behearer (yes, I know it’s not a word, it be jokes). There is, in fact, such a thing as fire.
To support speech which is free is specifically about the one you personally find offensive and disagreeable. It’s no great feat, no feat at all, to graciously allow speech you agree with. The whole goddamn point is to defend the “bad speech”. And I do not mean “a bit rude, but makes a good point”. I mean gratuitously stupid and offensive speech, the one that is nowhere near a good point, which is offensive just to be offensive, just to push boundaries, contradictory and half-baked, vile and inflammatory. This is the litmus test of free speech. Respecting speech when you just can’t even.
Here is a good place to state that I am one of the good guys, an ally (Or is it axis? I get confused) and I do not agree with any speech anyone might find offensive, although I think they have the right to say it, and please buy me cocktails – nothing too sweet and girly, mind, an old fashioned works, or maybe a Sazerac. I had a decent cocktail once with rye whiskey, bitters and something called Sirop de Picon, but this is all besides the point.
The main issue of free speech is not of theaters, but of government. Whether private individuals can set rules in their private sphere – I can kick you out of my home if I don’t like what you say – government should not attempt to ban speech in the public sphere. This is understood by some, not by others.
But! There is often a but, and this one is sort of thicc. The fact you can avoid speech you don’t like, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do so. It is good to strive towards a society where the government respects freedom and expression by law and private parties respect it by custom. Yes, twitter/youtube/facebook can and often do police speech on their platforms, as is their right. But maybe, just maybe, it is a bad idea to do so. And while it is not directly a right infringement, they can be criticized for this.
I Had the Right to Remain Silent…But I Didn’t Have the Ability” – Ron White
Private actors, people and companies, can deny a “platform” to speech they don’t like, but I believe people should have the default view of: let’s hear the asshole out. If you are confident in your opinion, you can listen to another one, no matter how shitty. One grows by being exposed to as many ideas as possible, as opposed to avoiding anything different, while screaming to lung capacity about how stupid or ignorant or hateful others are. I always found it quite amazing how certain some are of the superiority of their views, when they refuse to even attempt to understand others. It is like the view you developed in high school, probably the very first one you came across, was perfect and there is no need for further inquiry.
Just shake it off, or something
All that being said, it is every snowflake’s right to insulate xerself in whatever echo chamber xir chooses. I think it is stupid, but you do you and like whatever. Fine, but–ehm–how about speech that is violence and promotes actual harm? I feel threatened! That tweet is literally violence! Check mate, free speechers!
I do not have much shit to give in general, but sometimes I worry about our society and the people in it. How, well… soft everyone is becoming, how delicate, how fragile, how lacking in introspection and self-awareness some people are. Like or loath Nassim Taleb, there is something to be said of antifragility. Or resilience.
In the new intersectional reality, it has become a mark of social status to claim victimhood. Everyone wants as many oppression brownie points as possible. I do not understand this and do not think it is healthy. Time was, it was a matter of pride to overcome adversity. You had it real tough and you made, conquered every obstacle. Now it seems to be the opposite. This is not the way forward. Victim status was something to be avoided and conquered, not celebrated, because the individual gains most from overcoming adversity, not whining about it.
The most annoying thing is that for a good number of these people there is no adversity. They try so hard to claim oppression – the very thing one should overcome – when none exists. But what are the optics of that? How does it help women, for example, when some feminist screams hysterically about everything? Makes ’em look real rational, doesn’t it? Claiming you can’t handle even mildly offensive speech. I get they are professional activists and this is their bread and butter – screaming hysterically and grievance mongering – and most likely they don’t give a shit beyond themselves, but do they think it is a good look?
How weak are you, how pathetic, if I may be a little harsh, to claim online speech is literally violence and caused you real harm? And this is not about credible threats. It rarely is. How incapable of self-control are we if hearing an opinion – no matter how bad it may be – makes us feel threatened, fearing for our safety? Or causes a breakdown? Or mental illness, PTSD, whatever. Rotting in a trench and hearing bad things are basically the same.
Look a bit at human history. I’ll wait. People have gone through some bad shit. War, famine, disease, genocides, gulags, torture and suffering we cannot fathom. And we get all up in arms about tweets? Seriously? Of course, each society has its problems and things to improve. I am not saying that because we have it better than 100 years ago, we should never complain or not try to improve things. Constant improvement is a goal. But just a wee bit of perspective here and there does not hurt. And you hurt no one as much as yourself by being a snowflake.
Safety used to mean you are not in imminent danger of bodily harm. Now it somehow means not hearing what you don’t want to hear. How did society get to that point? How the hell can opinions trigger PTSD in people with no imaginable reason to have PTSD? And if they do have it, we need to see how in the modern world people are so mollycoddled as to get PTSD for no apparent reason.
Now, I perfectly realize all this shit is massively over-represented over the interwebs and it is not a representation of general society. Yet. But it is growing and should be nipped in the bud. And sadly, it is growing more than usual in schools.
Offense is purely subjective, and it is taken meaninglessly in most contexts. Being offended – and this goes for most people – is bullshit 99% of the damn time, and it leads to a lot of unnecessary drama. Just shake it off, as the philosophers say. And this comes from someone who is very far from the stereotypical tough guy. Seriously. Some asshole said this and that? Fuck him, who cares?
A couple years back, I engaged in discussion with a conservative friend who is very philosophical and very well read. He is extremely good at making me question the assumptions I don’t even know I’m making. This conversation is loosely based on the one we had. *Standard Amateur Disclaimer: I am not, nor have I ever been a philosopher. My exposure to philosophy is minimal at best. I may trample over great discoveries of the past without even acknowledging them, or I may walk into giant bear traps without even knowing. This is a stream of consciousness article with minimal editing.
OSCAR: Natural rights are the most important concept in governance. As governments drift further away from recognition and defense of natural rights, they become more evil.
AUGUST: Absolutely, natural rights like free healthcare, abortions, and public accommodations.
OSCAR: Those aren’t natural rights, they’re infringements on natural rights.
AUGUST: Infringements like profiteering, not paying your fair share, and bigotry?
OSCAR: No, those are consensual activities and mere thoughts.
AUGUST: So, mere thinking and consent are the difference between rights and infringements?
OSCAR: Well, no. Those are characteristics of things that are rights, but rights aren’t rights just because they’re mere thoughts or consented to. Rights are consequences of self-ownership.
AUGUST: Self-ownership means you have unassailable natural rights, like the right to life?
OSCAR: Yes, self-ownership includes an unassailable right to life.
AUGUST: You’re saying that, because you have self-ownership, you have an unassailable natural right to life? How do you know this? Does nature somehow affirm this natural right? Or does nature indiscriminately kill you, despite your unassailable right to life? Or is it that people are somehow physically prevented from killing you?
OSCAR: Well, no, none of that. Rights are more about morality than some law of physics.
AUGUST: Oh, morality! Right and wrong! Virtue and vice! So, since people have an unassailable right to life, it’s wrong in all situations to kill somebody, including in self-defense, the death penalty, and war?
OSCAR: There are certainly exceptions. For example, self-defense is the clash of one’s right to life against another’s right to life. In such a situation, the wrong is in the initial aggression that causes the clash of rights.
AUGUST: I see, so it’s okay to kill your boss for the initial aggression of exploiting your labor.
OSCAR: No, of course not. Exploitation isn’t infringing a right. You aren’t forced to work for your boss.
AUGUST: So rights mean that you shouldn’t be forced to do things?
OSCAR: Yes, rights are things you shouldn’t be forced to do without your consent.
AUGUST: So, criminals shouldn’t be forced to respect other people’s rights?
OSCAR: Well, uhm…. rights only extend so far. You don’t have a right to violate other people’s rights. You may only violate their rights when you have their consent or when not violating their rights would cause one of your rights to be violated.
AUGUST: That seems to rely a lot on what a right is. What is a right?
OSCAR (now wary of being corner cased to death): Umm, a right is . . . a right is easier to describe than to define. A right is dependent on the interpersonal interaction. A child has different rights in respect to their parents than in respect to a stranger. A right is also dependent on the specific context. Killing a burglar stealing your wallet from your bedroom in the middle of the night is different from killing a fraudster who stole your money by grabbing your credit card information.
AUGUST: So a right is some undefinable thing that changes wildly with context?
OSCAR: Well, no. Rights change based on the authority relationship. You have no liberty in view of a superior authority, except as voluntarily ceded or compelled by an even more superior authority. See, for example, the town having no authority in view of the state, except where the state or federal government grants it to the town. In contrast, you have total liberty in view of an inferior authority. A dog can in no way morally restrain you, except for when you voluntarily abstain for the dog’s benefit. It is only in view of a co-equal authority that rights have any meaning. It is the equality of man and human authority that give meaning to rights.
AUGUST: So if rights are based on authority and the equality of man, are you saying that rights are attempts to prevent inequity between men and between man and institutions created by man?
OSCAR: Yes! As with any co-equal relationship, there are certain things solely in the domain of the first, other things that are solely in the domain of the second, and some things that are in an overlapping domain between the two. For example, parenting.
AUGUST: So, in this Venn Diagram description, your domain is your rights with respect to me, my domain is my rights with respect to you, and the shared domain is collective rights between us and conflicting rights between us. While that may be helpful on a theoretical level to be able to categorize things, it leads into the question, how do I know what is in your domain, what is in my domain, what is in our shared domain, and what is in neither of our domains? In other words, what rights are there?
Hopefully this conversation is useful to spark dialogue. From this, you can see that my contention is that rights are the boundaries erected between rightful exercise of authority between co-equal people and immoral abuse of authority between the same co-equal people.
If this type of article has enough interest, I may continue to write in this style in the future, continuing this conversation.
It’s funny how everything illegal is universal. Drugs, gambling, prostitution. Making a law to fight it doesn’t snuff it out. It’s just a reality. It’ll be done somehow, someway.
I live in Daejeon, South Korea. I went north to Seoul to see my friends off for their going-away party. It’s about an hour away on the fast train.
At the bar we banter and celebrate our friends’ imminent departure. Shockingly fast, the games began.
강남스타일
My friend took out five dice and tossed them onto the pool table. We’re gonna play Threes. I didn’t know how to play but learned fast. Skin in the game incentivizes immediate understanding. You roll the dice up to five times. Low score is the winner. Every roll you have to keep at least one die. A three is worth zero and everything else is face value. A score of four is respectable and under is gravy.
We started out low stakes, a buck a player. The rounds came and went, winner taking seven or eight per. One game went particularly long—twenty bucks to me. I’m up $15.
We ratcheted up. Buy-in went from a buck to ten. It really is remarkable how the changing stakes heightens your focus.
We’re not high-rollers. We’re poor-ish English teachers. Every game now is worth close to $100. Green notes stacked on the felt, this is serious money for us. And I hate losing.
I lost a few rounds and was very near to bowing out. I throw ten bucks in anyway. I played conservatively and won the pot. Eighty bucks to me.
That was the end of my line, for the most part. I had to float my friend $20 for two bets and enough-is-enough after they raised the stakes to $20 a roll. I later learned that one of the players was a bit of a gambling addict. The Madness had set in as I wisely stepped out. I became an accepted spectator. The last few games netted the winner something like $180 each.
The bar turned a blind eye to all of this. They were excited for the business. The game was organic and started of its own accord. The people who wanted to play flocked to the table and those that didn’t did not. People who didn’t want to put money down still could watch and bought drinks to entertain themselves whilst vicariously living through our wallets. No one gave a shit. It was glorious.
It struck me during the game how we all instantly agreed to the rules. People came together to play a stupid game for a shot at making some money. And those that won and lost understood that the rules to play were arbitrary. But they were agreed to. If it’s arbitrary for one and all then it’s not so arbitrary after all. A beautiful system with no leaders, no kings—simply a mutual understanding between blokes, a glint in the eye for some weekend cash.
We self-regulated. There was no muscle involved, but we all understood that if someone tried some fuckery, there were plenty of eyes and arms to make sure the money didn’t flee unjustly. Having money on the felt makes one very mindful.
No police; no guards; no threats; no violence; no force. Just fun.
I ended up $26 even after I gave the twenty to my friend. Damn good in my book, paying for the entertainment and festivity for three hours and still ending up in the green. Another fun foray into the life of “sin” that people wrongfully cast shade upon.
At least half of the fun is the seediness of it all. Adrenaline and cash naturally make up the rest. That’s what the government can’t ever learn: That which is illegal is inherently desirable. Tell people that they can’t do something and a portion of the population is going to say “Fuck off” simply to thumb their nose.
I know I do.
It was a beautifully organic experience. Out of sight from the law, and everyone regulating each other voluntarily. Curious how that seems to work out.
I, too, was unjustly railroaded by a private school despite the lack of a victim, accusations, or evidence. And although I was not expelled or charged in a court of law, the incident severely tainted my college experience. Here’s the story:
It was the fourth week of freshman year, that time when people are still making friends but kind of already know who everyone is. Late one night in the dorm common area, I encountered this girl I had flirted with a handful of times before while playing ping pong. She asked if she could borrow my computer to check Facebook, and one thing led to another. We had sex twice (once while my roommate was asleep in his bed), and she stayed overnight in my room. No alcohol or drugs were involved.
The next morning we parted on good terms and agreed to meet up again sometime soon. I didn’t have her phone number but a couple of days later I got a harried Facebook message asking if she could come to my room & talk. When she arrived in a panic she told me that there were virulent rumors being spread that she was raped. Apparently, the morning after, she had some soreness in her lady bits, and her roommate/friends started jumping to conclusions. She claimed she adamantly denied it but to no avail and honestly, I don’t doubt her. Needless to say, I was stunned and scared shitless.
At that point, I said that I was overwhelmed and needed to clear my head by going to Chipotle, inviting her to come along. When she replied she wasn’t interested, I announced I was going anyway, and if she didn’t want to tag along she would have to leave my room. “But I’m so horny,” she nonchalantly stated. So after doing the deed again we went to Chipotle and actually got to know each other, like a real date, oddly enough.
After arriving back to my room, I went into damage control mode. I gathered up all my booze and bartending supplies (I was on a mojito kick at the time) and dumped them down a gutter miles away in the barrio. I tried to study in my room but the silence was unsettling, so I went to the downstairs lounge. While there, one of my newer friends, a big rugby player, asked if he could talk to me outside. He asked me what the story was in a friendly and inquisitive manner. But only a few sentences in he turned on me and insisted on telling me what he thought he knew, eventually threatening to beat my ass. He surely would have succeeded. I defused the situation enough to avoid having my face caved in but didn’t quite succeed in successfully convincing him of my innocence. After that, I avoided being seen on campus for anything but class. Admittedly, it was bad optics.
The next afternoon while leaving the lunch hall, I was approached by one of our security guards, a pretty cool dude who looked like he played linebacker only a few years back but never went pro. He politely but firmly informed me we were going to my room and he was going to inspect it. So I then had to nervously walk all the way across campus while everyone stared. In that moment I had the gut-wrenching feeling that the process WAS the worst punishment. Before rifling through my belongings, he informed me someone anonymously reported that I had been brandishing a big knife and was talking about stabbing people. I was too shocked to do anything except repeatedly mumble “but, no, what?” I admitted to having a Swiss army knife and the only contraband left in the room, a decorative airline-sized bottle of tequila that was a gift from my high school lover. Luckily he wasn’t a pro pig and let me keep the bottle after pouring out the low-quality liquor.
It was at this moment I knew it was only going to get worse and became extremely paranoid. Although I had a few peeps I was on friendly terms with, there was no one I could confide in or consult. And of course, at that time I wasn’t accustomed to nutpunches or similar incidents. Funnily enough, the coolest guy in class that I highly respected for his game said he didn’t know, didn’t care, had no bad blood, and wasn’t getting involved. That weekend I made the rounds of a few house parties, barely drinking shitty beer and chain smoking a whole pack of cigarettes. My story got a lot of attention from some dudes who I guess initially gave me the benefit of the doubt because I seemed too physically weak and smart to be a real rapist. The semblance of normalcy provided some small measure of hope.
A day or two later, I was summoned by the Director of Student Resources or whatever bullshit admin title she had. She informed me that the school was going to be enforcing a “no contact order” between me and the girl, who I hadn’t spoken to in a while anyway. They would also be evicting me from my room and forcing me to move to another dormitory in a solitary room. Pretty much everyone I knew was in my dorm, so this was basically a social death sentence before even considering the appearance of guilt. I tried to be as reasonable as possible, asking what accusations had been made and if we could all sit down to a mediation session and talk things out. The administration refused to even tell me if there WERE accusations. I prodded and explained that I knew there were none because this girl had no ill will towards me and it would be social suicide to falsely cry rape. Needless to say, I left out the part about her coming back for thirds.
This simpleton attempted to sympathize and say she knew it was all probably part of the “rumor mill” (a phrase she loved for some fucking reason), but that their methods were for the best. I protested that the appearance of guilt was socially almost as bad as actually being guilty and of course that I was completely innocent. Another thing she insisted on was me seeing the school therapist, something I vehemently opposed. But I eventually caved on that matter in order to leave the room and generate some good will. My final request was that I get a meeting with her boss since I knew this lady was too dumb and touchy feely to be pulling the real strings.
It was the most frustrating experience of my life, not just because she didn’t believe my version of the truth, but that she was completely disinterested. Facts, reason, incentives, none of it had the slightest impact. Punitive measures had been decided, my desires were unimportant, and I had absolutely no leverage. I even considered death threats, car vandalism, killing pets, and firebombing people’s houses but figured these people were too dense to adequately grasp the level of insanity they were pushing me to. Threats of force only work when your enemy believes it’s an actual possibility you will take action.
I struggled to keep my calm while waiting for the therapist, a nice enough 40 something gent I’ll call “Brad” because his demeanor was somewhat reminiscent of Mr. Pitt’s character in The Big Short. I had been to therapy as a child after my parent’s divorce and expected him to pussyfoot around the issue (unfortunately there were no legos to play with). But he was cool and immediately acknowledged the awkwardness of the situation and the obviousness I didn’t want to be there. I spilled my guts, particularly the part about how the administration seemed completely indifferent to my plight. I was taken aback when Brad basically sided with me, stating something to the effect of, “You’re right, they’re probably just covering their asses.” After that he proceeded to talk me off the edge, explaining that it’s better to bend over and take it then start fresh, rather than blow my scholarship or worse. So that’s what I tried to do. It never occurred to me that if the thing they most feared was word getting out, then that’s what I needed to threaten. I felt so small, and the notion of getting the press or lawyers involved just didn’t come to mind. I mean who would care? I was a privileged white male loner alleged rapist from the South.
There was another meeting with the frog-faced HR lady and one of my parents who was, in fact, a faculty member, which interestingly didn’t count for shit. I semi-placated the administration’s insistence to bring them in for a meeting but refused to tell any part of the story. The one piece of respect I was granted was that the paper pusher didn’t spill the beans and left it at that. With the only detail to work from being my pissy mood, my family came to assume that I made unwanted advances that simply pissed off some girl.
Eventually, I got my meeting with Ms. Chief Cunt, the bureaucrat in charge of student life. She was even less amiable to reason than her peon and didn’t even bother to feign sympathy. After resisting the temptation to flip her desk, I recognized I was the road, not the rubber, and miraculously left without an escort out from Terry Tate.
I acquiesced and moved dorms, never violating the no-contact order, and steering clear of the girl. I spent a lot of time alone. I never found a clique but did meet my best friend to this day and managed to hook up with a few more girls as well. One was quite evidently innocent, but I’m fairly sure the others were at least familiar with my reputation. Could never tell if it was a turn-on, but the paranoia of being stained never left.
Around the time this was happening, I was recruited by a modeling agency while shopping at the mall. It was completely outside my normal scene but flattering, to say the least. Towards the end of the ordeal, I had the opportunity to take some interviews in New York. When I got offered a contract I jumped at the opportunity to GTFO and start fresh.
The final night on campus, I was smoking in the snowfall at midnight when I spied the girl across the quad. It was the first time I had seen her in forever, so I just stared and didn’t abashedly break eye contact. She paused for a few seconds and eventually left, but not at a hurried pace. For some reason, I had convinced myself she had grown to hate me, and while never actually corroborating the rumors, got ground down by the same system and lost energy to deny them.
A week later, while on Christmas vacation prior to my exile to the east, I finally sacked up and Facebook messaged the girl after 3 months. I wished her well and said I don’t know what I did to make her resent me, but I wasn’t a player and genuinely liked her at the time. She was surprisingly conversational, and after a few messages I called her on the phone and we chatted for hours.
Apparently, the administration gave it to her just as hard as they did me. She was forbidden from talking to me and treated more as a guilty party than a victim. Unlike me, she eventually broke down and told the whole story to her family. As a nice Christian girl from a rural town in the breadbasket, this did not make for a very happy Thanksgiving. The poor girl, who was quite the fit athlete when I met her, ended up gaining weight, abusing Mountain Dew (I can’t make this shit up), starting smoking, and becoming a total slut. After her second semester, she transferred to a school closer to home.
After a semester of online classes in New York, I was ready to leave. Cash was running low, and it was obvious the modeling thing wasn’t going to work out. Despite getting to see some really interesting things while catering for the rich and famous (fun facts: George Soros’s drink is Campari and Beyoncé is even hotter in person), I was still isolated and unfulfilled. I returned to Colorado and cranked out the degree in two more years while only having my one friend. The paranoia of being “that guy” never fully went away and I got the impression some people were skittish around me because they were ashamed for believing unsubstantiated rumors. But I couldn’t bring myself to try and be friends with any of them. I had no illusions that keggers and campaigning for political causes would ever feel normal.
The thing that still sticks with me is the amount of extreme prejudice I was shown. I was literally pre-judged as guilty by my “friends”, the administration, and even my family to a lesser degree. And although there were a few sympathetic souls, not a single one encouraged me to fight back in my most helpless of times. I still carry a grudge against the institution and refuse to donate or even pay my hundreds of dollars in outstanding parking fines. I trash it as “not worth the money” at every opportunity. I delight in their failing financial state and the impending layoffs. But part of me is reluctant to hold a grudge the same way the frog can’t fully blame the scorpion. These administrators are used to absolute authority over petty matters. It is not the individual that concerns them, nor the collective student body, and certainly not principles. It’s the perpetuation of the status quo and exercise of petty power. I’m wholeheartedly convinced their deference to procedure and dictat is so absolute that it wouldn’t take much for them to commit worse atrocities. And it would never occur to them to step back for a moment of introspection. I’ve never bothered to look it up, but I’m fairly confident they repeatedly violated their own due process policies in the student handbook, all on a whim. In short, elites uber alles. And as I’m sure you have gathered, that’s a big part of why I am a libertarian.
Thanks for reading, and if you know of an effective organization specializing in challenging these apparatchiks with extreme prejudice, let me know. I’ve got a big fat check for them.
My dad was a professional artist, and a highly talented one. And being raised by artists is pretty much the same thing as being raised by wolves, which likely shows in my writing. In any case, despite being the artsy type, he was not at all flighty, but was a deep and serious thinker. Our house was filled with books on all subjects, and we kids were not restricted in any way from reading what we liked, no matter the content. I’ve noted before that he started me on my R. Crumb fanboyism when I was about 12 by plopping down a copy of Zap Comix and noting, “This is great art.” Not exactly a traditional dad in the 1960s.
He spent much time teaching me how to think rather than what to think. He encouraged me to say stupid shit which he would then casually dissect, and that was certainly a life lesson. But where he really drove things home was how he would think things through in a very logical “if-then” way, not unlike how scientists look at hypotheses and derive experiments to demonstrate (or refute) their consequences.
Here’s my favorite Dad story that illustrates the way he thought and what he imparted to me.
It was 1970 and I had just finished tenth grade. I will admit that as a student, I was not exactly a public school teacher’s dream, and I knew they badly wanted to get rid of me. And finally, with some new rules put in place as part of the spirit of Nixon’s then-new War On Drugs, they saw their chance. The principal instructed me to have my father come to the school with me the next day.
We came to the school, then sat in the principal’s office while he shuffled some papers. After a minute of this, he looked up and said to Dad, “I’m sorry to tell you that we are forced to expel your son.”
Dad asked, “For what reason?”
“We have reason to believe that your son is dealing drugs,” the principal gravely responded.
Dad looked very thoughtful for several seconds, then said, “Huh. He seems to be doing a fine job of covering up the money.”
That way of thinking has stayed with me for a lifetime. Dad died suddenly when I was in my 20s, and now, almost 40 years later, not a day goes by without me thinking about him. A lot. I’ll admit to a few tears flowing as I write this. Must be the onions SP is chopping.
Swiss Servator
I grew up in a comfortable upper middle class home – not the type my Dad had growing up. He came from if-not-quite-poverty, something close to it. I was fairly oblivious to this as a youngster. However, one day I was telling my Dad how they had started teaching us how to use .22 rifles at camp (this was the early 1970s in the Midwest). He was pleased, as he had wanted me to start learning (busy doctors don’t often find time – He had pulled himself up by his bootstraps, and was running the lab of a middle sized hospital, and also teaching medicine at the local branch of the state university). He asked if we had used short rounds or super short rounds. I asked what a super short round was – and he explained they were just strong enough that you could shoot a bird off a roof, or a beam inside a barn, and not do any real damage if you missed. I asked why you would shoot birds like that and his face hardened a bit and he simply said “to eat”. That sank in … not sport hunting, not choosing delicious game – but shooting pigeons to be able to eat some nights. I have often thought about how hard he worked (he is retired now) and how much he provided … not just material things, but an example of work and self improvement and giving opportunity to your family.
The all-encompassing nature of mass media is relatively new to the human experience. By and large, humans throughout history have only been immersed in the “news” of their family and their neighbors. News, in the regional, national, and global sense, was a triviality ridden into town on the back of a camel, a donkey, or a horse. It wasn’t until the 19th century that reliable, near-real-time national media coverage was normalized through national daily newspapers. It wasn’t until the mid-20th century that the nation, and later the world, was shrunk down and neatly packaged in a tiny box in every family’s living room. That growing scope of awareness, combined with the growth of media titans created what is now known as the “mainstream media.”
I met an Armenian customer today, inspecting his flooded furnace, and being a businessman himself, we got to talking. He explained that his very nice neighborhood was once run down, but the Armenians came in and fixed the place up, improved property values and generally made a nice place to live and have their kids grow up; not bad. We compared prices for similar homes, mine $295k. The equivalent house in his neighborhood? $760k. (Disclaimer: I live in the sticks, 46 miles East of Glendale.)
Most People living in the U.S. are too busy working to pay much attention, IMO, and the antifa/nazi thing is just so much hot air. If I am wrong, well, at least we are all armed. (You are armed, correct?)
Second, what played out yesterday in Charlottesville is just a repeat of what happened in Berkeley, Middleburg, NYU, and other places over the last year and a half. Some group Antifa finds objectionable has a speech or a rally. Then Antifa shows up and starts assaulting people and the police stand down, let them do it, and let the riot happen. That is exactly what happened yesterday. It should surprise no one that one of these riots has now resulted in someone’s death. The fact that the death was the result of the actions of the enemies of Antifa, rather than Antifa itself, changes nothing. This was going to happen eventually.
