They will continue to say
“Oh please there are very few actual cases of cancellation. Bari just puts all of them on her Substack.”
and I will continue to remind everyone that this works the exact same way as my plan to end graffiti by punishing it with the death penalty because you really only have to kill a few guys before everyone else gets the message.
“Oh please there are very few actual cases of cancellation. Bari just puts all of them on her Substack.”
and I will continue to remind everyone that this works the exact same way as my plan to end graffiti by punishing it with the death penalty because you really only have to kill a few guys before everyone else gets the message.
"you really only have to kill a few guys before everyone else gets the message."
I know how you suffer when I agree with you, and for that I'm truly sorry, but I find myself doing so again. Kill a thousand kulaks and the rest will run for the hills.
This is how Texas managed to close all its abortion clinics with its bounty-hunter law: the THREAT of financial ruin from civil suits made clinic owners shut down rather than risk bankruptcy. The threat was enough; not a single lawsuit was filed. Providers would have been found not guilty if it went through the system, but it's hard to celebrate when the lawyers took your house and pension in court and legal fees.
In terms of the things that you can be sued out of business for, being sued for jamming scissors into a babies head is the least egregious example of ambulance-chasing litigiousness I can think of.
Given your general position on the government regulating businesses, and given the current level of totalizing government control over every single thing a business does, your assertion that *this* represents a profoundly shitty example is legitimately retarded.
Well, you're the expert on retarded, so I guess you would know best.
My "general position on the government regulating businesses" would appear to be lighter than yours, since you applaud Texas's decision to regulate clinics out of business and appear to applaud overturning Roe so states can dive into the business of bans and draconian regulations. Are you a regulating commie at heart?
I don’t applaud it I just think it’s retarded to say that allowing lawsuits against a business that is intentionally causing death is egregious overreach. Especially when you are one of the psychotic ding dongs who wants the government to tightly regulate and monitor mist.
Regulating murder is literally one of like four things the government should do.
Should you be forced to accommodate people with disabilities as currently mandated by the government? You think so. Okay so even if abortion isn’t murder, it clearly is worse than the absence of a $70,000 ramp.
If you think it’s fine for the government to deputize lawsuits based on the absence of expensive ramps, then you are at the very least being retarded by insisting it’s wrong to allow lawsuits based on abortion, whatever you think it is that is short of murder.
Should I be forced to accommodate people with disabilities if the law so requires? Well, duh, yeah. If a law is on the books, the state needs to enforce it. That applies to everything from traffic lights to disability accommodations to abortions to murder: government makes the laws, only government should enforce them. If citizens hate the law, they can push legislators to end or change it. That's how a representative democracy works.
People should *not* be subject to civil suits by bounty hunters for their failure to obey a law. The only means of enforcement should be direct government power or lawsuits only by those with legal standing. States that hand their enforcement powers to bounty hunters with no legal standing, and pay them to file lawsuits, are goddamn cowards.
Enter, Texas. If it believes its abortion ban legal, it should have the guts to enforce it directly and risk the feds pushing back. Instead, it chickened out. All hat, no cattle.
I have far more respect for Mississippi. It passed a twelve-week abortion ban and announced the state would enforce it directly. When the feds pushed back on grounds the law violated the U.S. Constitution (via Roe), Mississippi took the feds to court. That case made it to the Supremes, who this month or next will strike down either Roe or the Mississippi law as unlawful.
Mississippi did it right, and if the Supremes overturns Roe, so be it.
But since you're a fan of bounty hunting, I assume you'll have no issue when blue states authorize them to sue anyone in any state that participates in restricting abortions? Or sells an AR-15 to a citizen like California proposed? If following the U.S. Constitution is merely optional for states, why not let bounty hunters sue everyone for everything and bring American life to a standstill?
We can argue all day about whether abortion (or anything else) should be illegal. What we should agree on is that government, not bounty hunters, should do the enforcing and reap or suffer the consequences of its decisions.
Sort of like Asset forfeiture laws, eh? Sure, you may eventually get your money/property back, but you have to prove yourself innocent, as opposed to government proving you guilty. Why do we Americans tolerate this? Because most people think it only happens to guilty people, so they don't care.
The citizen residents of Texas can change their abortion laws if they want to. Democracy = Majority of votes rules.
First, I don't believe in asset forfeiture laws. I think they're a taking without due process, which violates at least two part of the Constitution.
Second, if the citizen residents of Texas want to change their abortion laws, they need to do it Constitutionally. The bounty-hunter abortion ban is a screaming violation of the United States Constitution, and that SCOTUS refused to hear the case because "gee, it's not the state enforcing it, it's private citizens filing private lawsuits" is dereliction of its duty. Unless Roe v. Wade is overturned, the Texas ban is an extortion racket, plain and simple, and an unconstitutional taking.
I did not mean to imply that you supported asset forfeiture laws. My point was that they are another "shitty way to run a country".
As for Texas voters, they can vote to change politicians, or vote to change the law, including their constitution. I don't live in Texas (have visited countless times), but I suspect the politicians of Texas who enacted the abortion "extortion" laws believe they are supported by a majority of the voters.
We agree that it's a shitty way to run a country! Huzzah, sweet agreement.
I also agree that Texas enacted the abortion ban fair and square, based on a vote of the legislature and signature of the governor. They knew this law violated the U.S. Constitution, but gambled that SCOTUS, with its sympathy toward overturning Roe, would not interfere. They were correct, and the resulting extortion racket from fears of bounty-hunter bankruptcy closed the clinics without a single lawsuit filed.
Well-played politically, but a steaming pile Constitutionally, for which I blame not Texas, but the Supremes. We appoint them to ensure states follow the rules set out by the Constitution, and they failed miserably at holding Texas to account.
Whatever your position may be on Abortion, it's simply not in the constitution any more than net neutrality. The SCOTUS made it up out of whole cloth. And now they may say "nevermind". Scotus has reversed itself before and will again.
And congress and states pass laws all the time that they know damn well are not constitutional. Sometimes the court bails them out (Obama care mandate comes to mind).
And even if congress were to pass a national abortion law, it should be found unconstitutional. Doesn't mean it will. Commerce clause is already unrecognizable. Look at cannabis laws, for example.
Leaving aside the current subject (abortion), the Texas law represents a new strategy for overcoming Court supervision. Typically the challenge to such laws involves getting the courts to prohibit state officials, in their official duties, from enforcing them. This was a new strategy, bypassing that by making the enforcement agents ordinary citizens, each to be modestly rewarded ($10K). If the Court lets that strategy pass, it will wind up being used by many other states, Red and Blue, to extend their legislation to a larger scope without court redress. Calif has already proposed (or passed?) an anti-gun law modeled on the same tactic.
Every time there is a mass shooting like Sandy Hook or Columbine High School there is an outcry from the left to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens. In the majority of these shooting these victims are white and the nuts who shoot them are white. There is no doubt that these shootings are tragic and horrible.
However every week in the inner cities far more black people are murdered by black armed thugs than are these mass shootings. Yet I don’t hear outrage from the Democrats, who claim to be the party defending women and minorities,. To be fair you don’t hear it from the Republicans either. In fact the only thing you hear about these outrageous murders from either party is the sound of crickets chirping.
The point I am making is you never hear from the minority support party any outrage about the slaughter in black communities but you sure do hear it when there is a mass shooting in the white community.
Isn’t that one of the definitions of racism, outrage about white deaths but silent about black deaths?
Years ago after Sandy Hook Diane Feinstein called for the confiscation of all guns. Of course she meant confiscation of law abiding citizens guns. Not one person in the media or from the right asked Diane how she proposed to get the guns out of the hands of the gangs that have been terrorizing black communities for decades.
According to FBI statistics, in 2020 at least 9,713 blacks were murdered. In the past 30years tens of thousands of blacks were murdered in the inner city. Where is the outrage? Isn’t it racist to ignore these murders? Where is BLM, Antifa and the woke people when they are needed the most. More importantly, where are the Democrats who claim to be the party of the minorities? They control the House and the Senate. Why aren’t they screaming to stop these murders. Where is Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? Oh, wait a minute! They make their livings off the misery of black people.
If the felons were only shooting other felons, I'd say let them have at it. But these felons don't have particularly good aim. Look at the number of innocent black children who are killed in Chicago every year as a result of felons shooting other felons.
My "if I were king" thought has always been a system where criminals are isolated in a society composed solely of criminals. If they want to proceed to kill each other, they are welcome to do so. But there would be no innocents around to suffer the consequences.
No doubt a LOT of people think this, but there plenty of collateral victims that were not gangsters. For example, the recent gang shoot out in Sacramento did kill three gangsters, but also killed three innocent bystanders.
I hate that argument even if there is no one else that would be canceled. That is like saying its ok to be a murderer but not a serial killer. Why does it matter how many are affected rather than if its right or wrong? This is just a way to side step the actual issue.
You’re right. There are few actual cases of cancellation, because people in “the land of the free” have very quickly learned to look over their shoulder and shut up. I’m one of them.
It’s a shame that we have to be like this but in this 21st century it’s seems as though MSM and SM have the edge here even if it’s to keep spinning the lies over and over again it doesn’t matter how many times you tell that the reporting or the numbers don’t add they continuously keep telling the same lie again and again until everybody believes it’s the truth you only had to see President Trump’s term in office to realize how deep the rot goes
And Goebbels knew if he wanted to capture the German people he had to capture the airwaves he set up the best propaganda machine for its time if you note the similarities today it’s worse for us they have capture the airwaves thru Legacy media and SM and like the Nazis they are controlling us we are starting to hate each other this current administration hates conservatives voters maga voters etc. We have 21/2 years till 2024 I hope we can all last till then because a war against the people of the US will be a disaster it won’t come from outside it will come from inside the signs are there Dennis yesterday they subpoenaed 5 Republicans for 1/6 it’s already started they even captured our mobile conversation even that is not private anymore
Andy, I hope I'm sensing sarcasm here. It will be an uphill battle, but if veritas (truth) does not prevail, we are doomed as a society. Sadly, there will be casualties. James Damore was one of them. Mr. Kriegman was another. Both bright professionals. And to some extent, Chris Hedges was also a victim. As Keats wrote, ""Beauty is truth, truth beauty,"--that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
This is true. My college freshman son admits that he writes what the professors want to read so he will get a good grade. Young conservatives are not vocal and not prone to protest like their liberal counterparts. This intolerance by the progressive side is creating a segregation that we have worked over that last decades to eliminate. The quiet conservatives or moderates despise the "obnoxious progressives" on campus, and they naturally segregate themselves.
Sea Sentry. In today's US society, it is dangerous to speak up. Everyone needs to make decisions based on their finances and family. I pray that those that can do stand up. But I completely understand and those that do not.
You are absolutely right. I can’t believe that in the ‘80s, in a communist country, I was telling myself that I need to think of my family (parents, siblings) and shut up for their sake, and in the 2020s I have to tell myself the same thing (kids this time), and wait until I retire. The deep irony is that today there’s more freedom of speech in the former communist country I came from.
I vividly remember the day the Berlin wall fell in 1989. It took less than a generation to begin building a "wall" of our own. I blame the universities. What did Shakespeare say about lawyers?
Everybody hates lawyers til.they need one. Part of the chilling thing to me about this article is that Thomas Rueters controls a lot of legal information.
Isn't that amazing? I spent time in communist countries in the 70's and as you say the parallels are eerie and very troubling. Part of me is fascinated at a sociological level to watch this unraveling of our values, catalyzed by a very small minority (as is always the case), while part of me is deeply pained for my country and for what it means for the rest of the world if our freedoms continue to evaporate.
There are even some parts of this story that back that up. For instance, it strikes me as naive that the author made genuine efforts to engage with HR and D&I and then escalated the issue to senior management rather than taking the multiple hints that he shouldn’t question the narrative. On the other hand, the author also knew ahead of time that he was taking a risk.
Probably the best example of this was the observation that “no one in Diversity and Inclusion condemned any of the public attacks on me”. The public attacks on the author are part and parcel of the entire purpose of D&I and most people already know this, which is why they take the hints and don’t actually get themselves fired.
He knew what he was doing and the risks, and the pressure against him, no doubt. But it used to be that the people who went into journalism were the types who dreamed of the chance to speak truth to power. Now they are the power and hate truth.
How far does that go, though? There were a lot of people in Nazi Germany who kept their mouths shut, too. And I'm sure some of them could live with themselves.
I have found myself almost unbearable to live with, all the shutting up I have done. I work at a pricey 4-year liberal arts college, but that might change soon.
I work in higher ed as well, so I feel you. I moved from a private liberal arts college on the west coast to a public institution in a Red State, and still it's a dance. Admittedly, I ask myself 'Is this my hill?' And I'm very careful how I say things that I know go against the orthodoxy.
Moving to other institutions doesn't necessarily solve the problem because all but a very small few are like this. And the few that are not singular bastions of progressive thought are liberal arts colleges (e.g., University of Austin), which means that unless you study liberal arts, they don't have programs in your field.
I suspect we came into the world at very different times, BP, and thus I must admit I am far too old to appreciate the problems younger men and women face in 2022.
Thank you for giving me a glimpse into your times, BP, and I look forward to reading more of your future comments.
Thank you for your kind words, Dennis. I’ve actually been in academics for 20 years now and the change I’ve seen in the last 10 years, especially the last five years has been nothing other than dramatic. Keep in mind that I work at a big 10 university in a red state! (albeit in a blue county)
As I indicated, moving to other institutions is not as easy as it might seem and rather pointless anyhow, as they all are woke and lacking in diversity of thought. Keep in mind, though, that your ability to move in academics can also be constrained by your rank. I’m a full professor and in my field, the vast majority of available positions are at the assistant professor rank (because they are cheaper to hire). So, there just aren’t that many open rank positions for folks like me to even apply for.
You can be sure, though, that if a place like the University of Austin started a program in my field, I’d be the first to apply! In fact, I would be willing to get hired at a lower rank just to make it happen. Unfortunately, that’s just a pipe dream for now.
Sure, but if you got your shop smashed up on Kristallnacht, you should probably have a better strategy in mind than trying to report the crime to the Gestapo.
Tell that to the business owners whose businesses were burnt down in the riots. The Democrat Mayor of Seattle turned downtown Seattle over to the Marxists. NAZI - National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Note the word Socialist in the definition.
Indeed. And we could also reduce the illegal transit at the border by shooting a number of them and then leaving their bodies to rot in the sun with signs, in various languages of course, that indicates this is what awaits them if they come in.
The border patrol crack is BS. Border patrol, the national guard and local law enforcement risk their lives on a daily basis for those heeding Biden's call.
Just like they did for Trump. I suspect they liked working for Trump more. And they wouldn't let anyone die out there. Ever. The only BS is Unwoke's comment. Sorry, Lynne.
If the they you are referring to who worked for Trump is the border patrol, national guard and law enforcement the comparison is apples and oranges. The numbers coming over under Biden are swamping the BP, NG, and LE. That was not the case under the former president. Not to mention the drugs and humans being trafficked. And the BP, NG and LEs are risking their lives daily. They are cannon fodder to the current administration. As are we all.
My comment has nothing to do with how better Trump's border patrol was than the present iteration. It probably was. My comment was on the stupidity of Unwoke's remarks about leaving the bodies of migrants to rot in the sun as a message to others. Not even Trump's Border Patrol would let that happen.
My comment was to your unjustified attack on BP ( and by extension other agencies assigned to the border) whether under the former president or this one. You specifically referenced Trump in your comment and in this response. "Not even" indeed. You are clueless as to what is happening on the southern border yet do not hesitate to opine and twist the facts to fit your narrative.
I would think 'clueless' would be an apt description to someone stating that bodies should rot in the sun. Don't you think? Or that 'clueless' would be an apt description for someone who defends that person for stating it.
The Border Patrol can be ruthless, if ordered to. I've seen them in action. I would harbour a guess you want them to be. As does Unwoke. But I'm actually complimenting them in never ever doing what the lady in Idaho suggests they should.
There are many many narratives, Lynne. You and Unwoke have one too. Big deal.
And as for twisting facts, no one can agree on what a fact even is anymore.
Does the sun still set in the West? You'll give an opinion and so will I. Nothing's going to change.
1) I did not respond to Unwoke, I responded to your false comparison. 2) Yes the BP can be ruthless as can all law enforcement and sometimes it is justified. 3) Your hazarded guess would be wrong but by doing so you have tipped your hand as to your MO. 4) You are correct that it is common to twist facts but that is not my MO and particularly as for the border I am careful to have reliable sources. I am close enough to it to do so. 5) 4 migrants are presumed drowned this morning in Eagle Pass. How many need to die before this administration fulfills its mandate? That is a rhetorical question so please do not attempt a response
They will continue to say
“Oh please there are very few actual cases of cancellation. Bari just puts all of them on her Substack.”
and I will continue to remind everyone that this works the exact same way as my plan to end graffiti by punishing it with the death penalty because you really only have to kill a few guys before everyone else gets the message.
Took me a minute to digest the comment, love the analogy!!!
"you really only have to kill a few guys before everyone else gets the message."
I know how you suffer when I agree with you, and for that I'm truly sorry, but I find myself doing so again. Kill a thousand kulaks and the rest will run for the hills.
This is how Texas managed to close all its abortion clinics with its bounty-hunter law: the THREAT of financial ruin from civil suits made clinic owners shut down rather than risk bankruptcy. The threat was enough; not a single lawsuit was filed. Providers would have been found not guilty if it went through the system, but it's hard to celebrate when the lawyers took your house and pension in court and legal fees.
What a profoundly shitty way to run a country.
In terms of the things that you can be sued out of business for, being sued for jamming scissors into a babies head is the least egregious example of ambulance-chasing litigiousness I can think of.
Given your general position on the government regulating businesses, and given the current level of totalizing government control over every single thing a business does, your assertion that *this* represents a profoundly shitty example is legitimately retarded.
Well, you're the expert on retarded, so I guess you would know best.
My "general position on the government regulating businesses" would appear to be lighter than yours, since you applaud Texas's decision to regulate clinics out of business and appear to applaud overturning Roe so states can dive into the business of bans and draconian regulations. Are you a regulating commie at heart?
I don’t applaud it I just think it’s retarded to say that allowing lawsuits against a business that is intentionally causing death is egregious overreach. Especially when you are one of the psychotic ding dongs who wants the government to tightly regulate and monitor mist.
Regulating murder is literally one of like four things the government should do.
"Tightly regulate mist"? WTF are you talking about?
And abortion ain't murder.
Should you be forced to accommodate people with disabilities as currently mandated by the government? You think so. Okay so even if abortion isn’t murder, it clearly is worse than the absence of a $70,000 ramp.
If you think it’s fine for the government to deputize lawsuits based on the absence of expensive ramps, then you are at the very least being retarded by insisting it’s wrong to allow lawsuits based on abortion, whatever you think it is that is short of murder.
Should I be forced to accommodate people with disabilities if the law so requires? Well, duh, yeah. If a law is on the books, the state needs to enforce it. That applies to everything from traffic lights to disability accommodations to abortions to murder: government makes the laws, only government should enforce them. If citizens hate the law, they can push legislators to end or change it. That's how a representative democracy works.
People should *not* be subject to civil suits by bounty hunters for their failure to obey a law. The only means of enforcement should be direct government power or lawsuits only by those with legal standing. States that hand their enforcement powers to bounty hunters with no legal standing, and pay them to file lawsuits, are goddamn cowards.
Enter, Texas. If it believes its abortion ban legal, it should have the guts to enforce it directly and risk the feds pushing back. Instead, it chickened out. All hat, no cattle.
I have far more respect for Mississippi. It passed a twelve-week abortion ban and announced the state would enforce it directly. When the feds pushed back on grounds the law violated the U.S. Constitution (via Roe), Mississippi took the feds to court. That case made it to the Supremes, who this month or next will strike down either Roe or the Mississippi law as unlawful.
Mississippi did it right, and if the Supremes overturns Roe, so be it.
But since you're a fan of bounty hunting, I assume you'll have no issue when blue states authorize them to sue anyone in any state that participates in restricting abortions? Or sells an AR-15 to a citizen like California proposed? If following the U.S. Constitution is merely optional for states, why not let bounty hunters sue everyone for everything and bring American life to a standstill?
We can argue all day about whether abortion (or anything else) should be illegal. What we should agree on is that government, not bounty hunters, should do the enforcing and reap or suffer the consequences of its decisions.
Sort of like Asset forfeiture laws, eh? Sure, you may eventually get your money/property back, but you have to prove yourself innocent, as opposed to government proving you guilty. Why do we Americans tolerate this? Because most people think it only happens to guilty people, so they don't care.
The citizen residents of Texas can change their abortion laws if they want to. Democracy = Majority of votes rules.
First, I don't believe in asset forfeiture laws. I think they're a taking without due process, which violates at least two part of the Constitution.
Second, if the citizen residents of Texas want to change their abortion laws, they need to do it Constitutionally. The bounty-hunter abortion ban is a screaming violation of the United States Constitution, and that SCOTUS refused to hear the case because "gee, it's not the state enforcing it, it's private citizens filing private lawsuits" is dereliction of its duty. Unless Roe v. Wade is overturned, the Texas ban is an extortion racket, plain and simple, and an unconstitutional taking.
I did not mean to imply that you supported asset forfeiture laws. My point was that they are another "shitty way to run a country".
As for Texas voters, they can vote to change politicians, or vote to change the law, including their constitution. I don't live in Texas (have visited countless times), but I suspect the politicians of Texas who enacted the abortion "extortion" laws believe they are supported by a majority of the voters.
We agree that it's a shitty way to run a country! Huzzah, sweet agreement.
I also agree that Texas enacted the abortion ban fair and square, based on a vote of the legislature and signature of the governor. They knew this law violated the U.S. Constitution, but gambled that SCOTUS, with its sympathy toward overturning Roe, would not interfere. They were correct, and the resulting extortion racket from fears of bounty-hunter bankruptcy closed the clinics without a single lawsuit filed.
Well-played politically, but a steaming pile Constitutionally, for which I blame not Texas, but the Supremes. We appoint them to ensure states follow the rules set out by the Constitution, and they failed miserably at holding Texas to account.
Whatever your position may be on Abortion, it's simply not in the constitution any more than net neutrality. The SCOTUS made it up out of whole cloth. And now they may say "nevermind". Scotus has reversed itself before and will again.
And congress and states pass laws all the time that they know damn well are not constitutional. Sometimes the court bails them out (Obama care mandate comes to mind).
And even if congress were to pass a national abortion law, it should be found unconstitutional. Doesn't mean it will. Commerce clause is already unrecognizable. Look at cannabis laws, for example.
Leaving aside the current subject (abortion), the Texas law represents a new strategy for overcoming Court supervision. Typically the challenge to such laws involves getting the courts to prohibit state officials, in their official duties, from enforcing them. This was a new strategy, bypassing that by making the enforcement agents ordinary citizens, each to be modestly rewarded ($10K). If the Court lets that strategy pass, it will wind up being used by many other states, Red and Blue, to extend their legislation to a larger scope without court redress. Calif has already proposed (or passed?) an anti-gun law modeled on the same tactic.
Every time there is a mass shooting like Sandy Hook or Columbine High School there is an outcry from the left to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens. In the majority of these shooting these victims are white and the nuts who shoot them are white. There is no doubt that these shootings are tragic and horrible.
However every week in the inner cities far more black people are murdered by black armed thugs than are these mass shootings. Yet I don’t hear outrage from the Democrats, who claim to be the party defending women and minorities,. To be fair you don’t hear it from the Republicans either. In fact the only thing you hear about these outrageous murders from either party is the sound of crickets chirping.
The point I am making is you never hear from the minority support party any outrage about the slaughter in black communities but you sure do hear it when there is a mass shooting in the white community.
Isn’t that one of the definitions of racism, outrage about white deaths but silent about black deaths?
Years ago after Sandy Hook Diane Feinstein called for the confiscation of all guns. Of course she meant confiscation of law abiding citizens guns. Not one person in the media or from the right asked Diane how she proposed to get the guns out of the hands of the gangs that have been terrorizing black communities for decades.
According to FBI statistics, in 2020 at least 9,713 blacks were murdered. In the past 30years tens of thousands of blacks were murdered in the inner city. Where is the outrage? Isn’t it racist to ignore these murders? Where is BLM, Antifa and the woke people when they are needed the most. More importantly, where are the Democrats who claim to be the party of the minorities? They control the House and the Senate. Why aren’t they screaming to stop these murders. Where is Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? Oh, wait a minute! They make their livings off the misery of black people.
These are felons shooting other felons, by and large. Other than the collateral damage, I fail to see the downside
If the felons were only shooting other felons, I'd say let them have at it. But these felons don't have particularly good aim. Look at the number of innocent black children who are killed in Chicago every year as a result of felons shooting other felons.
My "if I were king" thought has always been a system where criminals are isolated in a society composed solely of criminals. If they want to proceed to kill each other, they are welcome to do so. But there would be no innocents around to suffer the consequences.
The collateral damage is heart breaking. These thugs also kill innocent men, women, children and babies. They are sociopaths.
No doubt a LOT of people think this, but there plenty of collateral victims that were not gangsters. For example, the recent gang shoot out in Sacramento did kill three gangsters, but also killed three innocent bystanders.
I hate that argument even if there is no one else that would be canceled. That is like saying its ok to be a murderer but not a serial killer. Why does it matter how many are affected rather than if its right or wrong? This is just a way to side step the actual issue.
You’re right. There are few actual cases of cancellation, because people in “the land of the free” have very quickly learned to look over their shoulder and shut up. I’m one of them.
It’s a shame that we have to be like this but in this 21st century it’s seems as though MSM and SM have the edge here even if it’s to keep spinning the lies over and over again it doesn’t matter how many times you tell that the reporting or the numbers don’t add they continuously keep telling the same lie again and again until everybody believes it’s the truth you only had to see President Trump’s term in office to realize how deep the rot goes
It's as if the ghost of Goebbels has been adopted by much of the regressive crowd, Michele.
And Goebbels knew if he wanted to capture the German people he had to capture the airwaves he set up the best propaganda machine for its time if you note the similarities today it’s worse for us they have capture the airwaves thru Legacy media and SM and like the Nazis they are controlling us we are starting to hate each other this current administration hates conservatives voters maga voters etc. We have 21/2 years till 2024 I hope we can all last till then because a war against the people of the US will be a disaster it won’t come from outside it will come from inside the signs are there Dennis yesterday they subpoenaed 5 Republicans for 1/6 it’s already started they even captured our mobile conversation even that is not private anymore
Andy, I hope I'm sensing sarcasm here. It will be an uphill battle, but if veritas (truth) does not prevail, we are doomed as a society. Sadly, there will be casualties. James Damore was one of them. Mr. Kriegman was another. Both bright professionals. And to some extent, Chris Hedges was also a victim. As Keats wrote, ""Beauty is truth, truth beauty,"--that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
Almost everyone I know is Andy. Especially the young college age citizens.
Are they Andy or just me?
This is true. My college freshman son admits that he writes what the professors want to read so he will get a good grade. Young conservatives are not vocal and not prone to protest like their liberal counterparts. This intolerance by the progressive side is creating a segregation that we have worked over that last decades to eliminate. The quiet conservatives or moderates despise the "obnoxious progressives" on campus, and they naturally segregate themselves.
Given the current environment, and apologies for my bluntness, we need more Zacs and fewer Andys. Of course, Andy could become a Zac. We all can.
Sea Sentry. In today's US society, it is dangerous to speak up. Everyone needs to make decisions based on their finances and family. I pray that those that can do stand up. But I completely understand and those that do not.
You are absolutely right. I can’t believe that in the ‘80s, in a communist country, I was telling myself that I need to think of my family (parents, siblings) and shut up for their sake, and in the 2020s I have to tell myself the same thing (kids this time), and wait until I retire. The deep irony is that today there’s more freedom of speech in the former communist country I came from.
If you wait until you retire, then absolutely no one will listen. Except maybe Cynthia.
Same
I vividly remember the day the Berlin wall fell in 1989. It took less than a generation to begin building a "wall" of our own. I blame the universities. What did Shakespeare say about lawyers?
Everybody hates lawyers til.they need one. Part of the chilling thing to me about this article is that Thomas Rueters controls a lot of legal information.
Blame the HR departments and the leadership who don’t have spines.
Isn't that amazing? I spent time in communist countries in the 70's and as you say the parallels are eerie and very troubling. Part of me is fascinated at a sociological level to watch this unraveling of our values, catalyzed by a very small minority (as is always the case), while part of me is deeply pained for my country and for what it means for the rest of the world if our freedoms continue to evaporate.
There are even some parts of this story that back that up. For instance, it strikes me as naive that the author made genuine efforts to engage with HR and D&I and then escalated the issue to senior management rather than taking the multiple hints that he shouldn’t question the narrative. On the other hand, the author also knew ahead of time that he was taking a risk.
Probably the best example of this was the observation that “no one in Diversity and Inclusion condemned any of the public attacks on me”. The public attacks on the author are part and parcel of the entire purpose of D&I and most people already know this, which is why they take the hints and don’t actually get themselves fired.
Or, Philippe, the author is a person for whom truth is more important than a mob spouting their evil thoughts.
I have in my long life found that cash is always trumped by integrity and truth.
Too many of us have forgotten that when we cheer the latest popular cause.
He knew what he was doing and the risks, and the pressure against him, no doubt. But it used to be that the people who went into journalism were the types who dreamed of the chance to speak truth to power. Now they are the power and hate truth.
How far does that go, though? There were a lot of people in Nazi Germany who kept their mouths shut, too. And I'm sure some of them could live with themselves.
I have found myself almost unbearable to live with, all the shutting up I have done. I work at a pricey 4-year liberal arts college, but that might change soon.
I work in higher ed as well, so I feel you. I moved from a private liberal arts college on the west coast to a public institution in a Red State, and still it's a dance. Admittedly, I ask myself 'Is this my hill?' And I'm very careful how I say things that I know go against the orthodoxy.
I work in higher ed too. I wish there was a support group for folks in this industry who do not toe the progressive line. It's a stifling environment.
Then you may need to find other institutions that promote diversity of thought, Scuba Cat.
Moving to other institutions doesn't necessarily solve the problem because all but a very small few are like this. And the few that are not singular bastions of progressive thought are liberal arts colleges (e.g., University of Austin), which means that unless you study liberal arts, they don't have programs in your field.
I suspect we came into the world at very different times, BP, and thus I must admit I am far too old to appreciate the problems younger men and women face in 2022.
Thank you for giving me a glimpse into your times, BP, and I look forward to reading more of your future comments.
Thank you for your kind words, Dennis. I’ve actually been in academics for 20 years now and the change I’ve seen in the last 10 years, especially the last five years has been nothing other than dramatic. Keep in mind that I work at a big 10 university in a red state! (albeit in a blue county)
As I indicated, moving to other institutions is not as easy as it might seem and rather pointless anyhow, as they all are woke and lacking in diversity of thought. Keep in mind, though, that your ability to move in academics can also be constrained by your rank. I’m a full professor and in my field, the vast majority of available positions are at the assistant professor rank (because they are cheaper to hire). So, there just aren’t that many open rank positions for folks like me to even apply for.
You can be sure, though, that if a place like the University of Austin started a program in my field, I’d be the first to apply! In fact, I would be willing to get hired at a lower rank just to make it happen. Unfortunately, that’s just a pipe dream for now.
There are times when we all jump over the very dangerous conclusion fence, BP.
My first bit of advice is a very obvious example.
I appreciate the fact that you so politely pointed out my mistake.
I do, however, admire your ability to look for such places.
Sure, but if you got your shop smashed up on Kristallnacht, you should probably have a better strategy in mind than trying to report the crime to the Gestapo.
This is America not Nazi Germany!
Tell that to the business owners whose businesses were burnt down in the riots. The Democrat Mayor of Seattle turned downtown Seattle over to the Marxists. NAZI - National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Note the word Socialist in the definition.
tell that to Kenosha, WI.
Fair enough.
Indeed. And we could also reduce the illegal transit at the border by shooting a number of them and then leaving their bodies to rot in the sun with signs, in various languages of course, that indicates this is what awaits them if they come in.
At least Kevin attempts to make his point using his odd brand of humour (sometimes it works..)
You, Ms. Unwoke, on the other hand, sound serious.
Maybe Border Patrol work is for you - but even they might find you a bit too extreme.
The border patrol crack is BS. Border patrol, the national guard and local law enforcement risk their lives on a daily basis for those heeding Biden's call.
Just like they did for Trump. I suspect they liked working for Trump more. And they wouldn't let anyone die out there. Ever. The only BS is Unwoke's comment. Sorry, Lynne.
If the they you are referring to who worked for Trump is the border patrol, national guard and law enforcement the comparison is apples and oranges. The numbers coming over under Biden are swamping the BP, NG, and LE. That was not the case under the former president. Not to mention the drugs and humans being trafficked. And the BP, NG and LEs are risking their lives daily. They are cannon fodder to the current administration. As are we all.
My comment has nothing to do with how better Trump's border patrol was than the present iteration. It probably was. My comment was on the stupidity of Unwoke's remarks about leaving the bodies of migrants to rot in the sun as a message to others. Not even Trump's Border Patrol would let that happen.
My comment was to your unjustified attack on BP ( and by extension other agencies assigned to the border) whether under the former president or this one. You specifically referenced Trump in your comment and in this response. "Not even" indeed. You are clueless as to what is happening on the southern border yet do not hesitate to opine and twist the facts to fit your narrative.
I would think 'clueless' would be an apt description to someone stating that bodies should rot in the sun. Don't you think? Or that 'clueless' would be an apt description for someone who defends that person for stating it.
The Border Patrol can be ruthless, if ordered to. I've seen them in action. I would harbour a guess you want them to be. As does Unwoke. But I'm actually complimenting them in never ever doing what the lady in Idaho suggests they should.
There are many many narratives, Lynne. You and Unwoke have one too. Big deal.
And as for twisting facts, no one can agree on what a fact even is anymore.
Does the sun still set in the West? You'll give an opinion and so will I. Nothing's going to change.
1) I did not respond to Unwoke, I responded to your false comparison. 2) Yes the BP can be ruthless as can all law enforcement and sometimes it is justified. 3) Your hazarded guess would be wrong but by doing so you have tipped your hand as to your MO. 4) You are correct that it is common to twist facts but that is not my MO and particularly as for the border I am careful to have reliable sources. I am close enough to it to do so. 5) 4 migrants are presumed drowned this morning in Eagle Pass. How many need to die before this administration fulfills its mandate? That is a rhetorical question so please do not attempt a response
Your opinion is respected. No response forthcoming on your rhetorical question.
But we do agree on the sun setting in the West. Right?
:)
You and Joey. So civil.
I know. Just like you're leaving bodies decomposing in
in the desert. Civil.
Works for me... "passive/aggressive deterrence".
Trolling? Maybe? Back under your rock.