Featured Post

Stop Feeding Milo Yiannapolous

Milo Yiannapolous found himself in the headlines yet again this week as his speech to UC Berkeley was canceled due to protests and rioting.

Protests that erupted at UC Berkeley ahead of a planned Wednesday appearance by right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos caused $100,000 worth of damage to the campus, the school said Thursday.

The university blamed “150 masked agitators” for the unrest, saying they had come to campus to disturb an otherwise peaceful protest.

Administrators decided to cancel the Wednesday event about two hours before the Breitbart editor’s speech. UC Berkeley said it removed him from campus “amid the violence and destruction of property and out of concern for public safety.”

Black-clad protesters wearing masks threw commercial-grade fireworks and rocks at police. Some even hurled Molotov cocktails that ignited fires. They also smashed windows of the student union center on the Berkeley campus where the Yiannopoulos event was to be held.

Left/liberal Twitter was aflame in debates regarding the effectiveness and morality of the protests/riot. Committed anarchists and Communists called liberals fascist apologists and insufficiently committed to combatting the rise of right-wing populism. Liberals barked back that even trolls like Milo have a right to free speech and letting masked vigilantes carry out justice as they see fit undermines the basic foundations of free society.

I won’t step into the debate around the ethics and worthiness of direct action or no platforming. This is an essential dispute that the various coalitions of the left will need to continuously discuss in the age of Trump and beyond.

Rather, I want to address my Republican comrades that keep inviting Milo to speak at their respective universities.

I understand that many on the conservative end of the political spectrum find university life challenging. Having spent far too many years in college, I can attest to the overwhelming liberal/left homogony of these institutions. Even those of us who stand in agreement with the overarching philosophical standpoint disseminated in our universities can recognize that it does take some guts to be openly conservative in such an environment.

When I walked into the University of California, Santa Cruz I was a committed leftist and was right at home with the political tone the university maintained. I experienced a slow move away from the radical groups and policies I had spent years defending but could never fathom leaving the left behind. Yet, I did come to respect some of the conservatives in my political science courses for their resolve and tact. They understood that they were operating in unfriendly territory and rather than hide their opinions from their school community, they opted to find common ground with activists that, often unfairly, intrinsically opposed them.

There was a conservative student paper started on campus in 2003 or so. Based on the few actual conservatives I knew, I thought said rag would be a perfect home for some of their long-form reflections on policy and society. However, these individual conservatives I had come to respect would not touch the paper; they saw it as nothing more than childish provocations meant to goad the school community unnecessarily. This “conservative” publication would spend most of its time writing hyperbolic takes on “hippies” and other “stupid commies.” This paper was not intended to debate and persuade but act as comfort food for the disposed campus right-wingers in an era before Reddit and Twitter. It was a lowbrow and injudicious endeavor and one the canny conservatives I studied with stayed far from.

Milo Yiannopoulos reminds me of that short-lived conservative paper. It may be fun to get together with like-minded persons and have a good laugh at your opponent’s expense, but acts like Milo make conservatives forget their own basic principles for the sake of amusement and notoriety. Milo is building his brand at the expense of these Republican organizations and their willingness to bask in his celebrity for a few fleeting hours. He has said countless things that require ostentatious rhetorical gymnastics for conservatives to justify and explain. He has fomented online campaigns of harassment against people in movies he didn’t like. All the while, he defends his actions as a necessary act of anti-PC free speech activism and many conservatives on college campuses have taken the bait.

But Milo’s actions are anything but a defense of free speech principles. His attempts to silence those who dare speak of him unkindly (much like our current president) by using his swarm of online acolytes is not a political act that should find support from any ideology or persuasion.

Worse yet, he has personally attempted to get people fired from their jobs for speaking unkindly of his enterprise.

 

Milo often uses his campus speeches to speak out against activists working to get people fired for their opinions, yet he has no problem engaging in the same behavior when it suits his ends. This is not a man who believes in the fair exchange of ideas but one quite willing to silence his foes if their points are too intense for his fancy.

Campus Republicans have a choice: do they wish to engage in honest debate or invite a man that provides nothing in the way of intellectual examination? Milo may eviscerate college leftists in his speeches but rides all the way to the bank on the backs of Republican students that invite him. This media gadfly is playing every party involved in a Milo event and it’s up to college Republicans to stop his charade.


Staff Writer
Twitter 

Roland Dodds is an educator, researcher and father just north of San Francisco who writes about politics, culture and education. He spent his formative years in radical left wing politics, but now prefers the company of contrarians of all political stripes (assuming they aren't teetotalers). He is a regular contributor at Harry's Place and Ordinary Times.

Please do be so kind as to share this post.
TwitterFacebookRedditEmailPrintFriendlyMore options

619 thoughts on “Stop Feeding Milo Yiannapolous

  1. Hmm…gee…this guy sounds like the mirror image of some folks on the left. Bed made…lie in it.

    I have no problem going to see this guy talk. I saw Jean Kirkpatrick, Marc Russell, George Will, and folks on the left. Generally, about 4 a year for each year in college. I remember the guys on the right mainly because of all the protests..which never happened when someone from the left came for a talk. Someone’s opinion’s don’t scare me and I find “how people think” interesting.

    Report

    • — Milo has reached the point, however, where he will single out students on campus, show their pictures, give their names, and then tell the audience how terrible this individual is. In one case the person’s crime was being transgender.

      Yeah, this is free speech, in the sense that if I knew your name and address I could probably convince a bunch of people to harass you. Which, maybe that is a victory of sorts. I doubt it.

      The thing is, Milo trucks in ugliness, and he will increase his ugliness to whatever point is needed to generate a response. And indeed, people would be smarter to ignore him. However, consider what would then happen: he would increase his ugliness, always just short of criminal levels, until it becomes quite difficult to ignore.

      This is #gamergate, basically. It’s manifest bullying.

      Saying “the left” will protest any conservative is perhaps true. But I, veronica d, won’t protest literally all conservatives. Milo is different. He does not share ideas. He preaches targeted hate, and not against those will power, not against “public figures,” but against random vulnerable people.

      Plus, he’s pretty much a Nazi. If conservatives are tired of being called Nazis, then do not become Nazis.

      I mean seriously, you are responsible for what you become.

      Report

      • Singling out a student with name and other identifying information and holding that person up for obloquy is likely not protected conduct under the First Amendment. I suppose the devil is in the totality of the facts and circumstances, as lawyers are wont to say, but IMO this looks a lot more like defamation and incitement to violence. Regardless of the reason why the victim is held up to obloquy.

        Unfortunately, a statement holding transgender people in general up to obloquy probably is protected speech, however crass. But to do that to a specific person (who is not already a public figure)? That crosses a legally significant line in my mind because of the substantial likelihood that this will diminish that person’s reputation and expose that person, uninvited, to a substantially enhanced risk of violence.

        Report

          • Dude, I’m just providing information here. This is not exactly what I intended be done with it, so that’s all on you, bubba.

            (FTR: I intended to suggest that maybe Milo’s speeches really aren’t justified under the First Amendment, so “free speech” might not be a countervailing value in this situation, given the information provided. That’s it.)

            Report

  2. I agree with Damon that I find “how people think” interesting. It’s why I’ve been spending a lot more time lurking — and taking notes — than commenting of late.

    Has it occurred to you that maybe these nice, wholesome, conservative kids might just actually agree with the things Milo is spouting, including the odious crap, and that’s why they’re inviting him to campus?

    Report

    • That may be the truth, but then they can dispense with the excuse that he is invited simply to “generate debate.” If they support the positions linked to above then just say so and avoid hiding behind the banal “free speech” argument that seems to dominate every discussion of his appearances.

      I hope they don’t. Not because I am a college Republican but because I believe we need a capable conservative counter on our college campuses. If college Republicans are in agreement with Milo when it comes to the specifics than we really have seen a death of conservatism as a viable political ideology.

      Report

        • I agree. The left has cried wolf so often that when the actual far-right started to show up they had already lost credibility. When no platforming was used to stop people Ayaan Hirsi Ali from speaking at colleges it is clear that activists were willing to stop anyone speaking they were opposed to.

          I will take up that fight another day. I would like to actually ask college Republicans to articulate what they hope to gain from bringing Milo. Is it just to make a splash? Are they in agreement with his positions? When I think of all the great conservative voices that could be invited to challenge left-wing orthodoxy and generate debate, I am saddened to see an obvious provocateur and con-artist routinely get the gig.

          Report

          • I would like to actually ask college Republicans to articulate what they hope to gain from bringing Milo.

            If I had to guess, I would say that the hope is that it will inspire funny protests and allow for a dialectic to be set up. Make passers-by look at the two sides that are arguing and force them to pick a side.

            Do you want to be on the side of the gay guy who is funny and is arguing in service to such concepts as Free Speech?

            Would you rather be on the side of the anarchists using Black Bloc tactics?

            Pick one.

            You do this right, you can make people unsympathetic to the stuff bundled with the side they don’t pick.

            Report

            • If it is true that someone like George Will will generate the same response from the left, why wouldn’t college Republicans bring him then? At least a conservative could justify and support his actual policies. Heck, I would be out in the streets fighting against the left if they were to do what they did in Berkeley to George Will. But for Milo? I am not going to stick my head out for that guy, even if I disagree with black bloc tactics.

              Again, I am trying to have goodwill towards college Republicans. Maybe they don’t invite George Will because they don’t agree with him but think Milo’s ideas are great.

              Report

              • Back in 2008, Colorado College brought George Will to their campus.

                We went to go see him. We walked past protesters to go see him. Granted, these protesters were only chanting and holding signs, they weren’t lighting anything on fire.

                Even back then, he was a million years old.

                But for Milo? I am not going to stick my head out for that guy, even if I disagree with black bloc tactics.

                Fair enough. But dig this: there will be more College Republicans inviting Milo to speak. And there will be more Black Bloc tactics opposing him.

                As time goes on, there will be more and more posts saying “College Republicans! Quit inviting Milo!”

                But there will also be more and more posts saying “College Liberals! Quit rioting!”

                And the contradictions will heighten. And we will have another election.

                Maybe you’ll be smart enough to look at the candidates and not associate them with the two groups fighting on campus, but a lot of people will be chained to seeing “Trump == Milo” and “(Generic Democrat) == Rioters” and will have to pick a side or manage to forget to vote that day.

                Who will be more dissuaded from voting? Who won’t mind showing up on that particular Tuesday?

                As odious as Milo is, and he is odious, I think that he’ll hold up well against riot footage.

                Report

                • “As odious as Milo is, and he is odious, I think that he’ll hold up well against riot footage.”

                  I think you are right about that. I hope that those us with a moderate approach to life and discussion can push back against the simplistic narratives that the radical fringes have used for political gain. But that means I ask Republicans to reflect on why they are doing what they do, just as I ask my leftist friends who celebrated acts of violence for weeks following the inauguration what they hope to accomplish from said actions in the long term. I am old enough to know which one of these competing (yet false) narratives will win at the ballot box and it won’t be the left.

                  Report

                • Back in 2008, Colorado College brought George Will to their campus.

                  We went to go see him. We walked past protesters to go see him. Granted, these protesters were only chanting and holding signs, they weren’t lighting anything on fire.

                  This is very useful context in terms of the OP. The College Republicans do invite George Will, the libs do protest him (though maybe not quite as aggressively as Milo), so the likes of George Will quit coming.

                  Report

                    • You should be rethinking this. Colorado College is in Colorado Springs, a semi-major city at the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. It’s a typical place for a college to be, in that it’s somewhere in the middle between a major media center and glorified truck stop.

                      There are some people who are local to CS (I think James Dobson might be one), but most reasonably prominent college speakers have to travel. Do I really want to travel maybe hundreds of miles to be interrupted, to be dodge civil disturbances, to require a significant security presence. No, it’s easier just to stay home, or meet with friendlier people, or friendlier audiences.

                      Libs participation in contemporary culture is significantly about pollution. Libs should quit polluting.

                      Report

          • “I would like to actually ask college Republicans to articulate what they hope to gain from bringing Milo.”

            My guess is, they believe themselves to be in a fight for free speech. Not Milo’s kind of hateful free speech, but the day-to-day kind where you’re not allowed to talk about certain topics based on your skin color or sex, where certain political opinions that aren’t hateful are deemed so and banned. We’re coming off of an election where publicly supporting one of the major party candidates was treated as a punishable offense on campus, by students, teachers, and administrations.

            The problem is that free speech can be defended intellectually by decent argument, but it has to be defended practically by uncivil speech.

            Report

            • “The problem is that free speech can be defended intellectually by decent argument, but it has to be defended practically by uncivil speech.”

              I guess I will have to stick with the former.

              Report

            • I think there’s some truth to that analysis, and while I don’t want to speak for it would seem that a more defensible approach would be to get someone from FIRE or a similar organization. Unless of course the goal is, aa others have speculated, simply to bait leftists into painting themselves as the greater of two evils.

              Report

            • The Federalist article argues that Huckabee can’t fairly be accused of racism, sexism, or support of police misconduct, and therefore his speaking can’t be opposed by the criteria of modern free speech codes.

              Report

            • Schilling you seem to always have a “yes, but…” suggestion for what your political opposites might do. Let’s take it to the level of what do you think the 1st am. ought to protect, is it any speech, political speech, speech with certain exceptions, odious and hateful speech??? We are for good or ill linked to the Holmes conception of the marketplace of ideas as a lode star. Do liberals still accept this premise for the analysis of free speech in the abstract?

              Report

                • The first amendment is about state action; it doesn’t have a thing to do with protests against a particular speaker.

                  I take your meaning, but of course it does have something to do with those protests: it protects them.

                  Report

                  • Right, good point. Honestly I think there is an interesting debate to be had about how far the cultural norm of free speech should go and how to think about people using speech to express disapproval of other speakers that has the effect of discouraging or suppressing speech. It’s just that we’re emphatically not having that debate here because it’s so much fun to talk about who is bad and should feel bad.

                    Report

                    • At first blush I think that’s great, but then, aren’t social norms the boundaries which, if crossed, make one a “bad person”?

                      When people talk about social norms it always seems to sound like some noble and grand thing,but what isn’t discussed much is how we treat the transgressors.

                      Traditionally it was by shaming, shunning or more violent forms of censure and coercion.

                      I’m not saying thats bad, just that in order to taste the fruits of a stable social order, we need some form of coercion. Most of us tend to flinch at that, since it provokes our intuitive sense of mercy and forgiveness.

                      Report

              • Protesting a speaker is free speech. I don’t understand what “If College Students Will Protest Mike Huckabee, They’ll Protest Anybody” means. Huckabee is am increasingly belligerent jerk and a Trump toady, not a moral exemplar. If the statement were “If College Students Will Protest Vaclev Havel They’ll Protest Anybody”, Republican Party Reptile Redux might have a point.

                Report

        • One of the problems is that I can’t tell the difference between a protest against the racist, sexist, homophobic George Will and a protest against the racist, sexist, homophobic Milo Yiannapolous .

          I agree. The left has cried wolf so often that when the actual far-right started to show up they had already lost credibility.

          I am curious as to why this matters at all. I distinctly remember some liberals and leftists called Ron Paul a racist in 2012… and what the fish does that have to do with a discussion about the merits of what Dyalnn Roof did in 2015? I definitely have heard some conservatives disparage all Muslim immigrants (even legal ones) and bash the gay lifestyle on talk radio pretty much every day I listen to it. How relevant is that to a discussion about whether or not we should allow more Omar Mateens?

          Just being clever for clever’s sake isn’t really always all it’s cracked up to be.

          Report

          • I am curious as to why this matters at all.

            Insofar as the Democratic Party election post-mortem seems to be “we won the popular vote and the reason that we lost the Blue Wall is that whiny swing voters were hornswaggled by Republicans yelling about Clinton’s emails”, I think that it matters very, very much.

            Because, from my perspective, Democrats won’t win elections without changing unless Trump gets really, really bad.

            And I don’t mean “really bad from the perspective of someone who lives in Brooklyn”. I mean “really bad from the perspective of someone who lives in Wisconsin.”

            And the general feel that I get from the Democrats is that they have no reason to change.

            Which leads me to the conclusion that they’re going to lose the next couple of elections.

            Report

            • fwiw, i don’t how you filter your info. I’ve heard plenty of D officials types talking about change. Sure some are doing a vareity of what you said, but many aren’t.

              Report

            • the reason that we lost the Blue Wall is that whiny swing voters were hornswaggled by Republicans yelling about Clinton’s emails”,

              If commenter Koz is to be believed, thats exactly, precisely, what happened.
              These Dems are loyal Democrat plantation voters, who love them some abortion rights and labor unions, but emails, man.

              So my question is what happens when Mrs. DemTrump voter goes down to PP to get her thrice-yearly abortion, and finds the doors locked and doctor arrested.

              Or Mr. DemTrump voter loses his health insurance because he had kidneystones a few years ago, and now can’t afford his chemo.

              Or the school that Junior DemTrump goes to closes down, and they have to pay a small fortune to Barron Trump Academy Elementary School.

              IMO, this is going to be bad.

              And I don’t mean “really bad from the perspective of someone who lives in Brooklyn”. I mean “really bad from the perspective of someone who lives in Wisconsin.”

              Report

              • Here’s a fun fact: less than two months from the deadline, 8 of the 11 Virginia House districts that Clinton won do not have a Democratic candidate running for them.

                #10, #12, #40, #42, #68, #73, #94, and #100.

                (I can’t speak for Koz. I spent a lot of 2010-2012 arguing with him that the Democrats in 2006 and Obama in 2008 were, among other things, a repudiation of Bushism and the Republicans turning their back on Libertarian/Fiscally Conservative ideals his only counter-argument was how much worse the Democrats were. For the record, I also see Trump as a repudiation of Bushism but that seems like one hell of a moot point.)

                Report

                • Thats political malpractice by the VA Dem party, I agree.

                  My objection to the people demanding that Dems “adjust” their views, “moderate” their stance, “compromise” or whatever other euphemism you choose, is towards what?

                  No one can name any Trump policy, there exists no coherent Trump idea of economic progress, and to this day no one can formulate a plan to regain jobs in the Midwest without using the term “Underpants Gnomes”.

                  So what changes would you suggest the Dems make to their views?
                  (“OK, so maybe Muslims ARE an existential threat to America; but lets only imprison half of them, as a compromise“)

                  Further, I think Koz is right to a degree, that there are plenty of Trump voters who really don’t want the Trump/ GOP policies.

                  How many Trump voters want to dismantle Medicare? Social Security? Planned Parenthood? The ACA?
                  Seriously, how many people have you met who want to re-introduce child labor? Or eliminate the minimum wage?

                  The error in the concern trolling of the Dems is the assumption that the Ryan/McConnell congress represents the true policy desires of the American people.

                  It doesn’t. If anyone disagrees, show your work.

                  Report

                  • The error in the concern trolling of the Dems is the assumption that the Ryan/McConnell congress represents the true policy desires of the American people.

                    I don’t think that it does.

                    But I think it does a less horrible job than the Democrats, on a national level, are articulating.

                    They’re, instead, making jokes about how stupid the people who wouldn’t vote for them must be. Oh, and failing to run candidates in winnable districts. But that second problem is kind of not worth investing in if the first isn’t tackled.

                    Report

                  • I have a suspicion – ok, maybe it’s a hope, but I’m putting togrther some disparate anecdata… That trump’s campaign was SO content-neutral, incoherent, and blatantly self-serving… that a not overlarge but still significant fraction of his support voted under the assumption that he was, of course!, lying – to everyone else.
                    Women who think he won’t touch Roe. Workers who love the ACA but hate Obamacare and thimk only dark people will lose their insurance.
                    Basically everything trump voters think about him is projection because there’s no there there. Every time he actually does somethimg, he’ll lose the people who’d convinced themselves he wouldn’t.
                    Some of them. Maybe enough. Our country can hope.

                    Report

                    • That’s what I am seeing among my Trump friends and relatives.
                      They all are convinced that Medicare and the No Pre-existing Conditions clause will still be there when they want it.
                      But the illegals will be gone by summer.

                      Report

                    • Muneco,
                      Trump can’t do a damn thing about Roe V Wade. Seriously, if we didn’t get it rolled back when there was a conservative majority on the court and it was a BIG Issue, why do you think it’ll get rolled back now?

                      Report

                • This probably isn’t super topical. Nonetheless….

                  (I can’t speak for Koz. I spent a lot of 2010-2012 arguing with him that the Democrats in 2006 and Obama in 2008 were, among other things, a repudiation of Bushism and the Republicans turning their back on Libertarian/Fiscally Conservative ideals….

                  Back then, I stipulated to this part.

                  his only counter-argument was how much worse the Democrats were. For the record, I also see Trump as a repudiation of Bushism but that seems like one hell of a moot point.)

                  But the “only” part is bogus. While it is true that the Demos were worse, my main argument at the time was that the GOP of that time were the representation of limited government and fiscal responsibility in the political sphere, as I think the events of that time and since have fairly conclusively shown.

                  Or to put it another way, Jaybird’s argument “because W” is conclusive of nothing.

                  Report

              • So my question is what happens when Mrs. DemTrump voter goes down to PP to get her thrice-yearly abortion, and finds the doors locked and doctor arrested.

                She’s probably rich enough to have one without public money. The poor will suffer until some women die in back alleys and that goes public, but that’s a different issue.

                Or Mr. DemTrump voter loses his health insurance because he had kidneystones a few years ago, and now can’t afford his chemo.

                Without health care reform (as opposed to insurance reform) no one will be able to pay for anything.

                Or the school that Junior DemTrump goes to closes down, and they have to pay a small fortune to Barron Trump Academy Elementary School.

                Charter Schools are public schools. BTW having a charter around is *amazing* at keeping the public school in line. If take the kids charter then I’m taking them “out of the district”.

                Report

          • I think you are addressing two separate things here. Calling Ron Paul a racist in 2012 has nothing to do with talking about racist violence by the likes of Dylan Roof in 2015. I also distinctly remember calling a whole slew of Republicans fascists back in 2002. They were not of course, but now that I am seeing actual far-right figures take power, I recognize that all that hyperbolic language numbed people to the power of those terms.

            It doesn’t mean you don’t call a spade a spade but I recognize I made a mistake in employing that type of language inappropriately. I hope others on the left figure that out as well.

            Report

            • …but now that I am seeing actual far-right figures take power…

              …It doesn’t mean you don’t call a spade a spade but I recognize I made a mistake in employing that type of language inappropriately.

              How many dead bodies are these far-right figures responsible for? How much domestic terrorism? How much violence? Is anyone on the Right endorsing violence? Say, claiming Dylan Roof is misunderstood and should be let go? Has Trump written a book somewhere calling for mass murder?

              As far as I can tell you’re still screaming wolf.

              The Left needs a violent genocidal villain to justify how violent the Left itself is, and there is nothing around like that short of ISIS.

              There are policy differences, opposing open borders, opposing free trade, endorsing school choice, etc, but screaming wolf worked so well for so long that it’s a reflex.

              Report

    • Has it occurred to you that maybe these nice, wholesome, conservative kids might just actually agree with the things Milo is spouting, including the odious crap, and that’s why they’re inviting him to campus?

      I find a lot of people these days raise this question when talking about people like Milo. I confess, I am unsure why it makes a difference.

      Report

      • It seems like lots of conservatives don’t want to believe the worst conservative trolling/vitriol is a real belief. It’s just torking off liberals so they can ignore it or enjoy since it’s just a game.
        I’ve seen it a lot as a rationalizations for vile Reddit’s and such; those guys are just reacting to PC culture so it’s really the libs fault. That frequent posters to Coontown actually are virulent racists is hard to believe for some. The belief is they are just trolling not true believers. Does that make it okay? well not to me but to some that is plenty good enough.

        Report

        • I get what the argument is. What I don’t get is why the answer to the question matters.

          “Hey, I know you’re scared that some faceless person sent you a swastika and a note saying that they were going to rape you, but you should know they’re pranksters and might not have meant it in their hearts. They may even like women and Jews deep down inside!”

          Seriously, why the fish does it matter what’s in their hearts?

          I am asking this question in all seriousness.

          Report

          • If college Republcians like Milo because he pisses the right people off but wouldn’t ever do that stuff themselves, that’s one thing. If they’re going to emulate him, that’s another.

            Of course, that’s all completely different from enjoying seeing Richard Spencer get punched, which proves that liberals are the real Nazis.

            Report

          • It matters because if it’s just talk, it’s not going to translate into action. A bunch of teenagers with too much time on their hands sending out threatening/harassing e-mails just to screw with people is a problem, but it’s not nearly as bad a problem as a large-scale violent radical movement that’s actually going around lynching people.

            Report

              • As we all know, Mike, any white person that engages in obviously politically related shooting are lone gunmen and we have nothing to fear from law abiding lovers of the 2nd Amendment.

                OTOH, anytime a Muslim engages in violence, any follower of Islam in the US better have a 5,000 word defense of their religion and continued existence within the United States ready or be seen as a silent supporter of jihad and radical Islam.

                Report

            • Sending someone anonymous Rape threats is just talk? Sending SWAT teams to someone’s door in the hope things get out of hand is just talk?

              This is what I mean. You can learn to justify all kinds of acts if your focus is on what’s really in the little monsters’ hearts, not what they do or say.

              Report

          • “I get what the argument is. What I don’t get is why the answer to the question matters.”

            It matters for the same reason that we make a distinction between murder and manslaughter.

            Report

      • Here, let me paste some of Roland’s post for you:

        But Milo’s actions are anything but a defense of free speech principles. His attempts to silence those who dare speak of him unkindly (much like our current president) by using his swarm of online acolytes is not a political act that should find support from any ideology or persuasion.

        Worse yet, he has personally attempted to get people fired from their jobs for speaking unkindly of his enterprise.

        The entire last third of his post is dedicated to how Milo isn’t really a fan of free speech despite hiding behind the concept.

        In the circles in which *I* argue, typically, you set up arguments like this:
        Good argument
        Better argument
        Best argument to land the knockout punch.

        Assuming that Roland did that here, his knockout punch has nothing to do with Milo being bad in his own right, but in being a hypocrite.

        I was gently teasing the idea that the appeal to hypocrisy was, in itself, a particularly strong blow to land against someone like Milo especially in an essay that established early on that it wouldn’t “step into the debate around the ethics and worthiness of direct action or no platforming”.

        So it didn’t take a stand on Free Speech, it merely pointed out that Milo had one and concluded, triumphantly, that Milo wasn’t living up to it.

        That’s how it was responsive to Roland’s post.

        Report

        • As I read it, the central thrust of Roland’s post was that college Republicans should pay attention to what Milo actually has to say, what he has done, and whether that’s what they want to be associated with rather than embracing him simply because of how the left treats him. You responded to this by…talking about how the left unfairly shouts him down.

          Report

          • You responded to this by…talking about how the left unfairly shouts him down.

            No I didn’t. I wrote “I knew he was somewhat sexist, somewhat racist, and a big fan of Gamergate… but I didn’t know he was also a hypocrite! GET HIM!”

            Then you asked me what that had to do with Roland’s post.

            Seriously, just scroll up. It’s right there.

            Report

              • When the context that we’re deliberately and explicitly not dwelling on is that his speech got shut down because of a riot as part of a pattern of unpleasant speakers getting shut down on campus?

                There are thousands of things to hate about Yiannapolous.

                Among other things, the fact that he has apparently read and internalized Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

                Moreover, it’s not like this particular variant of his hypocrisy is a hypocrisy that distinguishes him from his opposition among those who actually do espouse the very ideals where he is being a hypocrite. So we’ve got Yiannapolous fighting against the college left (or whatever you’d want to call them) and neither one believes in free speech.

                And the argument here seems to be “if you really believed in free speech, you’d do what just so happens to be what the people who oppose Yiannapolous want you to do”?

                I don’t find that argument likely to change a single mind.

                Report

                • But it’s not about Milo, it’s about College Republicans. Rolands’ point is that if you wanna be for free speech invite a speaker who’s actually for free speech rather than Milo who appears, per his hypocrisy, to actually be merely for provocation. By inviting Milo instead of some non-hypocritical free speech conservative College Republicans are diminishing themselves.

                  Report

                  • By inviting Milo instead of some non-hypocritical free speech conservative College Republicans are diminishing themselves.

                    On an absolute level, yes.
                    On a positional level, I’d say that the jury is still out.

                    Report

                      • “Should” is above my pay grade.

                        There will be college republican groups who will, though. They will be *DELIGHTED* to degrade their own ideas and associate with odious fringe figures so long as it reflects even worse on the left.

                        Report

                        • So normative judgments are above your pay grade? I agree that that’s what will happen, but I’m happy to say that milo, the conservatives inviting him, and the people violently protesting him and shouting him down are all being varying levels of bad.

                          Report

                          • Normative judgments lead me to “HOLY CRAP THESE PEOPLE ARE RIOTING AND ATTACKING PEOPLE!” before it gets me to Milo.

                            As such, I’m not sure that getting me to focus on the normative judgment will get me where you want me to go.

                            Report

                              • “I just said I disagree with how the campus left reacts to Milo. Why can’t you say you disagree with the college Republicans that invite him?”

                                What if Jaybird doesn’t disagree with the notion that you should give your political opponents a chance to visibly fail to live up to their stated ideals?

                                Report

                              • I am certain that I disagree with the college Republicans that invite him.

                                I think that, absent the riots, they’d be doing damage to their own cause.

                                Absent the riots, people would look at Milo and see that he is a transparent fraud and provocateur who is merely a genius when it comes to self-promotion and is standing on no foundation at all.

                                Absent the riots, I’m sure that we’d all be able to see that sort of thing.

                                Absent the riots.

                                Report

                                • I find it interesting that no one on this thread is speaking in the first person anymore.

                                  No one is saying, “Wow those protests changed my political persuasion”.

                                  Or even in the second hand; “Wow, my friend Steve was totally a Hillary supporter until they rioted against Milo”

                                  Or even third hand with data: “Wow, polls have really swing in Milo’s favor since they rioted”;

                                  No, the comments seem to be revolving around some invisible person who can’t really be identified, but can be studied with a detached View From Nowhere that takes no position and sees both sides as bad but is firmly convinced that the liberals are worse.

                                  Report

                                  • a detached View From Nowhere that takes no position and sees both sides as bad but is firmly convinced that the liberals are worse

                                    Don’t see it as “the liberals are worse” but that “the rioters are worse”.

                                    Because, in this case, both sides are bad.

                                    But the rioters are worse.

                                    Report

                                    • Jaybird: Don’t see it as “the liberals are worse” but that “the rioters are worse”.

                                      Because, in this case, both sides are bad.

                                      I’m not sure. I’ve gone to listen to people I disagree with, just to hear them talk. I’m pretty sure they were invited to talk by people who didn’t agree with them.

                                      And what this guy is doing seems more like performance art than serious political speech.

                                      What he’s doing is bad, but imho whatever college conservative group brought him isn’t sullying their name all that much and the Left is shown to be violent and intolerant (which btw is a bigger problem).

                                      My “bad” meter for the College group doesn’t ping all that much. Now it would if they said they supported him, but he’s enough of a caricature that seems unlikely.

                                      Report

                                  • No, the comments seem to be revolving around some invisible person who can’t really be identified,…

                                    Right, because they are wearing masks and indistinguishable black clothing for the purpose of being able to commit felonies in anonymity.

                                    Report

                              • What campus left?

                                For those who don’t live in the Bay Area, the “black bloc” isn’t some sort of general idea or tactic, it’s specific people who seem to delight in using any number of protests for cover to commit property crimes (for decades, but notably during and after the occupy movement). Who are assholes, but have nothing to do with the “campus left” that seemed poised to protest but not block the other asshole we’re talking about.

                                And if anyone here has a problem with protest-but-not-block, I’d love to see your “defender of free speech” credentials.

                                Report

                                • For those who don’t live in the Bay Area, the “black bloc” isn’t some sort of general idea or tactic, it’s specific people who seem to delight in using any number of protests for cover to commit property crimes (for decades, but notably during and after the occupy movement). Who are assholes, but have nothing to do with the “campus left” that seemed poised to protest but not block the other asshole we’re talking about.

                                  Indeed.

                                  Milo, as he has been invited around the country, has been met with a steady stream of protests.

                                  *Protests*. No one is trying to get him barred from campus, they are out there protesting his message.

                                  *This time*, a particularly Oakland problem shows up: The Black Bloc assholes, who need to be tracked down and fucking arrested for repeated acts of violence and essentially being a terrorist cell, even if their ‘terrorism’ seems limited to street level violence and acts of vandalism.

                                  This didn’t have anything to do with the campus.

                                  And you could be asking ‘Why doesn’t the left disavow them?’…except it *does*. The actual left, in any place that deals with them, got sick of them long ago and want them gone. (And it’s worth pointing out that they are, literally, anti-fascist anarchists who want to burn the whole thing down, and think the Democratic party is barely better than Republican party.)

                                  Stop treating them as ‘the left’, and don’t treat them as ‘the college left’. Start treating them as, well, the same as the damn KKK or whatever. They are, literally, anti-fascist anarchists who want to burn the whole thing down, and think the Democratic party is barely better than Republican party. They are, at best, the ‘far-left’. (The *actual* far left, the neo-nazi equivalent of the far-left. Not, say, Bernie Sanders)

                                  Or, hell, maybe we should start calling them the alt-left. Apparently, the right was allowed to randomly disassociate their philosophical far-right from their violent and misogynistic and racist far-right by just calling it the ‘alt-right’, so let’s disassociate *our* philosophical far-left from our violent and misogynistic (And possibly racist?) far-left.

                                  They’re the idiots who killed the Occupy movement in Oakland, incidentally.

                                  Report

                                  • If you were in the crowd on Sproul Plaza that night, the antifa might have appeared to be a homogenous mass of agents of chaos descending on your “resistance dance party.” This is understandable. Black bloc tactics are primarily designed to protect the identities of the individuals in the bloc from doxxing, surveillance footage and being singled out for arrest. You couldn’t tell who was behind those masks, and that’s the point.

                                    But don’t get it twisted. We were not, as the news, the chancellor and concerned progressives have alleged, “unaffiliated white anarchists.” Behind those bandanas and black T-shirts were the faces of your fellow UC Berkeley and Berkeley City College students, of women, of people of color, of queer and trans people.

                                    “Stop treating them as ‘the left’, and don’t treat them as ‘the college left’. Start treating them as, well, the same as the damn KKK”

                                    Possibly is right… if you have a riot problem, thinking you have a Milo problem might be fraught with unintended consequences.

                                    I will say this though, having now read and watched Milo in action (Thanks Obama OT), my counter intuitive thought for the day is that Milo isn’t there for the Republicans, he’s recruiting the Liberals. The Republicans? They are being subverted by request. Whatever the Alt-Right is (and I’m pretty sure y’all don’t get it), it is a youth movement, and it’s target is Millennials. The millions of views he’s getting? Those aren’t closet conservatives, they are Alt-curious snake people.

                                    So, Roland is absolutely right, “conservatives” shouldn’t ask Milo to speak to their youth… he’s recruiting, he’s just not recruiting for anything conservative. Possibly he’s recruiting for a new Republican party. But then, the Republican party is a failed project; long live the Republican Party.

                                    Report

                                    • Allow me to rephrase:

                                      A large amount of students and other people had tried all sorts of ways to have him barred from campus on various grounds. (Grounds that actually seem pretty solid, BTW. There is pretty solid evidence that he *personally calls out students* for various things he doesn’t like, which is almost certainly a violation of university harassment codes.(1))

                                      The *protesters at the event* were not trying to have him banned, they were, in fact, calling what they were doing a ‘dance party’ and presenting a counter message of love and inclusion, which sounds a bit goofy to me, but whatever. They were not trying to stop Milo from speaking at that point, they were not trying to stop people from entering to hear him speak. (This is also how it has worked at other campuses, AFAIK.)

                                      Until the antifa showed up and started breaking stuff and threatening people.

                                      1) Which presents a rather obvious way to solve the entire damn problem of Milo: Hey, group of students trying to invite someone to campus? If they break any university rules, (Especially rules they appear to break *every time they give a speech*, i.e., things you can’t claim ignorance about) you will all get punished as if you had broken them.

                                      Threaten the College Republican for expulsion based on *Milo’s* behavior. Say you’re basically going to pretend that *each of them* gave his speech, and, BTW, they might want to quickly check the school handbook again for what ‘harassment’ consists of. See how quickly they decide that his stunt show is a bad idea.

                                      Report

                                  • Yes, the rioters totally weren’t connected to UCB students.

                                    Except for those students who talked about being part of it in yesterday’s Daily Cal.

                                    And that staff member bragging about beating people up.

                                    And those faculty also in yesterday’s paper.

                                    But other than those, yup. Totally unconnected.

                                    Report

                            • — Except I didn’t hear a peep from you when a Milo supporter literally shot a protestor. Nor do you seem particularly bothered by violence from right wing hate groups. For example, your visceral response to the recent Quebec City shooting was — well — it was weird.

                              You judge a person not only by their words, but by the passion behind those words. You care a lot about the things the left does, but not so much about things the right does.

                              I think I understand. You’re an “aggrieved white guy,” with all the ensuing pathologies. On the other hand, you’re smart enough to see how that is a dead end viewpoint. On the third hand, your visceral reaction show through.

                              You are the Milo supporter, even if it tears you up inside.

                              Report

                              • v,
                                And I didn’t hear a peep from you when — rather than gamergate amorphous “death threats”, a transsexual decided to murder someone’s mom because a guy SaidSomethingOnTheInternet.

                                Report

                              • Yes. This is another example of the “you are a bad person” argument.

                                It has nothing to do with the position, but (instead) with the associations you’re hoping will be made with the other person.

                                Except I didn’t hear a peep from you when a Milo supporter literally shot a protestor

                                This story. Do you want me to talk about it now or not?

                                From the first paragraph:

                                Though the details of the incident are shaky, police have confirmed that an anti-Trump protester was non-fatally shot outside of a Milo Yiannapolous event at the University of Washington on Friday. The police took the alleged shooter, described as an Asian man, in custody, but have since released him after he told them he thought the protester was a “white supremacist” and he was simply acting in self-defense.

                                I would have turned it into a discussion about why it’s important to not punch Nazis.

                                I’d have put emphasis on the whole “it’s not that I don’t think real Nazis shouldn’t be punched, it’s that I don’t trust your Nazi Detectors to the point where I think we should be handing out Nazi Hunting Licenses”.

                                But I thought that I made all of those points ad nauseum before.

                                In any case, could you point me to the stories you need me to comment on so that I can comment on other stories for the next week?

                                Maybe we could make that a thing. “Stories everybody needs to chime in on if they want to comment on stuff next month.”

                                For example, your visceral response to the recent Quebec City shooting was — well — it was weird.

                                It was an attempt to mock the politicization of attacks. Everybody was holding their breath to find out who the shooter was before they gave one of their two speeches on violence.

                                I think I understand. You’re an “aggrieved white guy,” with all the ensuing pathologies. On the other hand, you’re smart enough to see how that is a dead end viewpoint. On the third hand, your visceral reaction show through.

                                I will tell you what I told Chip back on Saturday:

                                Here’s one of the things that I keep noticing:

                                The style of argument that says that when one can make the argument about the other person, one can dismiss the other person’s argument after establishing that the other person is bad.

                                So, in the future, let’s assume that I am bad. Just straight from the get-go. Racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, let’s just pile them on.

                                There.

                                We’ve established that I am bad.

                                To use your words, “the Milo supporter”.

                                Now what?

                                I’m not sure that yelling “THAT PERSON IS BAD!” works anymore. The problem is that it worked so well for so long that a lot of people have forgotten the other ways to argue against people.

                                So let’s assume that I am Milo’s biggest fan.

                                Do you have an argument beyond that?

                                Report

                              • I know I’m not around a ton these days but don’t we usually take people at their word about what they believe rather than divining their true intentions through deeper readings of them as a person?

                                Report

                              • ” I didn’t hear a peep from you when a Milo supporter literally shot a protestor. ”

                                He shot someone with a swastika tattoo who, he thought, attacked him in a scrum. It’s a dumb situation and the guy shouldn’t have been carrying if he was going to act like that, but if you want to make this be a thing where Milo Supporters Are Literally Targeting People For Assassination And Jaybird Doesn’t Care, you’re gonna need something better than that.

                                Report

                              • You mean this guy?

                                Released. “The man and his wife surrendered to UW police several hours later, claiming he fired in self-defense, according to law-enforcement officials. He was questioned and released. The Seattle Times is not naming the man because he has not been charged with a crime.”

                                Assuming no new evidence, he did nothing wrong.

                                Report

                    • Well hell I’m absolutely one of the “stop being violent you idiots; if you actually care about left/liberal causes (and the jury is out on that) being violent hurts them” liberals.
                      But this post was about College Republicans and what inviting Milo says about them, regardless of how Liberals do or don’t react.

                      Report

                      • But this post was about College Republicans and what inviting Milo says about them, regardless of how Liberals do or don’t react.

                        With an emphasis on Milo’s hypocrisy with regards to Free Speech that followed an explicit acknowledgement of the no-platforming that takes place on college campuses.

                        Report

                          • Yet it’s sadly consistent with the left mentioned in this paragraph:

                            I won’t step into the debate around the ethics and worthiness of direct action or no platforming. This is an essential dispute that the various coalitions of the left will need to continuously discuss in the age of Trump and beyond.

                            The question of consistency is a question of “consistency in *WHAT*”?

                            I mean, if consistency is a virtue at all. (Personally, I see consistency as more of a handmaiden of the virtues than a virtue in and of itself.)

                            Report

                            • What about this? What about that? Ooh, look over there, a squirrel calling someone a racist! We have, have had, and will have plenty of threads in which to talk about whether or not lefty protesters are doing it right or not. Roland was trying to have just one thread about whether or not College Republicans should keep paying Milo money and giving him a forum, and apparently the reasoned judgment of the right-of-center commentariat here is that no, we absolutely cannot talk about that thing, because the lefty protesters are doing it wrong and we need to talk about them, right now, right here, instead of talking about what Roland was trying to talk about.

                              Report

                              • Well, I’ll just say this again:

                                I am certain that I disagree with the college Republicans that invite him.

                                I think that, absent the riots, they’d be doing damage to their own cause.

                                Absent the riots, people would look at Milo and see that he is a transparent fraud and provocateur who is merely a genius when it comes to self-promotion and is standing on no foundation at all.

                                Absent the riots, I’m sure that we’d all be able to see that sort of thing.

                                Absent the riots.

                                Report

            • If you want to talk about hypocrisy, I’d say the post wasn’t about Milo’s hypocrosy. It was about how an organization committed to free speech on campus wouldn’t invite Milo to speak because he’s not a supporter of free speech.

              Report

            • But that said, your post sure sounds to me like you were mockingly adopting the voice of a liberal labeling and shouting down Milo. Perhaps I didn’t read your intent correctly, but I don’t think that’s my fault as a reader here.

              Report

              • So, if he adopted that voice and says the same things that the liberals shouting down Milo say, does that make those things wrong? If so, why? Are they wrong because Jaybird, or wrong because they’re wrong in themselves?

                Report

                • They’re wrong because they are side-stepping the point of the post and, just like the college Republicans Roland was calling out, ignoring the noxious racist bully in the conservative ranks in order to complain about lefty protesters. It’s a move that can be wrong even if the criticism of the lefty protesters is 100% valid and accurate.

                  Report

                • All liberals are fairly tarred with anything the dumbest of them says. No republican is fairly tarred with anything even the leadership of the GOP says.

                  It’s been sixteen years of this. Until you let me know when you’re responsible for things Trump does, don’t make me responsible for things a group of non-campus east bay degenerates does.

                  Report

                  • “All liberals are fairly tarred with anything the dumbest of them says. No republican is fairly tarred with anything even the leadership of the GOP says.”

                    what in the hell are you even talking about dude

                    “Until you let me know when you’re responsible for things Trump does, don’t make me responsible for things a group of non-campus east bay degenerates does.”

                    I got an idea. How about you stop saying “whoa, the KKK endorsed Trump, DOESN’T THAT MEAN SOMETHING” and we’ll stop saying “whoa, anti-Milo protestors set things on fire and smashed windows, that reflects badly on the movement, or maybe it would if there were any unbroken glass left”

                    Report

  3. Maybe if Milo didn’t get all the attention from the rioting snowflakes his shtick might wear thin and eventually no one would care.

    Report

    • I think you’re probably right. He’d ratchet up his assholery just to the edge of legality in an attempt to get attention, but if it didn’t get him the attention, that would be it. Unfortunately he has a critical mass of supporters that allow him to make trouble for some time without any new attention, so the opportunity to nip him in the bud by simply ignoring him has passed. People being outraged fed him too much and now he has momentum.

      Now people either have to do the hard work of ignoring a big groundswell of assholery for an extended period of time while the lack of attention starves the phenomenon, which is hard, so protesters and people with voices in the media are going to keep playing his game and feeding him. They deserve each other. If only there was a way to avoid making him rich while they clash.

      Report

  4. I think Road Scholar has it right above. The Republican Party has been turned into the Party of Trump and Breitbart. Trump might be unpopular overall but 81 percent of the GOP base loves him.

    This might have always been the case. A lot of leading conservatives like Coulter cut their teeth mocking liberals on campus in ways that were callous and Milo lite. As to “generating debate”, I think they are a sniveling bunch of cowards hiding behind weasel words.

    There is a liberal meme that I have seen on the net. It showed Trump cruely imitating the disabled reporter for the Times. The picture is accompanied by text that states “I don’t know why this did not disqualify Trump” or some such.

    I know why and I am a liberal. A lot of humans are tribal and cruel and will look for any opportunity to be cruel. It never and will never occur to them that making fun of someone for an immutable trait or background characteristic is wrong. When did my fellow liberals become Pollyannas on human nature?

    Report

    • I don’t know that liberals are exactly naive on human nature. Based on my reading of LGM, a lot of them seem to think that all white people in the United States are evil by birth, especially if they are men. They also think that anybody who disagrees with them on even the most minor point are evil or at best severely misguided. That’s being Calvinistic, not Pollyannish.

      Report

      • Of course liberals are naive about human nature. That’s by definition. Liberals believe that all humans should be treated alike. (Under Color of the Law is a sidenote, and a restriction that doesn’t apply to a lot of what the liberals stand for).

        Report

      • And since this topic is specifically about campus politics, in my recent experience its quite easy to be treated like your a reactionary for being a technocratic liberal rather than a fully committed advocate of social justice as understood by the campus left crowd. I felt pretty sorry for the explicity christian or free-marketer students for how in the minority and shouted down they must have felt.

        On the other hand, what I’m pretty sure the motivation for the campus Repulicans in this case was not “free speech,” but a provcation to make people they don’t like look bad. Which they succeed at because people don’t know better than to not be baited like that.

        Report

  5. “I would like to actually ask college Republicans to articulate what they hope to gain from bringing Milo.”

    Make libruls heds assplode.

    The conservative movement has nothing other than Cleek’s Law and spite left.

    What do they believe in?
    What are their motivating principles?

    They have abandoned every single possible principle of conservatism, from free market economics to moral propriety to American defense of the free world.

    We keep analyzing and studying the Trump base, and keep finding the same answer; they are angry, and believe they have been wronged, and want to punish someone.

    Report

        • How many angry conservatives you seen lately?

          I don’t even know who ‘college Republicans’ are supposed to refer to in the essay other than maybe some coastal republican college kids. Maybe they are thumbin’ in the eye of liberals, but what are we talking 10,000 yutes?

          Conservatives are moving nearly every goalpost they can in the direction they want.

          Report

            • I think the difference is that the party out of power is always angry, but there seems to be only one side that reliably does stuff primarily because it upsets the other guys. With the exception of gay wedding cake court stunts, I don’t see a lot of, “Because it pisses conservatives off,” as the reason for doing things.

              Milo is definitely a “because he pisses liberals off” phenomenon. If they had to just sit in a room and listen to him without the joy of knowing that upsetting people they don’t like, only the much smaller subset who thinks Ann Coulter is a deep thinker would actually be entertained.

              Report

                • I think I just need to point out that I’ve had a number of discussions on this very forum with people who use, “Because it pisses liberals off,” as a reason they support certain policies. University speaker invitations made out of spite are just another manifestation of the problem that underlies government by spite.

                  Report

                  • There for sure is a state of enmity. Even if a truce were made all the old positions would soon re-apply themselves to the same hills.
                    I feel that it comes from the way liberals appear to ‘own’ and progress the social policy world. It is seen as aggressive if not outright coercive in many circumstances.

                    Aggressing against an agressor isn’t held in the same light as aggressing against a non-aggressor. That’s why the ‘pissing liberals off’ is kind of a vectored thing.

                    Report

            • Hell if I were to pick a population of angry frothing at the mouth folks like Chip always likes to make fun of, well, who would I be looking at today.

              Well, lets start with the Frother-in Chief, with his Twitter tirades.

              Report

          • Lately? Not many, after all their party just ostensibly won the election. I’m not exactly in tune with conservative thought but I’d describe their mood as a combination of delight and terror.

            None of that, however, addresses Chips’ points. In electing Trump the conservatives demonstrated that very few of their ostensible principles are actually central. Character doesn’t matter, defense hawkishness is once again demonstrated as a chimera, social conservatives continues their retreat (albeit now in a more orderly controlled manner credit where it’s due), and the republican versions of libertarianism stand stripped of every veneer of voter support from their own side. What do conservatives actually believe in now days? In the wake of Trump’s election it’s difficult to say for sure beyond spiting liberals- I’m unsure if Trump even knows himself.

            Report

            • I would have to see some pretty clear attribute data to connect voting for a person in a political system, to someones personal principles or beliefs. Especially given the years of screwed upness of the system in question.

              Report

            • After Trump’s defense of Putin to Bill O’Reilly, in saying America has a lot of killers too, I wandered thru the comments setion of Gateway Pundit, the most reliable Trump outlet after Breitbart.

              It was interesting/ sad to see a pitched battle between the rightists declaring “Yeah, America has no moral ground to criticize Russia!” and the “b-but Putin is a monster!”

              FWIW, the pro-Russian side appears to be winning the day.
              Matt Levin calls them the “CodePink Republicans” and I gotta say, its an apt description.
              Only 2 years ago anyone voicing such a comment would have been declared a traitor;
              Today, we are friends with Russia, we have always been friends with Russia.

              A few years ago, anyone suggesting that President Obama install a tariff wall to outsourcing, would have received a haughty lesson in “Econ 101”;

              Today, we demand a command and control economy, we have always demanded a command and control economy.

              I mean, seriously can anyone here actually articulate a “conservative” position that is evidenced by the Trump Administration?

              Report

            • Conservatives believe in using government to make wealthy people wealthier at the expense of everything else and using every rhetorical tactic possible to do so even if it means invoking some of the uglier parts of human nature like raw tribalism.

              Report

          • I think there’s still a market for “say whatever makes liberals’ heads asplode.” It may not be quite the same thing now, but that’s because the agitated policy bromides need to identify some remnant of the Obama Administration or an external threat to agitate against, and then it gets followed by a brand-new coda that I’ve heard a lot of: “And we’re in power and you aren’t so we’re going to do this if we want to. By the way, you changed the rules so you can sit down, shut up, and if you don’t like it, try to win an election sometime you liberal LOSERS!” I’ve seen that, expressed in various ways, a fair amount from the rightward members of my twitterfeed, which usually results in dozens of likes and retweets.

            Report

            • Man, I used twitter once and put it down and never looked back. I catch stuff on the sidebar here on occasion. Not sure that’s the platform of level heads.

              I’m sure if anyone of the right is stuck over there in cali, they probably would be a little hostile. ;)

              Report

  6. Ben Shapiro will energize the crowd and bring out the protesters as much as Milo Yiannopolous, but he’s smart. If you’re thinking about a campus speaker and you’re hoping to trigger some leftist outrage, why not go with the guy who’ll give a meaningful presentation?

    Report

    • That sort of gives away the game. The only thing Milo offers is more leftist anger in exchange for less content. If they’re making that trade off, we know what the audience really wants.

      Report

      • Ben and Milo have both been barred from campuses; they’ve both had events disrupted by protesters. Up until a week ago I would have said that they’re equally controversial. As far as I know they’re equally in circulation on the lecture trail.

        Report

        • I would say they’re equally controversial with the types of people who protest speeches at universities, but Elmo is probably just as controversial as they are with that crowd. Getting the fringe worked up is easy. If you want to get *everybody* who isn’t nuts annoyed at you, you invite Milo.

          For myself, I’m a pretty reliable Democrat but not especially radical in my beliefs and I don’t even really consider Shapiro and Yiannapolous to be the same sort of organism. The only thing they have in common is that they’re on the right and they upset various segments of the left. Beyond that, one of them is a legitimate thinker who believes the things he says and the other is a clown who wouldn’t be making any money if he didn’t have the power to cause riots and will say anything as long as the riots keep happening.

          Report

          • I think we’re mostly in agreement. My problem with your comment about what “the audience really wants” is that is seemed to imply that Milo is significantly more popular than Ben. He may be more popular, but I don’t think it’s a blowout. They look comparable in Youtube view count.

            Report

            • Well, the important thing to remember here is that if there’s one slot, he just needs to get 51% of the votes of whatever small set of people are choosing the speaker. It doesn’t say a heck of a lot about his popularity in the grand scheme of things. As long as he fills an auditorium, he’s popular enough. We’d have to look at turnout numbers for both to know which one is more popular with the actual viewers, but based on my experience with college students attending speaker events, I’d put my money on Milo.

              But to the extent that *some* group of people made the decision, it reveals their preferences pretty neatly.

              Report

  7. “Stop feeding Milo Yiannopolous.”
    =
    “Baby, you’ve got to know better than to talk back to me when I’ve been drinking. It’ll just get your lip split.”

    Report

  8. The liberal handwringing over Milo and the people who loudly oppose him seems overwrought.

    The utilitarian argument asserts that the violent protests somehow help him appear sympathetic; I don’t believe this.

    In order for that argument to be true, there has to be a significant set of people who are ambivalent about Milo, but after seeing the violent protests swing in his favor.

    Where are these people, have we heard from them? Or do they exist only in David Broder’s ghost’s head?

    The other idea is some sort of free speech absolutism, the Nazis-in-Skokie thing.

    I can be sympathetic, but my sympathies are very limited.
    Because civil society must have boundaries and taboos and limits.

    If you want to be protected by the umbrella of civil society, you kind of need to establish you are a part of it.

    Report

    • It doesn’t have to be that it makes Milo look good, it just has to be that it plays into (imo unfair and irrational) impressions of marginal voters that liberals are kooks and hippies and rioters. If you look at how these events are covered, it’s all about how bad and scary the protests are rather than how odious and awful the guy the college Republicans are embracing is. It’s unfair, but it’s how the world works.

      Report

      • Right, but who are these people who get these impressions?
        The marginal swing voters?
        I doubt it.
        And how could we counter?

        Because you know that the Murdoch press has struggled mightily to portray the millions of people in the Women’s March as paid stooges of George Soros, fringe anarchists, souor grapes Hillary supporters, or any other epithet they could invent.

        As we’ve discussed on other threads, it doesn’t matter what we do, what we say, how we act.
        We aren’t being viewed and judged by an impassive objective jury;

        To frame all of our protests on “How can we prevent Fox News from making us look bad” allows them manipulate us into silence because, you will find out that the only protest that isn’t a violent thuggish fringe is one that celebrates the Dear Leader.

        Report

          • Radical theory: elections aren’t going to be won by reaching for a middle that doesn’t exist. They’ll be won by mobilizing those who support you to actually effing vote.

            Violent protests are bad for that, which is one of the many reasons that the black bloc is stupid. Protests, however, are great for that, which is why the GOP is trying desperately to discredit the huge volume of protest we’ve had so far. Or, hilariously, try for a BSDI by showing literally dozens of pro-trumpers “rallying.”

            Report

        • “who are these people who get these impressions? The marginal swing voters?”

          Bro, we just had an election where the marginal swing voters stayed home and Donald Trump WON because of it.

          Report

    • Chip, dude, you and I both know there’s a huge horde of low info voters and their votes count just as much as the votes of the much smaller numbers of high info voters. When they hear about Milo they have no clue what he stands for except A) liberals say he’s a monster and B) some leftists riot and burn property over him. To low info voters A) liberals call everyone monsters and B) people who riot and burn property are unsympathetic and they like to vote against them.
      So it’s not hard for me to see a pretty strong utilitarian argument against violent leftists even before we talk about how these idiots hurt their own causes and are damaging norms that protect leftists and anti-institutionalists far more than they protect the establishment or right wingers. I’m not going to quote Robert Bolt but you know it’s salient here.

      Report

      • I would like to meet one of these people and see what their impressions of the Bundy gang were.

        Boy, they must surely have become Hillary supporters after that episode!

        Report

          • And if I asked about the assassinations of abortion providers, they would scratch their heads and knit their brows.
            If I asked about the training camps for white militia groups, the bomb threats to Jewish groups, Eric Rudolph…crickets.

            This is why I think the whole problem is hypersensitivity of the left to our fringe.

            The right loves their bombthrowers, both the metaphorical and literal kind.
            And they don’t suffer from it.
            Why should we?

            The swing voter who might come to our side, but for the black bloc guys;
            but for the Occupy guy who crapped on a cops car;
            but for the MoveOn guy who drew a Hitler mustache on GWB’s photo;
            but for the campus silliness of safe spaces;
            BUT FOR HER EMAILS…

            these people are mythical beasts.

            Report

            • Odd, I usually find that right wingers frantically and angrily denounce people who assassinate abortion providers and claim they’re not true rightists.

              Okay so the mushy center is imaginary? I don’t believe it; the available data doesn’t support it. 2008 happened in the same universe as 2016.

              Let’s turn it around here? Who, exactly, does a masked idiot setting fire to things and breaking windows make go “You know those guys sure make me more enthusiastic about supporting their causes”?

              Report

        • “I would like to meet one of these people and see what their impressions of the Bundy gang were.”

          “Huh, so the government says that these ranchers aren’t allowed to run cattle? Sounds like the ranchers are gettin’ a shitty deal there. They’re in an armed standoff? That’s kinda dangerous, hope nobody gets hurt like happened at Waco.”

          Report

    • I think I am somewhere between you and Don Zeko.

      I agree that there is a lot of pearl clutching on this issue and the number of people with neutral opinion’s on Milo Y can probably fit very comfortably into a phone booth. On the other hand, the left seems to get lumped together when in truth Anarchists and Communists have very little in common with mainstream liberals like me.

      It is interesting that a lot of people consider me far to the left when I can point to people who make me seem center-right in many ways. But a lot of people (wrongly in my opinion) lump all the protestors together and I also think Steve Bannon would love to see an anti-Trump protest erupt into people throwing things at cops and breaking even more windows.

      I don’t like the Black Bloc. I largely consider them people who want to break things as opposed to people pushing for specific changes.

      One of the reasons I think OWS fell apart is because you initially had working people like cops and teachers who were sympathetic but it was taken over by people who just wanted to burn everything down and start again. The incramentalism v. burn it all down argument will always cripple the left.

      Report

    • If you want to be protected by the umbrella of civil society, you kind of need to establish you are a part of it.

      Exactly. I think you’re just mistaken as it pertains to who this is supposed to apply to. Libs think they’re just “resisting” the Trump Administration, but really they’re resisting most of civil society. And society can and likely will take countermeasures.

      Report

        • … voting for Hillary in greater aggregate numbers than DJT;
          … having a really big march;
          … telling true stories about the importance of the ACA in keeping them alive;
          … thereby scaring off the Republican party from passing its ACA repeal bill
          … truthfully pointing out that Presidential spokespeople are having trouble with telling the truth;
          …. truthfully pointing out DJT’s most notable efforts to date in “shaking things up” have not complied with the law or Constitution;

          … in general, preventing Koz from getting what he (she? lost track) wants (which, as best I can tell, is complete submission by liberals)

          Report

        • Specifically, by their attempts to prevent the Trump Administration from performing the day-to-day operations of the Executive Branch.

          More generally, by their pollution of our cultural sphere through their assumptions of territorial control over it, eg, this Milo thing. People need to have the freedom to engage with each other on their own terms. We all have some idea what that’s supposed to entail, and what the reasonable exceptions or caveats might be.

          A lot of libs like to believe this, until it becomes inconvenient, and then the morally defective rationalizations come out. This spoils our public culture. So it’s important to emphasize that the downside to libs goes substantially beyond the relatively narrow confines of politics.

          Report

          • their attempts to prevent the Trump Administration from performing the day-to-day operations of the Executive Branch.

            Like, by hiding the light switches?

            …pollution of our cultural sphere…

            I’m tempted to go full “Old School Conservative Chip” and start quoting Russell Kirk, or Moynihan, or Buckley or Muggeridge on you, and go on at length about the need for civil society to stand its ground against the transgressive profanity of Milo and his crowd.

            See, what makes Milo so newsworthy is that he uses the transgressive cultural violence of the countercultural Yippies, in the opposite direction. He is channeling Abbie Hoffman but flips the bird not at the Pentagon but at the staid edifices of modern moral conformity in favor of a radical individualism.

            Report

            • Like, by hiding the light switches?

              ?

              I’m tempted to go full “Old School Conservative Chip” and start quoting Russell Kirk, or Moynihan, or Buckley or Muggeridge on you, and go on at length about the need for civil society to stand its ground against the transgressive profanity of Milo and his crowd.

              And if you did, I’d probably be inclined to agree with you. But that’s not what this is about now, is it? But fwiw, I have seen very little of Milo directly but my impressions agrees with yours (Yippies, Abbie Hoffman etc.), which is why I find him vaguely distasteful.

              Report

              • What has happened over the past few decades is the lefts version of individualism has weakened, and their embrace of solidarity and community norms has strengthened.

                For example in 1972 a liberal view of homosexuality might celebrate no strings attached sexual freedom while a 2016 version celebrates married gay parents and lesbian Scout leaders.

                Most community norms and social culture have now absorbed liberal notions; laws demand access for the handicapped, men marry men, corporations celebrate Happy Holidays instead of Christmas, and women advance in careers that were once reserved for men.

                What the Trump voters reject, is not a change in norms- its far too late for that.

                What they are advocating is revanchism and restoration, to explode the current norms in favor of the old ones.

                Enter Milo, the bombthrower.

                Report

                • This is an odd comment, and I don’t think it holds up as written. You’re probably thinking of ancillary situations relative to what you have written.

                  For example in 1972 a liberal view of homosexuality might celebrate no strings attached sexual freedom while a 2016 version celebrates married gay parents and lesbian Scout leaders.

                  I’m no big expert on homosexuality but this reads wrong for me. But my guess is, in 1972 almost every sort of Leftist (including conventional liberals) would have agreed in the aesthetic revulsion against homosexuality. And as far as making a political point, the more Marxist inclined would have said that it was a late capitalist degeneracy of the alienation from labor (in retrospect, they might have been right).

                  Most community norms and social culture have now absorbed liberal notions; laws demand access for the handicapped, men marry men, corporations celebrate Happy Holidays instead of Christmas, and women advance in careers that were once reserved for men.

                  The political energy and violence behind this relative to the plausible return doesn’t make sense either, and creates some weird time warps in libs’ minds. Like we have to have stairways in 747s to be ADA compliant, in order to retroactively refight the civil rights movement or women’s suffrage.

                  Enter Milo, the bombthrower.

                  And this doesn’t work either, at least not directly. Trump is not a revanchist, Milo is especially not a revanchist. I think you think some low-left English triple bank shot logic to make this work.

                  Report

                • Enter Milo, the bombthrower.

                  The Milo riots at Berkeley have exposed an interesting lacuna in lib thought over the last couple of weeks or however it’s been.

                  So far we’ve seen a few different responses to the riots. Eg, “those were just a few anarchist troublemakers, nothing representative of libs in general.” One the of the libs here took this angle, and to be fair it was substantially more credible when he started that line of argument than it is now.

                  Robert Reich insinuated that the rioters were in fact right-wing agents provacateur.

                  Some elements of the Berkeley campus Left basically said, yeah Milo sucks, the riots were a good thing.

                  Finally, at least one blogpost (linked from here) tried to argue that free speech wasn’t a real principle to respect any more, but a bourgeois conceit or some other Left jargon for something acceptable to disdain. Frankly, that one scares me the most, because I fear that a good number of the libs here are sympathetic to that, or at least would be if they thought about it.

                  But for me, there’s an dog that’s not barking here. There’s an obvious alternative that the libs seem to be putting in a decent effort to avoid considering. Specifically, “I, as lib, know at some level that it’s wrong for me to attempt to prevent a generic speaker from meeting with a willing audience. But, in this case at least, I want to assert at least a little bit of control over it anyway. And I did this because I was a bad person.”

                  It’s very important for libs to be able to acknowledge this, not just in this one case but in general, even though it could be embarrassing or painful.

                  Report

                    • I guess that’s another response, which I suppose I could have mentioned, though frankly I didn’t see much of it.

                      Fwiw, I didn’t write anything but I agreed with your prior argument about Elizabeth Warren. Ie, that she violated the Senate rule pertaining to Jeff Sessions but the context where she was speaking was in relation to a nominee before the Senate as opposed to a colleague. It doesn’t happen often enough to worry about I guess.

                      Report

                • Enter Milo, the bombthrower.

                  Neither you nor the left can control the existence of folks like Milo, however, folks can control how they act/react or respond. So far the response doesn’t seem to live up to the better angels of the left’s nature. (assuming there are any)

                  Report

                  • Well ok, if Milo is out on a fringe where we expect to see crazy people that can’t be controlled by the center, why are we assuming “the left” can control the people breaking windows? How about the college republicans that invite Milo to speak and pay him money, are they responsible for their actions?

                    Report

                    • How about the college republicans that invite Milo to speak and pay him money, are they responsible for their actions?

                      Of course they are. I hope this isn’t a sad attempt to compare free speech to violence.

                      Report

                      • Of course it isn’t; I’ve said repeatedly in this thread that rioting over some guy speaking at a campus event is bad and wrong. I’m just wondering why it is that you think Milo’s general awfulness doesn’t say anything about the right or Republicans, but the rioting of a few dozen or maybe hundred people at this event says something about the left writ large.

                        Report

                        • I’m not buying the idea that Milo is generally awful. But it’s pretty clear from the aftermath of the riots and other expressions of “resistance” that these riots are fairly associated with the modern Left in America, among other reasons because the Left has made that association themselves.

                          The Left has corrupted, in their own minds the rhythm and context of politics in the larger space of the public sphere, and the “resistance” is the current expression of that corruption. So instead of trying to micromanage Milo’s ability to talk on campus or Donald Trump’s Executive Orders, the appropriate move for all parties is for the libs to uncorrupt that first.

                          Report

                        • wondering why it is that you think Milo’s general awfulness doesn’t say anything about the right or Republicans, but the rioting of a few dozen or maybe hundred people at this event says something about the left writ large.

                          Two issues.

                          First, what Milo is doing is legal. I, as a bystander, am under no obligation to stop him, gather evidence for the police, use my smartphone to take photos, etc. Everyone knows who he is and where he is so there are no problems enforcing the law if he does step over the line.

                          For the Protesters, the opposite is true. If my roommate or fellow protester is breaking things or starting fires, then me not turning in my phone’s evidence is a problem, so is me covering for him in any way.

                          2nd, we’ve had people on this forum state what Milo is doing isn’t even problematic. That Milo-the-reality is different than Milo-the-Left’s-claim. The Left has a long history of screaming “wolf” for their naked political advantage, and it’s possible they’re doing it yet again.

                          It’s possible that Milo *isn’t* “generally awful” and the Left is just using false accusations to stir up trouble and then blaming the Right for their own violence.

                          That this is, as usual, about the Left wanting power and not “the Right being awful”.

                          Report

                          • Well ok, I suppose i shouldn’t have taken ‘s comment distancing himself from Milo seriously. He is a member in good standing of the right and liberals like Ben Shapiro and Ian Tuttle in the National Review are wrong to think that he is, at best, running cover for open racism and anti-semitism. My mistake; I’ll go back to flagellating myself for being on the same side of the political spectrum as some criminals in Berkely that I’ve already condemned repeatedly in this thread.

                            Report

                            • I suppose what both of us should do is find a clip of Milo’s act and see if it’s really vile or just somewhat vile or even just on the edge.

                              On the other hand I’m not into flagellation so maybe not.

                              Report

                              • I haven’t watched his act, but I have read a transcript. The whole thing.

                                The thing is, Milo’s act isn’t *that* different than you’d read on a lot of right-wing places. 95% of his act is just completely standard fair. I don’t know how well he is at delivery, but even the text seems funny to me. Hell, he’s *less* offensive than some of the other stuff I’ve read at Breitbart.

                                I am aware he’s said some really vile things in *general*, but these speeches aren’t, because he knows his crowd, and these are generic right-leaning college students, not his alt-right twitter base. For example, with the immigration, it’s not ‘We must maintain the purity of the white race’, it’s ‘Poor Mexicans will take our jobs…and people who claim this is about race are idiots.’.

                                The problem is the remaining 5%, the 5% that appears to be topical…and by topical, I mean, he starts bringing up specific liberals that *go to the school* he’s giving the speech at, and how bad they are. Identifies them by name, sometimes (not sure how often, but he’s done it) throw up a picture on the wall, etc.

                                The speech I happened to read, the person he singled out was someone who had reported harassment for wearing a hijab, and he decided that the harassment claim was bogus, and she was just a liar.

                                So, well, if she actually *was* getting harassed…well, it’s probably going to get worse.

                                It’s that sort of assholery that people are objecting to. He could avoid those references to current students, hell, he could *use students at other colleges*, just mix up his examples where he’s not specifically *singling out actual students on the campus*, and almost all of the people objecting to him would vanish.

                                I certainly wouldn’t be objecting to him speaking. (Although it would still be fair to point out that College Republicans are inviting a speaker who has said some *really* horrible stuff, even if he’s not going to say it there.)

                                But his entire shtick is that liberals are just running around *pretending* they are harassed. It’s why his show name calls him ‘Dangerous’, because he’s claiming that liberals are pretending that’s dangerous and it’s not.

                                It’s a stunt. Give a *mostly* reasonable speech, claim that he’s being attacked for *that*, claim that liberals will not allow conservative ideas on campus. Meanwhile, everyone on the right is totally outraged by these horrible censoring liberals, and ignore the fact all the left is *actually* complaining about his ‘Single individual students on campus out for possible targeting’ shtick.

                                Report

                                • Oh, and incidentally, I don’t want to give them impression that Milo *isn’t* a very vile person. He is. Hell, I stay away from his as much as possible, and even I’ve seen vile tweets from him, and he is the weird sort of gay man who is utterly freaked out by women merely existing. (heterophobic?) Not, like, pretend disgusted, but actually disgusted by the entire concept.

                                  But the thing is, he’s not *not giving vile speeches* on these campuses. (He would probably get thrown off the stage even by a *right-leaning* crowd at a college if he expressed that sort of thing.)

                                  He is giving perfectly sounding speeches, gently mocking a bunch of liberal, and even some conservative ideas. These speeches, almost incidentally, happens to talk about how horrible specific liberals are *that go to class with you*, and here’s a bunch of information about those horrible liberals.

                                  And isn’t it absurd how liberals try to make that out to be dangerous? How they try to pretend he’s dangerous for saying those sorts of things? It’s just information, and it’s not like any minority has ever been attacked before because they got singled out.

                                  And when they *do* claim that, they’re *lying*.

                                  Report

                                • The speech I happened to read, the person he singled out was someone who had reported harassment for wearing a hijab, and he decided that the harassment claim was bogus, and she was just a liar.

                                  Didn’t someone on this forum point out that she actually was lying, or am I misremembering?

                                  As far as I can tell, false claims of victimhood by SJW are pretty common. If he’d come to my old campus, he could have talked about two false claims of rape. One of my ex-inlaws has made five or so.

                                  If you’re going to make public false claims of abuse, then a public shaming is appropriate.

                                  Report

                                    • In the days after the election, you wrote a comment to me that contained a number of attacks by, presumably, Trump supporters against, presumably, Clinton supporters.

                                      I’m trying to google it now but I can’t find it right away.

                                      I’m wondering how many of the examples you gave me ended up being hoaxes.

                                      I’m wondering what it would demonstrate if more of them were than not.

                                      But, as I said, I’m having trouble finding the comment so I can’t prove anything quite yet.

                                      Report

                                    • More or less common than actual abuses?

                                      Depends a lot on the claim, the details, and the level of self serving-ness.

                                      So for swastikas made from fecal matter, probably all of them are false. For Rape? I think I remember studies suggesting a hair more than half of rape police reports are false.

                                      “more or less common than actual” is probably the wrong question. I assume many/most cases of abuse aren’t reported because people have lives. That doesn’t change the level of falsehood on actual reports.

                                      There are people who *like* the drama, the attention, the sympathy, and the power from being a victim. Support groups offer sympathy and take everything at face value. They don’t ask detailed questions that would show the victim is making it up. This is true in spades for SJW incidents which happen to SJW activists.

                                      This btw is yet another reason why the police and not colleges should be handling this sort of thing. The *idea* that false claims even happen, much less is a serious problem, is heresy for certain groups.

                                      If someone says they’re a victim then that’s supposed to be this ultimate trump card. But since we mostly don’t punish for false reporting it’s a very-high-reward very-low-risk move.

                                      Report

                                  • Didn’t someone on this forum point out that she actually was lying, or am I misremembering?

                                    No. I am the only person who mentioned her, because I randomly read *that* specific Milo transcript to find out what he talked about on campuses. In fact, as far as I know, of all the people pointing out horrible Milo behavior, I am literally the only using her as an example, because I *just happened* to stumble across that particular speech and read it. (Note, again, this speech is up on Breitbart, so presumably he’s proud of it.)

                                    All I said she had not reported it to the police, which Milo took as evidence she was lying.

                                    Of course, the reason she had not reported it to the police is that it was basically a person she knew tugging at her hijab and making some prejudice comments, and she did not want that person to be arrested for such a stupid thing. She merely reported it to the people at the school in charge of such things, and hoped they would have a discussion with him.

                                    And, while we’re talking about shaming people, it is worth pointing out *she has not said who it was* publicly because she feels *he* shouldn’t be shamed for it.

                                    As I’ve asked before, do I need to read *more* of Milo’s idiotic speeches to figure out how he singled out *other* people and what their supposed crime was? Seriously, I picked that speech *at random*, and I’ve actually not see other people mention this example, which makes me wonder what *else* is in his speeches?

                                    I mean, there was that trans student that was singled out, who he claimed was…lying about being trans, I think? (Of course, as her older pre-transition picture was put on the screen, and *no one recognized her* in the audience, I think we can perhaps assume that she *is* trans and he was completely wrong.)

                                    He called a professor at West Virginia University a ‘fat faggot’. Which, I suspect, is probably against the student code of conduct.

                                    As far as I can tell, false claims of victimhood by SJW are pretty common. If he’d come to my old campus, he could have talked about two false claims of rape. One of my ex-inlaws has made five or so.

                                    Like that guy who is falsely claiming he was shot at a Milo event.

                                    I mean, was actually shot.

                                    Report

                                    • Like that guy who is falsely claiming he was shot at a Milo event.

                                      (I tried posting the link and my post got axed so here’s a longer quote. I think this is the event in question.)

                                      Radical leftists staged a violent riot outside of a Seattle speaking event by Milo Yiannopoulos on Friday night. They assaulted people and threw bricks and paint at police officers. Then someone shot a 32 year old white male in the abdomen. The injury was considered life threatening. The victim was still listed as being in critical condition on Saturday. Two men, including the shooter, turned themselves in to University of Washington police a few hours after the shooting.

                                      Shortly after, a local “Antifa” gang in Seattle announced that the victim is one of their “comrades.” They immediately blamed the shooting on a “Trump supporter.” So-called “Antifa” gangs wear all black and routinely engage in violence…

                                      The man who was shot was wearing political buttons identifying him as having a far-left/Marxist ideology. Friends told Seattle media that he is a dedicated “anti-racist,”…

                                      However, the police have now disclosed information about the suspect. He is a fifty year old “Asian.” He told police he was attacked by “some type of white supremacist,” and was forced to shoot the man in self-defense.

                                      Seattle authorities appear to be treating the shooting as justifiable self-defense.

                                      Report

                                      • Shortly after, a local “Antifa” gang in Seattle announced that the victim is one of their “comrades.” They immediately blamed the shooting on a “Trump supporter.” So-called “Antifa” gangs wear all black and routinely engage in violence…

                                        There’s video of the shooting on Reddit.
                                        http://patch.com/washington/seattle/video-shows-moments-shooting-uw-milo-yiannopoulos-protest

                                        It’s from a distance and there are people in the way, and it’s really hard to tell when the gun first appeared so it’s hard to interpret events…but the shooting victim’s head and face are clearly uncovered then entire time, and the ‘all black’ outfit he is wearing appears to be some sort of black (leather?) jacket over a black t-shirt with some graphics on it, which is way too identifiable to be an antifa ‘uniform’, which they make themselves out of black cloth.

                                        The outfit and look screams ‘biker’, actually.

                                        Antifa might call him a ‘comrade’, but there’s no evidence he was part of antifa.

                                        However, the police have now disclosed information about the suspect. He is a fifty year old “Asian.” He told police he was attacked by “some type of white supremacist,” and was forced to shoot the man in self-defense.

                                        And then, after shooting someone in self-defense, he ran away for two hours and did a factory reset on his phone, and *surely* we should believe his story.

                                        At least the somewhat absurd claim that the shooter was a Sanders supporters has gone away after someone noticed he was attempting to get Milo’s autograph on Facebook, because (The Facebook post claims) *someone stole his MAGA hat* and wanted Milo to sign a new one for him, so, yes, he was a Trump supporter, and a Milo supporter.

                                        And there were claims the victim was a ‘conservative’, which echoed around for a while, have now disappeared. The victim was there claiming to represent the International Workers of the World!

                                        It is fairly clear that the shooter ran off, and spent a lot of time trying to come up with a story that isn’t even slightly real. How about…he was just some a Sanders supporter that got attacked by a racist, and had to defend himself! Sounds good! (I wonder how long it took him to realize he needed a story, because he had been filmed by a dozen people and he was going to be found.)

                                        I don’t know. Maybe he *did* have to defend himself. The video does show him and the victim yelling about something, and the victim did *run over* to the shooter fairly quickly, in a manner that could be threatening…although it really doesn’t seem they were still arguing, or even talking, when the shooting actually happened.

                                        And, as I said, without knowing when the *gun* came out, it’s sorta hard to tell what is going on. Maybe it’s self defense, who knows?

                                        But the shooter already thrown around enough lies that I really can’t take his word at anything, because it’s become clear that he came up with a ‘clever narrative’ after the shooting before turning himself in that is just completely made up.

                                        Hey, look, what is probably a false claim of victimhood…but not by a SJW.

                                        Seattle authorities appear to be treating the shooting as justifiable self-defense.

                                        No they don’t. They haven’t made any statements at all about it, except to say they are going through video and phone messages. The claim they are ‘treating it as justifiable self-defense’ is just made-up nonsense that seems to be based in the fact they let the shooter go without bail, but that’s not really uncommon in certain places if they don’t think he’s a flight risk.

                                        Edit: Oh, also, the search warrant for the phone specifically mentions they are investigating him for first-degree assault.

                                        Report

                                • SJWs are calling the cops on people wearing Indian Costumes.
                                  At that point, it’s no longer “conservative ideas aren’t allowed on campus” it is “fun is no longer allowed on campus, and you will be Arrested For It”

                                  (Also, yes, some liberals are lying about it. Provable fact — TYT had a liar on their election day coverage, and with no pushback from Cenk, who should have been able to hear the “the whole bus clapped” meme.)

                                  Report

                            • I’ve been a fan of National Review for a long time, but I think both of those pieces are pretty weak, not least because arguments based on extrapolations of twitter feuds don’t necessarily have a lot of substantive weight.

                              Report

                                • I’m sure there are. Most of them I who are probably too obscure for me to worry about. David Duke certainly would be if he were on the right, which he may be, though I don’t know for sure since I have no reason to worry about him.

                                  Report

                                • Out of curiosity, can you name any media figures or elected officials on the right that liberals accurately characterize as racist or anti-Semitic?

                                  Let’s reverse the question.

                                  Is there anyone on the Left that is characterized as racist or anti-Semitic?

                                  If memory serves there used to be serious people claiming it was *impossible* for a minority to be racist (apparently even against other minorities, much less against Whites).

                                  Report

                                  • Let me jump in here, DM. I believe the speaker you’re referring to was, clumsily and not terribly accurately, attempting to elucidate the distinction between prejudice and discrimination. Anyone can be prejudiced against someone else for any one of a number of reasons [insert standard EEOC laundry list here]. But in order to discriminate one has to be in a position to actually do something with that prejudice. This implies a power relationship such as employer/employee.

                                    If you see the various -ism’s as social/cultural phenomena and, correctly, see white/male/hetero/etc as the dominant force in our society, and you see discrimination as the active issue, then that statement sorta makes sense. I don’t completely buy it, but that’s how I would interpret that.

                                    Report

                                    • If you see the various -ism’s as social/cultural phenomena and, correctly, see white/male/hetero/etc as the dominant force in our society, and you see discrimination as the active issue, then that statement sorta makes sense.

                                      There are minority cops, politicians (even Presidents), employers, millionaires, billionaires, cities, and so forth. The concept that they don’t have any power to abuse is laughable.

                                      IMHO a good translation of that is:
                                      “Charges of -ism are supposed to be a political club used against the Right, but never against the Left.”

                                      Far too often this is about political power, not fixing things.

                                      Report

          • “their attempts to prevent the Trump Administration from performing the day-to-day operations of the Executive Branch”

            such as? Marches are legal. Pointing out Administration lies is not only legal but the very purpose of the press. Filing lawsuits is not only legal but a major component of the system of checks and balances.

            Pollution of the cultural sphere? No one’s forcing you to watch HBO. There are still plenty of safe spaces for conservatives. TAC, National Review and Red State are all still publishing, aren’t they?

            (Although demanding a safe space is not exactly a conservative position.)

            What ever happened to the marketplace of ideas?

            (ps: “Pollution” is such an interesting word choice. It suggests that the appropriate response to liberal ideas is to dam them up, prevent them from being heard at all.)

            Report

            • Pollution of the cultural sphere? No one’s forcing you to watch HBO

              Ever notice how badly the people screaming about snowflakes and safe spaces seem to be the ones who neec them?

              Darn you liberals! Your stubborn refusal to lie down and die is triggering conservatives everywhere. Have you no shame?

              Report

                • avoiding microaggressions is what my parents taught me as “politeness”

                  trigger warnings should be nothing more than an effective teaching tool. The TV networks have been delivering them for as long as I can remember.

                  safe spaces can be nothing more that an exercise of the freedom of association.

                  and — most importantly — college kids are somewhere between adults and adolescents. They are going to make stupid mistakes. I went to Dartmouth a year behind Dinesh D’Souza, so I saw liberal-baiting by a true master. He and his team made a few good points, published a fair amount of poorly written shock stuff and also hurt quite a few people. (recording and publishing the transcript of a gay student’s association meeting was particularly low, in my view.)

                  As far as the Berkeley incident goes, what really surprises me was the police’s failure to control the anarchists. Protesting != rioting and the Heckler’s Veto sucks no matter who is doing it. But young kids do love getting their rage on.

                  Report

                  • Francis,
                    Trigger warnings are a fucking joke. If you were to actually put trigger warnings on everything that triggers someone, you’d have to put it on Every Single TV Show out there. (A Friend of mine is triggered by That Fucking Door Noise — as in actual PTSD. I don’t have a lie detector on hand, but I know I could get a GSR just from him listening to it).

                    Report

                    • The point of trigger warnings is not to put warnings on everything that might trigger someone, it’s to put warnings for the biggest triggers out there so that people with PTSD from the most common things that cause PTSD can say “you know what, I’m not going to read this article” at the beginning rather than get halfway through and be blindsided by a particularly graphic example.

                      The argument is not “don’t put door noises in your show without a ‘trigger warning: door noises'” and has never been.

                      Report

                      • I’ll grant that, occasionally, some SJW type will show up and start using “trigger warnings” as a justification for why something shouldn’t have been written in the first place.

                        This is a stupid act and discredits a practice that is, on its own, a good thing.

                        Report

            • such as? Marches are legal. Pointing out Administration lies is not only legal but the very purpose of the press. Filing lawsuits is not only legal but a major component of the system of checks and balances.

              Such as slow-walking the Cabinet and the various disruptions surrounding his inauguration, and the premises behind the anti-Trump energy since then.

              What ever happened to the marketplace of ideas?

              It’s still there obviously but so far at least there is a profound ignorance or undermining of the rhythm of our political culture. In our election season, substantive matters often get stifled because our ability to concentrate is consumed by partisan, factional, or ideological division. Then, we have an election, and those divisions recede from the foreground (or are at least supposed to).

              Last year, Trump was running for President, and we got to hear all sorts of reasons why Trump is unfit, he’s narcissistic, he’s racist, etc, etc. That was last year, this is this year. This year, Trump is President, and libs expect us to entertain their shit like he was still running. Enough already, it’s time to move on, and time for libs to loyally participate in American politics, taking President Donald Trump as a given, or remove themselves from political culture to do other shit, which is also perfectly acceptable.

              (ps: “Pollution” is such an interesting word choice. It suggests that the appropriate response to liberal ideas is to dam them up, prevent them from being heard at all.)

              Pollution in that circumstance is a deliberate word, in contrast to thugs which sometimes conservatives use. It’s certainly fair to describe the Berkeley protestors as thugs, I think, but we should also note that the libs’ intellectual corruptions go way beyond physical violence and threats of violence. Most importantly, it’s an appeal to libs to appreciate that our cultural discourse is a shared resource (as opposed to a propietary resource for them) and we should all steward that resource appropriately.

              Report

                • I think she’s great personally but even if I didn’t Trump is responsible for picking her. Whatever she does is his problem. Show us you want to be part of America, wave her through.

                  Report

                  • Hang on a second – I’ll be right back… Just digging up a quote from you saying exactly the same thing about Merrick Garland.
                    Oh. My.
                    I could be some time…

                    Report

                    • Sigh, it’s easier if you just pretend Merrick Garland doesn’t exist. Mrs. DeVos represents the President, reports to the President, and serves at the pleasure of the President. None of those are true for Justices of the Supreme Court except the first, and sometimes not even then.

                      Report

                      • Easier for whom, exactly? Easier for Senate Republicans to pretend they aren’t a bunch hypocrites that take a wrecking ball to any institution that produces outcomes they dislike, I suppose.

                        Report

                        • Garland is hardly the first, nor will he be the last, Judge to fail to be confirmed by the Senate. There’s a lot to be said to send the balance of the Court to the voters to decide. The voters appointed Obama in 2012, and they appointed the GOP in 2014 to stop him.

                          Think about what happens if Trump sends Garland in there right now. We have a party line vote saying “no”, and then Trump goes back to his list.

                          Report

                                • Where does it say the will of the voters regarding Supreme Court justices is bound to the electoral college (rather than, say, the popular vote)?

                                  The Constitution.

                                  That’s the legal document which lays out how the President is elected and how many Senators each state gets.

                                  Report

                                  • Which has what to do with the GOP’s newfound (then cynically abandoned) belief that you need an election to decide who the people want on the Supreme Court? I don’t recall the electoral college being a part of that particular plebiscite.

                                    Report

                                    • The GOP? The Biden rule was created by former Vice President Biden.

                                      And mostly it’s about political power and costs, but the fig-leaf ethical covering is that we have a President attempting to make a Supreme Court choice in an election year while Congress (who faced the voters more recently) was elected on a mandate to stop him.

                                      Report

                                        • Remind me which Justice’s nomination Joe Biden refused to vote on again?

                                          Joe stated he’d refuse to consider *any* Bush nomination during an election year.

                                          Something about how Presidents historically held themselves back from submitting one at that time, so it’d be unethical and a break in precedence to do so, and the Senate would be ethical and submit it to the voters.

                                          What Joe thought he was doing was establishing rules he’d then say were defined ahead of time. There’s a lot to be said for that.

                                          There was a norm, the GOP broke it.

                                          The norm is that the Pres can submit Supremes (which he did), and the Senate can say “no” (which they did). The norm (and the Constitution) doesn’t cover what form that “no” needs to take, this is the 5th time the Senate has killed a nomination by deliberate inaction. The GOP took the route of maximizing their ability to say no while minimizing the political fall out.

                                          In theory the President is supposed to go to the voters with this and they’ll punish the Senate for inaction. Instead the voters rewarded the GOP by letting them keep the Senate.

                                          Given that Trump expressly made which person he’d put on the Court a big point of his election, we have something like judgement via the voters.

                                          Report

                                          • The norm and the constitution are different.

                                            I agree the Constitution doesn’t require a vote on a nominee. The norm absolutely has been that nominees get a prompt vote. Biden as a senator never prevented one, so color me unimpressed by motivated conservative quote-hunting.

                                            Color me equally unimpressed by conservatives’ newfound belief in the will of the voters after they won a close election. Unless you can link me to comments where you poo-pooed attempts to prevent the ACA from passing because Obama “expressly made [the ACA a] big point of his election, we have something like judgement via the voters” I don’t see anything there other than an attempt to claim unwarranted legitimacy and trying to badger Democrats into unilaterally disarming.

                                            Report

                                            • Your “political fact” link, while true, cherry picks the dates. This is the longest vacancy we’ve seen in 30 years, but that’s only because the issue hasn’t come up in 30 years.

                                              This is going to be the 7th or 8th longest vacancy in history.

                                              http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/26/long-supreme-court-vacancies-used-to-be-more-common/

                                              conservatives’ newfound belief in the will of the voters after they won a close election.

                                              Oh, it was expressed before the election when they didn’t think Trump would be making the pick. They even kept it when it looked like Clinton would win and they might lose the Senate.

                                              Unless you can link me to comments where you poo-pooed attempts to prevent the ACA from passing because Obama “expressly made [the ACA a] big point of his election,

                                              Considering we had wave of GOP after wave of GOP take office by opposing it, starting with Ted Kennedy’s replacement, maybe “the voters wanted the ACA” isn’t the rock to stand on.

                                              trying to badger Democrats into unilaterally disarming.

                                              Eh? It’s impossible for me to picture Joe letting Bush have a Supreme choice when there was a chance to unseat him, and that’s even without Joe expressly saying he wouldn’t. The problem isn’t that things just got worse, things were that bad when Joe laid down his line, and probably even before that.

                                              If Bush had the option to fill a seat, and Joe had the option to stop him and give it to his replacement (Obama as it turned out), would that help or hurt Joe’s personal election odds?

                                              Report

                                              • Considering we had wave of GOP after wave of GOP take office by opposing it, starting with Ted Kennedy’s replacement, maybe “the voters wanted the ACA” isn’t the rock to stand on.

                                                Great, so let’s leave the spot open until 2018 and see whether we have a wave of democrats take office. I just don’t think it’s fair not to let the voters weigh in first. /s.

                                                Report

                                                • Great, so let’s leave the spot open until 2018 and see whether we have a wave of democrats take office. I just don’t think it’s fair not to let the voters weigh in first.

                                                  What you mean is the voters need to weigh in again and again until they get it right, and they should be ignored otherwise.

                                                  That sounds self destructive.

                                                  Report

                                                  • No, that’s your position.

                                                    The voters weighed in on who should fill supreme court vacancies occurring in 2016 and picked Obama. Your team didn’t like it, so changed the rules.

                                                    If the standard used to justify this blatant disregard for Supreme Court nomination norms is “let the voters decide on the specifics” then I think it’s wholly unfair to nominate a justice the voters haven’t yet had a chance to consider.

                                                    Report

                                                    • The voters weighed in on who should fill supreme court vacancies occurring in 2016 and picked Obama.

                                                      The voters in 2012 game Obama the ability to pick Supremes for the next four years. Then in 2014 they solidly gave the GOP the ability to stop him. That’s a problem.

                                                      If the standard used to justify this blatant disregard for Supreme Court nomination norms is “let the voters decide on the specifics” then I think it’s wholly unfair to nominate a justice the voters haven’t yet had a chance to consider.

                                                      :Amusement: Trump ran on putting this guy on the court.

                                                      No one has ever done that before, apparently Trump thought people wouldn’t just trust his judgement. The fun part with all that is yet to come, if/when the Dems take back the Senate, does Donald break his word or push through a nominee from that list? Either way it’s probably a trainwreck.

                                                      If you assume he doesn’t have any political ideals, then right now he’s basically handed his SC pick to the Senate in exchange for their support. That’s an interesting dynamic if the Senate switches sides.

                                                      Report

                                          • Dark Matter: The norm is that the Pres can submit Supremes (which he did), and the Senate can say “no” (which they did).The norm (and the Constitution) doesn’t cover what form that “no” needs to take, this is the 5th time the Senate has killed a nomination by deliberate inaction.The GOP took the route of maximizing their ability to say no while minimizing the political fall out.

                                            You’re leaving out an important part of this story. After those five nominations went down, the President nominated someone else who was then confirmed. Outright preventing a president from filling a Supreme Court vacancy at all is quite new, and a much bigger deal than forcing a president to settle for a second choice.

                                            Oh, and there’s also the fact that nobody doing this to Garland even bothered to spell out some kind of problem with Garland as a nominee. Never mind that he was center left and relatively old with a spotless record, he went down sight unseen. If the system were working properly, someone like Garland would have been the compromise candidate Obama had to accept because he didn’t have a friendly majority in the Senate.

                                            Report

                                            • Outright preventing a president from filling a Supreme Court vacancy at all is quite new

                                              That depends on whether or not Biden was lying about the practice being for Presidents to not try this in an election year.

                                              Oh, and there’s also the fact that nobody doing this to Garland even bothered to spell out some kind of problem with Garland as a nominee.

                                              You’re complaining that he wasn’t Borked? That the GOP didn’t make up lies and paint him as a horrible human being? Garland as a judge and as a person are left with their reputations intact. Ethically that’s way better than what the Dems did to Bork and what they’re about to try with Trump’s guy.

                                              If the system were working properly, someone like Garland would have been the compromise candidate Obama had to accept because he didn’t have a friendly majority in the Senate.

                                              That “compromise” would shift the Court as a whole pretty seriously to the Left given who he was replacing. Trump’s guy won’t shift the court at all, my expectation is the Left will still throw down a massive attempt to wreck his life.

                                              Report

                                              • You’re complaining that he wasn’t Borked?

                                                If they “Borked” him and then confirmed Obama’s next nominee afterward like what actually happened during the Bork fiasco, that would have been fine with me.

                                                It’s almost like the Bork situation was about Bork specifically and the Garland situation was about the very notion that Obama might have the temerity to nominate anybody at all. But that couldn’t be it. Surely there’s a fundamental intellectual principle that makes the Republican behavior this time around totally within historical norms. We just haven’t found it yet.

                                                Report

                                                    • In other words, after Bork, Reagan yielded to the Senate and attempted to replace the Court’s swing vote with another swing vote… and Kennedy is certainly that.

                                                      With Obama replacing Scalia? Obama isn’t going to go with someone hard Right, or even moderate Right, so instead he went with very ethical moderate Left and hoped for the best.

                                                      Report

                                                  • The ideological makeup of the court isn’t written into the constitution or built into the fabric of the universe. There’s no reason to assert that the baseline for a new nominee is that he needs to be an ideological replacement for the person whose seat he’s taking. You’re just using it to define your personal preferences as the compromise.

                                                    Taking it to its logical conclusion, if Obama nominated anybody other than a loyal conservative, he’d be swinging the ideological balance of the court, and that’s definitely not a compromise. Until just a short while ago, “compromise” meant finding a nominee both sides could live with (historically with a lot of deference to the President’s choice), not keeping the court’s balance permanently the same.

                                                    The good news is that when it’s time to replace Ginsburg, the Republicans will surely hold to their tradition of supporting ideological continuity and not try to pull the court to the right.

                                                    Seriously, I don’t get why it’s so hard for Republican partisans just to admit that they snatched a court seat because they could rather than coming up with depressingly transparent attempts to invent a post-hoc faux-principled justification for it. The new normal is that if you can steal a seat, you do it. That’s unfortunate for a bunch of reasons, but it is what it is. Why try to hide it?

                                                    Report

                                                    • You’re just using it to define your personal preferences as the compromise.

                                                      No, I’m pointing out that “compromise” was impossible since the two sides had diametrically opposed ideas on whether or not the court should have it’s ideology flipped.

                                                      Trying to claim that it’s a “compromise” to flip the court Left is absurd. Ditto claiming that it’d be a “compromise” to force Obama to submit a Hard Right justice… and those are the only options I see on the table.

                                                      This situation was going to have a winner and a loser.

                                                      The good news is that when it’s time to replace Ginsburg, the Republicans will surely hold to their tradition of supporting ideological continuity and not try to pull the court to the right.

                                                      If the Dems control the Senate then maybe. Trump probably doesn’t have political ideals. It’s easy to picture him copying Reagan and just giving the Senate what they want.

                                                      The new normal is that if you can steal a seat, you do it. That’s unfortunate for a bunch of reasons, but it is what it is. Why try to hide it?

                                                      Why try to claim this is “the new normal” after Biden openly proclaimed this as Dem policy many years ago? My expectation is everyone involved would make the opposite argument if the seats were reversed (and Biden actually has).

                                                      I’m not blaming the Dems for taking us here with Biden or even Bork. The political forces at work transcend any one person, or even any one president. The GOP basically had no choice but do this, and if the issue had come up with Bush the Dems also would have had no choice.

                                                      Partly this is happening because Congress is handing divisive issues to the Court, and otherwise not doing it’s job by creating bad and badly written laws. And partly this is happening because the gov is intruding into every sphere of life.

                                                      We’re not done fighting over the role or makeup of the Court, however this stack up of circumstances doesn’t happen very often.

                                                      Report

                                                      • No, I’m pointing out that “compromise” was impossible since the two sides had diametrically opposed ideas on whether or not the court should have it’s ideology flipped.

                                                        This is the usual, “If the function’s direction doesn’t support your argument, take the derivative and argue that its rate of change is in the right direction. Repeat as necessary,” trick. The first order question, “Should Obama have to nominate a loyal conservative?” is crazy on its face, so we ask about how it would change the court instead of asking about the nominee’s suitability. If that question had been ridiculous, we’d probably be talking about how quickly the court should be allowed to change.

                                                        The political forces at work transcend any one person, or even any one president. The GOP basically had no choice but do this, and if the issue had come up with Bush the Dems also would have had no choice.

                                                        Nobody ever puts away the weapons they first used during the last battle, and everybody is just waiting for the next set of weapons to be pulled out. The filibuster is probably going away before too much longer (although that’s one I happen to agree should go).

                                                        But the fact remains that whoever uses a weapon first is the one who used it first, so this round of escalation goes to the Republicans, even though I don’t doubt that if we’d waited long enough, a Democractic Senate would have done the same. But now everybody would be crazy to go back, so it’s party-line votes for Supreme Court justices from now on.

                                                        My expectation is everyone involved would make the opposite argument if the seats were reversed (and Biden actually has).

                                                        Quite possibly for most. I would not because I see this a very serious deterioration of the process. I never expected G.W. Bush to nominate liberal justices just because I wanted them, and I wouldn’t have approved of completely stopping him from filing any federal position, just as I wouldn’t approve of completely stopping President Trump. I’d certainly be embarrassed to be making arguments about whether it was OK to shift the balance of the court.

                                                        We’re not done fighting over the role or makeup of the Court, however this stack up of circumstances doesn’t happen very often.

                                                        A split between the White House and the Senate isn’t that uncommon. I expect this one to come back to haunt us pretty regularly. If the party in control of the Senate has any sense, it means no more Supreme Court confirmations without a friendly President in power.

                                                        I don’t know how long before that’s the rule for all federal judges, but it seems like it’s almost guaranteed to happen sooner or later. Overall, it just means fewer centrists and more extremists at every appointed seat as we continue down this road.

                                                        Report

                                                        • It also means that the ability of the courts to do their job will degrade steadily over time, as you get more and longer vacancies, and that we’ll see more wild shifts in doctrine when the stars do align and a President happens to get to appoint two or three 45-year-old justices at once.

                                                          Report

                                                        • The first order question, “Should Obama have to nominate a loyal conservative?” is crazy on its face…

                                                          Is it? The Senate really did twist Reagan’s arm into nominating a guy who wouldn’t shift the balance of the court.

                                                          Relations between the Prez and the Senate were less poisonous then, and the SC was less of a hot issue, but we’ve actually seen this sort of thing in living memory.

                                                          But the fact remains that whoever uses a weapon first is the one who used it first, so this round of escalation goes to the Republicans…

                                                          Sure.

                                                          even though I don’t doubt that if we’d waited long enough, a Democractic Senate would have done the same.

                                                          Given that Joe announced many years ago that if it happened on his watch, they’d do it? Yes.

                                                          A split between the White House and the Senate isn’t that uncommon. I expect this one to come back to haunt us pretty regularly. If the party in control of the Senate has any sense, it means no more Supreme Court confirmations without a friendly President in power.

                                                          If it’s split, then hopefully we get moderates (presumably Garland or someone like him would have ended up on the Court if Hillary had won but whatever).

                                                          My expectation is that both sides jockey for position, tell lies, and brand the other guy as racist for not doing what they want. So business as usual. Thomas is a good example, the Dems had the choice of either looking anti-black or voting for a conservative.

                                                          Overall, it just means fewer centrists and more extremists at every appointed seat as we continue down this road.

                                                          Yeah. One of the big things which creates civil wars is the gov becomes too important to trust with the other guy.

                                                          We’re not close to that, but everyone who argues for *X* expansion of the government needs to understand the other side will be using *X* sooner or later.

                                                          And, we just elected Trump. My expectation is he’s not even close to what “bottom of the barrel” looks like. Power attracts people who abuse it.

                                                          Report

                                                          • Does it matter… at all… that prior to Obama actually nominating Garland that a prominent Republican suggested Garland — by name — as a fine nominee?

                                                            Or that many Republicans strongly supported his previous appointment?

                                                            Report

                                                            • Does it matter… at all… that prior to Obama actually nominating Garland that a prominent Republican suggested Garland — by name — as a fine nominee?

                                                              Wasn’t that in the context of Souter or Steven’s replacement?

                                                              Or that many Republicans strongly supported his previous appointment?

                                                              Gorsuch was voted into the 10th circuit *unanimously* by the Senate.

                                                              Report

                                                                • Now, however, Democrats have no reason to let the GOP easily complete their theft of a seat.

                                                                  Depends on whether getting rid of the filibuster is in the best interests of the minority party.

                                                                  Report

                                                                  • Guys, guys, its all moot now anyway.

                                                                    Judging from Trump’s Mad King George impression yesterday, he appears to be in the last year of the presidency anyway.

                                                                    And we all know what the rules are for SCOTUS nominations are then!

                                                                    Report