Patterico's Pontifications

7/7/2020

A Letter On Justice And Open Debate

Filed under: General — Dana @ 12:06 pm



[guest post by Dana]

I’m just going to leave this here. Missing the irony, but better late than never, I guess:

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty…

–Dana

UPDATE BY PATTERICO: I think it’s a great letter — signed by a lot of people I admire — and along toddles a leftist to serve as a performative proof of the dangers the letter describes:

This is a threatening letter that insinuates that its author faces a hostile work environment — meaning it’s an implicit threat of litigation. In any event, this thin-skinned loser is definitely trying to harm Yglesias (someone for whom I have very little respect, but for whom signing this letter was an act of courage). If this delicate snowflake did not exist, the letter author(s) would have to create said snowflake.

149 Responses to “A Letter On Justice And Open Debate”

  1. The signatories’ jabs at the right-wing by naming them (while not naming the left-wing) not only reveals their hand, but also makes me doubt their objectivity and sincerity.

    Dana (25e0dc)

  2. I agree, Dana. But I expect that they appreciate the fact that this may well blow up in their faces, and so , as an exit strategy, throttle-back their rhetoric by employing an identifying edginess that the extreme far-left uses (in their own language) to pass a litmus test for purity.

    My hope is that the writers are genuinely testing the waters. SThey must; safety in numbers. So I welcome the effort. My hope is that those, on the right, who see themselves in these writers, be ready to make themselves available, to render what aid and comfort that may be prudent.

    The writers are a group that will soon be put to the test. We can only wait to see what quality of character (in this group) will be revealed after they have been placed in the pressure-cooker of “public” opinion. The “survivors” will either be hardened in heart against free speech, or rendered neutered and silent enablers. The casualties will either flee and eventually seek readmission by obiessence, in anonymity, or simply be washed ashore upon a lonely strand.

    The dead, those who have lost all communion with the left, with no chance of redemption, will have escaped, if not understood, the madness

    Ok then.

    felipe (023cc9)

  3. Interestingly, I have just signed up for Yascha Mounk’s new outlet, Persuasion, at which he and a number of the other signatories will be writing…

    Dana (25e0dc)

  4. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy.

    No, he doesn’t. It;s some of his opposition that does, but if course these people have to ritualistically accuse Donald Trump of everything. He;s been accused of letting people off, not of prosecuting people; of complaining that people (who may not be good) have been silenced, but not of silencing people himself. Of coddling dictators, but nobody is sympathetic to such a policy for more than a short time.

    Yes, he complains about voter fraud, but he hasn’t challenged any honest count. In New York State in the recent primary, they didn’t check the signatures on the mailed in votes (only that the name signed matched the voter’s name) because they said, if they did that, they’d be counting votes till December. Since nobody expected that, and nobody is known to have intercepted mail, it was probably safe this time. (They didn’t count absentee ballots in advance, as is done in certain states, because every person who requested an absentee ballot had the right to vote in person instead. Ballots had one week to come in.)

    r silenci

    Sammy Finkelman (70b0bc)

  5. Hows your ammo supply?

    mg (8cbc69)

  6. but if course these people have to ritualistically accuse Donald Trump

    That is an apt way to put it. All ideological attacks on the left “from within” will bear these hallmarks until a tipping point of, let us say, sanity, is reached. It is reasonable to fear these casualties, until that tipping point of sanity is reached and he ritual language and unnecessary qualifiers can be dropped.

    felipe (023cc9)

  7. mg (8cbc69) — 7/7/2020 @ 2:24 pm

    There’s ammo aplenty, mg. But the ammo that truly counts, courage of conviction, is costly, and due to that, is in short supply.

    felipe (023cc9)

  8. Dana (25e0dc) — 7/7/2020 @ 1:51 pm

    I believe it would be beneficial to your readers if you gave us the link to the news outlet Persuasion.

    felipe (023cc9)

  9. We’re a nation of cowards and reprobates. The mills of God grind slowly, though they grind exceeding-small.

    Gryph (08c844)

  10. I just linked to it at 3, felipe.

    Dana (25e0dc)

  11. Singal on Yglesias wrt left-wing intolerance.

    Paul Montagu (e2c658)

  12. Thanks, Dana. I found it right after my comment and have since read a number of articles. One that stood out was this one. It began much as I expected, as few paragraphs establishing its liberal identity. and then transitioned into a “safe” call to discussion with assurances of safety and dissuasion against trolling.

    But nothing particularly brave or courageous. The proof will be in the comment section. I particularly look forward to reactions to MG’s* comments.

    * someone with the name MG joined the site and left a comment. I am not saying their MG is our mg.

    felipe (023cc9)

  13. Apparently this open letter contains “many dog whistles toward anti-trans positions”. So it must be canceled.

    Paul Montagu (e2c658)

  14. Thanks for that, Paul. It begins; let’s see what Matt does now.

    felipe (023cc9)

  15. Before I forget, Thank you very much for this post, Dana. You and JVW are pillars of this site. I am on a fixed income and must decide what fat I must trim in order to become a paying subscriber here. I should have started to support this site financially, even with a “pittance a month,” long ago.

    Thank you, Patterico, for the site and for never hitting us up for money.

    felipe (023cc9)

  16. If you take out the partisan nods, it’s a good letter, IMO.

    Nic (896fdf)

  17. “Canceling” and censorship are much used tools of the Left, not the Right. So they are lying.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  18. This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time….

    They’ve shown their hand.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  19. Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/7/2020 @ 4:26 pm

    You are right Colonel, but the accusation is really directed at the left. To make a direct accusation would only serve to harden the very hearts to which they are trying to appeal. I, of course say this in my own opinion, founded on the hope and faith in our common humanity.

    It will be the far left that will seek to destroy this movement. Warning salvos are already fired. Rather than add our own attacks against the open letter, let us see what happens. I fear that open support from many on the right will only be held up as proof of [insert hateful lie] about the signatories intentions. Which is so unfortunate.

    This is why we can’t have nice things.

    felipe (023cc9)

  20. To make a direct accusation would only serve to harden the very hearts to which they are trying to appeal

    I’m guilty of this as well. You’re not going to find a single Trump fan who says I didn’t harden their heart.

    The far left, the really angry guys out there who see a cop kill someone on TV and smile at the opportunity to tear their own community apart, leading to more violence, those guys are indeed planning for a lot of changed I don’t want. I really wish conservatives like Haiku and I could be on the same page about how to fix it, because for me, Trump is absolutely not an option, and for him, Democrats are not an option. We both feel this way resolutely, from our perspective for the right reasons.

    A good reason to pray.

    Dustin (b62cc4)

  21. I thought it was directed at the left, however that they explicitly mention “right-wing” and “radical right” undoes some of that, or muddies the water. I thought that weakened the letter. I think it would have been more effective, and more widely (and positively) received if not for the jabs. It would have been a less offensive and certainly more inclusive letter had they explicitly identified the “left-wing” and “radical left” (w/regard to making worrisome efforts to control the free exchange of info and ideas). Because both sides are guilty, don’t just mention one by name (because Trump), name both groups explicitly – because this was happening before Trump.

    Dana (25e0dc)

  22. Our free society was fought for us
    I will fight to continue my individualistic style of life
    It is why soldiers die

    mg (8cbc69)

  23. The letter makes me feel hopeful that there will be an active and collective pushback against the efforts to stifle speech, ideas, and debate. I think it’s a good launching pad.

    Dana (25e0dc)

  24. From a journalist who signed the letter:

    This Open Letter is a signal of support to those who have felt isolated or unable to express themselves freely without fear of reprisal. There are many, many people out here who may not agree on everything but who stand together against censoriousness in any form it takes.

    Dana (25e0dc)

  25. Also, there is a good interview with Yashca Mounk discussing the fight against cancel culture here.

    Dana (25e0dc)

  26. Lets back up, how did cancel culture come in to being, out of herbert marcuse ‘repressive tolerance’ the frankfurt school, one must kill of convert amd that has a bloody legacy indeed.

    Narciso (7404b5)

  27. Your post started: “I’m just going to leave this here. Missing the irony, but better late than never, I guess: …”
    Ironically, ‘missing’ was the remainder of ‘this’, its publisher, the title of ‘this’ and an apparent explanation of what ‘this’ was (Harper’s Magazine, A Letter on Justice and Open Debate, July 7, 2020, The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine’s October issue. We welcome responses at letters@harpers.org .). I initially was puzzled and thought you wrote ‘this’.
    Although you provided the link to ‘this’ – I do not know why you would leave out the above? Here is the letter in its entirety (with the omitted part in larger font) and the link again. https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/
    ____________________________

    Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.
    The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.
    This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.
    __________________________
    The 1st comment to your post – was yours: The signatories’ jabs at the right-wing by naming them (while not naming the left-wing) not only reveals their hand, but also makes me doubt their objectivity and sincerity. Dana (25e0dc) — 7/7/2020 @ 12:08 pm
    I agree. Especially, “… makes me doubt their objectivity and sincerity.” – you left out honesty. And you missed that the “Letter” left out the fact that there was a Dem/Left Fake News/Deep State plot & coup to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president and to take him out when he became president – which persist today. Recall before he even took office there was “the resistance” and widespread claims that he was not “legitimate” – which persist today. The coup continued, followed by 3 years of Trump/Russia collusion – never proven by the Mueller hit team, followed by the Dem’s bogus impeachment – which most of those names/signatories supported. Acts of treachery. Yet Harper’s and their signatories are not even curious about the plot & coup. Note there was no mention of that – and the letter smeared Trump by name. In their pursuit of Trump, they have given license to hate – and now that hate has spread like a plague to almost everyone and everything – in the country and beyond. And just now they noticed a ‘stifling atmosphere’ and just now have become concerned about it?
    The country is divided and more than a few claim the Far Left/Dem party is waging Civil War. Again, they have repeatedly refused to accept the results of the election. The Dem party keeps going further Left. All the Dem prez presidential candidates admitted they were socialist, Biden has reversed just about everything he said and stood for (never was much) in his 48 hears in DC and the Dem party is embracing Antifa and the Marxist Black Lives Matter (despite the shooting incidents of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown being clear and simple cases of self-defense – see the movie THE TRAYVON HOAX: Unmasking the Witness Fraud that Divided America https://www.thetrayvonhoax.com/ ) and has abandoned the presumption of innocence and due process. And more and more they are abandoning Free Speech and equality – and America itself. So much for Dr. King’s ‘I Have A Dream’ speech. Is his statue the next to go?
    So – WE should be asking, Who thought up the “Letter”, why now, who wrote it, how was it circulated to get the signatories, who chose them, how were they chosen, did any suggest/demand edits before signing and were there any who declined to put there name to it? Recall JournoList? (See JournoList & the Mother Liberal Ship https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/07/23/journolist__the_liberal_mother_ship.html
    Recall the bias and rush to judgment letter by those Duke professors (the Group of 88) regarding the Duke Lacrosse team? (See Orwell University – Duke’s P.C. Travesty https://nypost.com/2007/01/18/orwell-university-duke-profs-p-c-travesty/ ) Recall the NY Times editorial by Anonymous? Followed by an entire book? (See The New York Times’ outrageous, arrogant hypocrisy on who gets to be ‘anonymous’ https://nypost.com/2020/07/02/the-new-york-times-hypocrisy-on-who-gets-to-be-anonymous/ ; and also see JOURNALISTIC FRAUD: How The New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted (2003) by Bob Kohn https://www.amazon.com/Journalistic-Fraud-Distorts-Longer-Trusted/dp/B000685KVK and COLORING THE NEWS: How Political Correctness Has Corrupted America Journalism (2001) by William McGowen https://www.amazon.com/Coloring-News-Political-Correctness-Journalism/dp/1893554600 .) So much for journalism. So much for academia.
    To conclude, I went to your link to ‘this’ and read the entire letter and perused the names/signatories. I noted these sentences:
    The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. …
    _______________________________________________

    Then I noted the name: Dahlia Lithwick, Slate. I dealt with Ms. Lithwick, when we attempted to get a rebuttal piece published – to the two hit pieces written by Bert Brandenberg-Justice At State, that Slate (she as editor) published against our 2006 South Dakota ballot initiative. Below find the rebuttal piece we wrote that Ms. Lithwick refused to publish.

    Our piece met the criteria that Ms. Lithwick had given me and she agreed. However, Ms. Lithwick gave as the reason that she would not publish out rebuttal piece, “It wasn’t Slate’s style.” I replied, “Of course not, I wrote it. It isn’t about style, but argument/debate, point, counter point, Free Speech, Brandenberg’s pieces were free-wheeling, did those comport with Slate’s style?” I learned later, as she did not disclose to me, that Ms. Lithwick wrote the kick-off blog for Justice At Stake and was good friends with Mr. Brandenberg.
    So much for Harper’s, its letter and its signatories to the letter, where it stated in pertinent part “The free exchange of information and ideas, … We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.”
    So much for Free Speech. So much for Liberty.
    You are correct, they revealed their hand, and you should doubt their objectivity and sincerity.
    I’ll hope for the best, but past is usually prologue.
    I don’t trust ‘em.
    Liberty & Truth require constant vigilance. GLZ.
    ___________________

    Slate refuses ‘equal time’
    The South Dakota Amendment E
    Piece Slate Magazine Refused to Publish
    By: Gary L. Zerman*
    This is South Dakota Judicial Accountability’s (sponsors of “Amendment E” on the 2006 ballot) reply to Bert Brandenburg’s (Executive Director, Justice At Stake -JAS), two Slate pieces “Rushmore to Judgment,” March 14, and “Bench-Clearing Brawl,” July 28, 2006.
    In Rushmore, Brandenburg wrote that our initiative is “… one of the most radical threats to justice this side of the Spanish Inquisition.” Apparently Brandenburg missed the fact that inquisitions are done by those in power – to the People. Not the other way around.
    In Bench-Clearing Brawl, he wrote that the 2006 election will have “…a cluster of state ballots initiatives designed to hobble the courts… that point toward a political intimidation racket benefiting special interests that want courts to deliver results, not justice.” Imagine that? We’re a grass roots citizens’ group, yet he and his group JAS are the guys out of DC – and he calls us “special interests.” Any doubt who’s the real political intimidation racket, look at Justice at Stake Org. and No on E Amendment. See who they really are. Readers you decide if our initiative or Brandenburg – is the threat to justice.
    If we’re so wrong in South Dakota, why does his Brawl piece point up that citizens in Colorado, Montana, Oregon, and Illinois are also putting forth measures to make the judiciary accountable? Actually he put it: “… court-bashers have been busily framing their anger in accountability terms that resonate with American values.” Resonate with American values? You bet. He didn’t tell you that resonation is also being felt in DC where Rep. Sensenbrenner and Sen. Grassley want an inspector general to ride herd over the federal judiciary and finally there is clamor for impeaching USDC (Cal.) Judge Manuel Real.
    About impeachment, Brandenburg wrote “And judges everywhere can be impeached for misconduct.” Really? Name the last judge impeached? Federal or state. At SDJA we say, “Impeachment’s like Haley’s Comet, it comes around once every 76 years.” Moreover, over 99% of the misconduct complaints against federal judges, year-in-year-out are dismissed without discipline imposed. As Justice Kozinski (9th Cir.) to his credit wrote, in his dissent against the dismissal (the 3rd and final time) of the complaint against Judge Real:”… It does not inspire confidence in the federal judiciary when we treat our own so much better than everybody else.” Bingo!
    They claim it’s all about judicial independence. For a total debunking of their claim that immunity is required for independence, see Justice Douglas’ lone dissent in Pierson v. Ray, 386 US 547, 558 (1967). And what about the judges’ misconduct documented in all the recent articles about “Judicial Junkets” and “Juice vs. Justice”? No, the People won’t be fooled anymore. It’s about judicial accountability. Now!
    Brandenburg’s hysterical hyperbole continued in Rushmore, writing our initiative would “… wipe out a basic doctrine called judicial immunity that dates back to the 13th century, protecting judges from personal liability from doing their jobs on the cases before them. A special grand jury – essentially a fourth branch of government – would be created to indict judges…” He didn’t tell you the doctrine actually is absolute judicial immunity (AJI), and it covers corrupt and malicious judicial acts, even – eugenics. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 US 349 (1978), a 5/3 decision, giving Judge Stump immunity, after he illegally ordered a 15-year-old girl sterilized; she never appeared in court, nor had counsel or any representation, was lied to and told she was having an appendectomy, and had no appeal – the sterilization irreversible. Nor did he tell you the three (3) dissenting justices were repulsed by Judge Stump’s behavior; so were the federal appellate justices, who voted 3/0 against immunity for Stump. The total vote in the case (district, appellate and Supreme Court) was 6/6. Thus the doctrine of absolute immunity is not so absolute – even among judges.
    The 13th century was the only authority Brandenburg could muster in his pieces for judicial immunity. (That era gave us the divine right of kings, the Black Plague, beheading, drawing & quartering, serfdom and most thought the earth was flat.) That’s the best he can do? He omitted, like most of our critics, and the media, to provide you our core arguments:
    1) there is no authority in our Constitution giving immunity to judges (nor do any USSC cases on AJI ever cite any);
    2) judges giving judges AJI violates the doctrine of separation of powers – the so-called checks & balances (nor do any USSC cases mention this);
    3) AJI turns the sovereignty of We the People on its head, placing the judiciary over, above and beyond the People, making the servant the master; and,
    4) why has our USSC condoned eugenics? Stump v. Sparkman.
    NOTE: Neither Chief Justice Roberts, nor Justice Alito, were asked any of these questions at their recent Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings. Checks & balances? Phooey.
    Like in Rushmore, Brandenburg wrote in Bench-Clearing Brawl, the “… initiative would amend the state constitution to create a fourth branch of government: a special grand jury to sue judges and others for their decisions.” Here he demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding of our Constitution. And that is dangerous. First, he ignores that the Constitution was designed to limit the power of government – not the People. All power resides in the People. Government gets its just powers from the consent of the governed. We never gave judges immunity. Second, he ignores that We the People are sovereign. Our Constitution starts: “We The People.” — NOT we the government, nor we the judiciary. We are not a “branch” of government. We are the tree, the trunk, the roots. We are the masters – government is our servant, mere branches. Actually, with their dereliction to true checks & balances, they could be termed “The Three Little Twigs.”
    Example: Remember Kelo v. City of New London? That’s the 5/4 eminent domain case, where the Kelo 5 wiped out the “public use” clause of the 5th Amendment. Where was President Bush? Silent. Where was Congress? Hardly a whimper. To their credit, great dissents were written by Justices O’Connor and Thomas. O’Connor later told an audience of ASU law students that Kelo was “pretty scary” and “fuzzy jurisprudence.” Is Justice O’Connor a court basher too?
    A further example: Illegal immigration. Plyler v. Doe, 457 US 202 (1982), another 5/4 decision, that opened the floodgates, and left the People – to pay the “check.”
    Finally, Brandenburg concludes Brawl: “The courts that protect our rights need their own permanent campaign to counter the war rooms arrayed against them.” But aren’t we always told that the judiciary is non-political, above the fray, independent? So instead of holding miscreant judges accountable, Brandenburg and cronies want the judiciary to go on a permanent campaign. He’s admitted what we knew all along: the judiciary’s mostly just a bunch of politicos, junkets, juice and all, just like the other two twigs.
    All we ask is a most basic covenant of life, something we all owe and ask of each other: individual accountability.
    The People vehemently disagree with you Mr. Brandenburg. Readers check out the blogs at Slate’s Jurisprudence Discussion. Honestly, Mr. Brandenburg does not work for us. Mr. Brandenburg please write some more pieces. And Slate please publish them.
    ________________________________________
    *Gary L. Zerman is an attorney licensed in California and Arizona. He is counsel and a media representative for South Dakota Judicial Accountability Committee – SDJA – a grass roots citizens group, the sponsors of Amendment E. Gary Zerman Email

    Referenced materials – see following page.
    1) Call for a federal inspector general over federal judiciary. 4/25/06 Associated Press, 2 Lawmakers Call for Judiciary Watchdog, by Laurie Kellman; 4/27/06 U.S. Newswire, Sennsenbrenner, Grassley Introduce Legislation Establishing an Inspector General for the Judicial Branch; 5/22/06 Los Angeles Daily Journal, Criticism Mounts That Judiciary Lacks Self Discipline – Congressman Wants An Inspector General To Ensure Unethical Judges Are Punished, by Lawrence Hurley.
    2) Judge Manuel Real. 1/18/04 LA Times, Judge [Real] May Face Sanctions, by Henry Weinstein; 10/3/05 Metropolitan News-Enterprise, Ninth Circuit Panel Tosses Misconduct Case Against Manuel Real, by Kenneth Ofgand; 12/6/05 Contra Costa Times (LA Times), DuPont Racketeering Suits Reinstated, by Myron Levin; 5/7/06 LA Times, Complaint Against Judge Has Broader Ramifications, by Henry Weinstein; 7/28/06 LA Times Editorial, Judicial Undersight.
    3) 6/2/06 Los Angeles Daily Journal, Chief Judge to Set Up Panel for 7-Year-Old Misconduct Case, by Amelia Hansen.
    4) 1/18/06 San Jose Mercury News-Associated Press, House Chairman Seek Probe, Possible Impeachment of LA Judge, by Erica Werner; 1/19/06 Los angels Daily Journal, Congressman’s Gambit Puts Judge on Path to Impeachment, by Lawrence Hurley; 7/18/06 LA Times, Impeachment Inquiry of Judge Sought, by Henry Weinstein.
    5) Impeachment of federal judges. See U.S. v. Hastings, 681 F.2d 706 (1982), at 709, footnote 7, stating “Nine federal judges have been impeached and brought to trial before the Senate.” That would be only nine judges over 193 years, at that time.
    6) 99% of complaints against federal judges–dismissed w/o discipline. 8/7/02 Las Vegas review Journal – Associated Press, Self-policing Federal Judges Rarely Impose Penalties, by Anne Gearan, which reported that “Of 766 ethical complaints last year [2001], only one resulted in a penalty… [P] In the single case last year in which the judge was punished, the penalty was a private censure and no details, not even the judge’s name were released.” 1/766 is .0013!; 8/7/02 Los Angeles Daily Journal (same AP article, extended version), Federal Judges Seldom Discipline Colleagues; 1/18/04 LA Times, Judge [Real] May Face Sanctions, by Henry Weinstein, which reported “…More than 99% of the complaints filed against federal judges around the country are dismissed out of hand. The 9th Circuit Judicial Council has reprimanded only two jurists in the last decade, while rejecting hundreds of complaints, according to official records.”
    7) Justice Alex Kozinski, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals – dissent. 10/1/05 The Recorder, 9th Circuit’s Kozinski Blasts L.A. Judge, Majority in Discipline Case, by Justine Scheck; 10/1/06 LA Times, L.A. Judge Avoids Sanctions by Panel – A Judicial Council does not Punish the Federal Jurist, Who Improperly Took Over a Bankruptcy Case – Two Judges File blistering Dissents, by Henry Weinstein10/3/05.
    8) For Justice Kozinski’s dissent, see In re: Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, No. 03-89037, Order, filed September 27, 2005, (9th Cir. Judicial Council).
    9) Judicial Junkets. 12/20/04 Law.com-Associated Press, Senate Seek Legislation on Ethics for Judicial Trips, by Jim Abrams; 1/12/06 Human Event, Justice by Junket, by Ken Connor; 1/20/06 NY Times, Tripping Up on Trips: Judges Love Junkets as Much as Tom Delay Does, by Dorothy Samuels-Editorial Observer; 1/27/06 LA Times Editorial, Justice and Junkets; 1/28/06 Rocky Mountain News, Scalia ‘Junket’ Defended, by Karen Abbott; 1/30/06 LegalTimes.com, Political Spotlight Shine on Judicial Ethics; 4/18/06 Washington Post, Ethics Lapses by Federal Judges Persist, Review Finds, by Joe Stephens; 4/28/06 LegalTimes.com, CRC Report Says Increased Amount of ‘Junket for Judges,’ by Tony Mauro; 5/1/06 law.com, Watchdog Group Singles Out ‘Junketing Judges’, Tony Mauro; 5/3/06 USA Today, How to influence Judges; 5/08/06 Houston Chronical, Area Judge Ranked 4th in free Trips, by Harvey Rice
    10) Juice v. Justice. 3-Part Series by LA Times, titled JUICE V. JUSTICE by staff writers Michael Goodman and William C. Rempel.. Part I, 6/8/06 In Las Vegas, Thy’re Playing With a Stacked Judicial Deck – Some Judges Routinely Rule in Cases Involving Friends, Former Clients and Business Associates – and if Favor of Lawyers Who Fill their Campaign Coffers; Part II, 6/906 For a Vegas Judge and His Friends, One Good Turn Led to Another – James Mahan Got His Jobs on the State and Federal Benches Through connections of Old Pal George Swarts – Things Turned Out Well for Swarts Too; and, Part III, 6/10/06 How Some Judges Stay Under the Radar – some Senior Judges Are Exempt From Some Rules of Accountability – The Career of 3 Jurists Reflect The Ethical Questions That Can Result.
    Follow up articles re above Las Vegas series by LA Times: 6/14/06 Series on Las Vegas Judges renews Calls for Reform; 6/18/06 John L. Smith: Unflattering Series on Judges Unlikely to Alter system, but Could Change Players; 6/23/06 Three Las Vegas Judges Face High Court Review – In Response to Times Investigation, Nevada’s Justices want the Senior Jurists to Answer Conflict-Of-Interest and Favoritism Allegations; 6/25/06 Inquiry Sought Into Vegas Jurist – The 9th Circuit Might Already be Planning to Act on Complaints About Judge James C. Mahan.
    11) Justice O’Connor. Her comments referenced in this piece re the Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108, decided June 28, 2005, are found in 9/20/05 The Arizona Republic – azcentral.com, O’Connor Notes ‘Scary’ Court Decision, by Joe Kamman.

    __________________

    Gary L. Zerman (a1521c)

  28. 19… I’d like to believe that, felipe. I truly would.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  29. There is only one thing wrong with our political system, and it can be named with one word. Getting rid of it is easy, but there will be terrible collateral damage.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  30. The fire rises, but the smoke has beem seem for at least 8-10 years now.

    Narciso (7404b5)

  31. I see names of folks on that letter that were happy to promote dishonest journalism and cancel culture previous.

    They are just now waking up to the potential destructive power of their own creation.

    __ _

    harkin (5af287)

  32. Cancel culture works because it’s purely capitalist in its implementation. People get fired because there are virtually no protections for employees. People get deplatformed because companies care more about damage to their bottom line than setting an example.

    Davethulhu (b5d57e)

  33. Read de Tocqueville’s Democracy In America (1835-1840) and you’ll see how cancel culture came about. TL;DR “Public opinion.”

    nk (1d9030)

  34. 9.We’re a nation of cowards and reprobates.

    Hence, Republican President Donald J. Trump.

    “What America needs are leaders to match the greatness of her people.” – The Big Dick, GOP nomination acceptance speech, August 8, 1968.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  35. Off-topic, but the former Chancellor of UC Irvine, a medical doctor and med school professor, has been named the next president of UC:

    UCI Chancellor Emeritus Michael V. Drake named University of California president

    Dave (1bb933)

  36. The letter is not a hit with some signers’ co-workers (who then go out of their way to make their point):


    Emily VanDerWerff
    @emilyvdw

    I sent a version of this to the editors of Vox. (I have redacted some bits that are internal to Vox and shouldn’t be aired publicly.)

    https://twitter.com/emilyvdw/status/1280580388495097856?s=20
    __ _

    Phil
    @philllosoraptor
    ·
    “I knew he was a more nuanced thinker than signing the letter (about free speech) would suggest” she said, with no hint of irony.
    _ _

    Will Collier
    @willcollier
    ·
    Crybully.
    __ _

    Akash Shetye
    @AkashShetye
    ·
    Replying to
    @emilyvdw

    You’re not in danger b/c Matt signed a letter you didn’t like. And you know this. If you want him to feel afraid for supporting free speech, just say so. Don’t do the “just to remind you: I could get you fired, but I’ll be a bigger person and not ask for you to be fired” charade.
    __ _

    Liberty Rising
    @LibertysRising
    ·
    “I don’t want him to be reprimanded…..” but I sure want the Twitter Woke Force to attack him, his family and his career. Is this too much to ask for?
    _ _

    Apologetically Anonymous
    @Songbir95377759
    ·
    If you feel ‘less safe’ because a colleague signs a letter heralding the protection of free speech, you hold a very weird concept of safety.
    _ _

    symbolic taker
    @jewishBud
    ·
    The “op-ed is putting me in danger” line is getting old.
    _

    harkin (5af287)

  37. A generation of weak-suck crybabies… in the USA, fer chrissakes…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  38. Its dead coronello.

    Narciso (7404b5)

  39. UPDATE BY PATTERICO: I think it’s a great letter — signed by a lot of people I admire — and along toddles a leftist to serve as a performative proof of the dangers the letter describes:

    This is a threatening letter that insinuates that its author faces a hostile work environment — meaning it’s an implicit threat of litigation. In any event, this thin-skinned loser is definitely trying to harm Yglesias (someone for whom I have very little respect, but for whom signing this letter was an act of courage). If this delicate snowflake did not exist, the letter author(s) would have to create said snowflake.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  40. The alternative, if you’re rich and don’t have popular opinion on your side, is to launch a serious of frivolous lawsuits. See Devin Nunes as an example.

    Davethulhu (b5d57e)

  41. People get deplatformed because companies care more about damage to their bottom line than setting an example.

    Corporations have allowed the rise of their HR departments to infect the workplace with SJW crap and social media. They will rue the day.

    But it takes an insurgency of leftwing nut jobs and ne’er-do-wells to press the case.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  42. My $.02… these people usually have a college degree, but no common sense. They’ve learned little of value and they resemble lemmings in nearly everything they do.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  43. Cancel culture works because it’s purely capitalist in its implementation. People get fired because there are virtually no protections for employees.

    Cancel culture is everywhere, Davethulhu. Either it’s done by private entities or by government. We used to be able to hold it at bay with the former, but your fellow travelers on the left can’t seem to handle it.

    But if you want to add viewpoint discrimination to the list of protected classes, go for it. Is that what you want?

    beer ‘n pretzels (4d3c08)

  44. 33.Read de Tocqueville’s Democracy In America (1835-1840) and you’ll see how cancel culture came about. TL;DR “Public opinion.”

    Watch Mel, instead. Funnier.

    “All right… we’ll give some land to the ni–ers and the ch–ks. But we don’t want the Irish!” – Olson Johnson [David Huddleston] ‘Blazing Saddles’ 1974

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  45. Emily VanDerWart

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  46. 45 FFS…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  47. The alternative, if you’re rich and don’t have popular opinion on your side, is to launch a serious of frivolous lawsuits.

    No, the alternative is 1) have the government prevent Devin Nunes’ Cow from existing, or 2) have the government harass opposition pols like Nunes akin to the m.o. of Devin Nunes’s Cow.

    beer ‘n pretzels (4d3c08)

  48. “We used to be able to hold it at bay with the former, but your fellow travelers on the left can’t seem to handle it.”

    Give me an example.

    “But if you want to add viewpoint discrimination to the list of protected classes, go for it. Is that what you want?”

    I’m in favor of stronger worker protections overall. What do you want?

    Davethulhu (b5d57e)

  49. @39 It certainly is a threat letter. She wants him fired (even though she says she doesn’t want him fired.) Nobody sends a letter to the boss tattling on a coworker unless they want that coworker punished. Unless there’s a problem at work people shouldn’t be policed for their outside associates.

    Nic (896fdf)

  50. “No, the alternative is 1) have the government prevent Devin Nunes’ Cow from existing, or 2) have the government harass opposition pols like Nunes akin to the m.o. of Devin Nunes’s Cow.”

    Which of these are you advocating?

    Davethulhu (b5d57e)

  51. Give me an example.

    See comment 39.

    I’m in favor of stronger worker protections overall. What do you want?

    I want what we’ve had for decades, which doesn’t need fixing unless your fellow travelers succeed in breaking it.

    (And BTW, more worker “protections” mean more unemployment. See Europe.)

    Which of these are you advocating?

    Neither, but you knew that. They’re alternatives to what we have now, so answer your question for your own benefit.

    beer ‘n pretzels (ddfa85)

  52. Jennifer Finney Boylan Dog
    @JennyBoylan
    ·
    I did not know who else had signed that letter. I thought I was endorsing a well meaning, if vague, message against internet shaming. I did know Chomsky, Steinem, and Atwood were in, and I thought, good company.

    The consequences are mine to bear. I am so sorry.
    __ _

    Kerri Greenidge
    @GreenidgeKerri

    I do not endorse this @Harpers letter. I am in contact with Harper’s about a retraction
    __ _

    Noam Blum
    @neontaster
    ·
    “I was on board with this message until I realized who else was on board with it” should be a credibility-ending statement.
    __ _

    RaoulDuke
    @asavagejourney
    ·
    Good thing to know that you care more about optics than substance. Not to worry though, they’ll turn on you & exact their vengeance one day no matter what you do.
    _ _

    Yascha Mounk
    @Yascha_Mounk
    ·
    A lot of wonderful writers signed the letter. None of them could have come up with a more deliciously dark illustration of the way in which the fear of cancellation turns people into cowards, and how terrible this is for intellectual honesty, than this.
    __ _

    Zack Beauchamp
    @zackbeauchamp
    ·
    Just had an academic tell me they were afraid to voice their opinion for fear of retaliation. The opinion in question was that there’s no such thing as cancel culture; they were afraid that the campus free speech warriors would go after them and ruin their reputation.
    _ _

    Dmitriy Mandel aka Schnitzel Cat
    @mndl_nyc
    ·
    Russians have a word for this: donós.
    Donós is a complaint to the authorities by a concerned citizen about the supposedly nefarious activities/allegiances of a neighbor/acquaintance.
    If the neighbor goes to the Gulag, the citizen may be rewarded with said neighbor’s apartment!

    __

    [but capitalists!!]
    __ _

    harkin (5af287)

  53. “But his signature on the letter makes me feel less safe“.

    That’s all her employers need to hear. That she put this in writing so it goes on the record sort of says it all.

    Dana (25e0dc)

  54. “See comment 39.”

    No, I mean an example of “We used to be able to hold it at bay with the former [private entities]”.

    “I want what we’ve had for decades, which doesn’t need fixing unless your fellow travelers succeed in breaking it.”

    What does “breaking” at-will employment mean? People can be fired at any time for (almost) any reason. I suspect you’d be fine with removing the existing employment protections, even though they’re trivial to circumvent.

    “Neither, but you knew that. They’re alternatives to what we have now, so answer your question for your own benefit.”

    Actually what we need is a federal anti-SLAPP law. Which I don’t think was either of your options.

    Davethulhu (b5d57e)

  55. Tail wagging the dog. That’s what they get for hiring zir in the first place. Johnny Rivers this time.

    nk (1d9030)

  56. No, I mean an example of “We used to be able to hold it at bay with the former [private entities]”.

    Right, comment 39. Same answer. We used to be able to handle benign opinions as expressed by Yglesias without retaliating with threats. A threat like that is always in someone’s arsenal in a free society, but it took the left to make it a go-to tactic. You don’t seem too bothered by it, but that’s just my impression, which could be wrong.

    So, “breaking at-will employment” means what exactly in the Yglesias case? We protect Yglesias, and he can say what he likes? Meaning, we blow off VanDerWerff’s concerns? Who decides, in your ideal scenario? Vox should decide, or what?

    As for Nunes, I believe he has no case. So, there’s nothing to remedy and nothing to change IMO.

    beer ‘n pretzels (1d265b)

  57. “A threat like that is always in someone’s arsenal in a free society, but it took the left to make it a go-to tactic. You don’t seem too bothered by it, but that’s just my impression, which could be wrong.

    So, “breaking at-will employment” means what exactly in the Yglesias case? We protect Yglesias, and he can say what he likes? Meaning, we blow off VanDerWerff’s concerns? Who decides, in your ideal scenario? Vox should decide, or what?”

    It should be harder to fire people in general. You’ve already given your option on the matter so I don’t expect you to agree. However, “cancel” firing like this doesn’t seem to happen in Europe. As long as employment laws remain the same, I don’t expect this sort of thing to change.

    “As for Nunes, I believe he has no case. So, there’s nothing to remedy and nothing to change IMO.”

    There is something to remedy, the time and monetary expenses that the people he’s suing have to endure.

    Davethulhu (b5d57e)

  58. Jon Adler

    Some liberals aren’t so liberal after all. (How dare folks who disagree on other issues be allowed to agree on this!)

    Paul Montagu (e2c658)

  59. It should be harder to fire people in general.

    It should be easier to hire people, which doesn’t happen when it’s harder to fire people. I assume you live and work in the U.S., meaning you’ve voted with your feet (as countless others have), so I’ll assume you agree.

    However, “cancel” firing like this doesn’t seem to happen in Europe.

    Free speech commensurate with what we have here also doesn’t seem to happen in Europe, either. Like I said initially, cancelling can be handled by private entities or the government. Europe skews towards the latter. Maybe you prefer that. I don’t and it’s a foreign concept to most Americans.

    And, I’m really curious as to how the Yglesias situation plays out in your world. You didn’t answer.

    beer ‘n pretzels (b27f61)

  60. ” I assume you live and work in the U.S., meaning you’ve voted with your feet (as countless others have), so I’ll assume you agree.”

    This is a silly argument. You can’t change society without being part of that society.

    “And, I’m really curious as to how the Yglesias situation plays out in your world. You didn’t answer.”

    I have no idea how this particular circumstance will play out. Yglesias is a big enough name that he might have a contract that protects him from someone who (in this case) is clearly crying wolf. In “my world” everyone would have such a contract.

    Since we don’t live in “my world”, I’m stuck cringing when circular firing squads like this happen, but that’s offset by the shadenfreude of seeing bigots get fired.

    Davethulhu (b5d57e)

  61. Do people have the patience for carefully reasoned and thoughtful debate? What is the evidence of this because I largely see mosh pit sensationalism and ideological bubbles ruling the day. The market has spoken: It’s just easier to cancel and to hate. How many out there really want to hear serious people posing serious challenges to their sacred cows about sexual identity, nationalism, spirituality, income inequality, social justice, or climate change? Do we want to gray up our understanding of these things….or do we just want power and control….through government or the market place. Overall, we are content with a caricature of the other side…the strawman we can quickly burn and dance around. We don’t argue to gain perspective; we argue to score cuts. Has Noam Chomsky ever been swayed….Gloria Steinem…..Nadine Strossen? Can the other side ALWAYS be wrong and unpersuasive? How much I would give to hear an intellectual concede that the other side really gave them something to think about. So, yes, the Left canceling and the Right hating are horrible….but a letter that can’t help but try to score partisan cuts doesn’t really seem to change much…

    AJ_Liberty (0f85ca)

  62. Since we don’t live in “my world”, I’m stuck cringing when circular firing squads like this happen, but that’s offset by the shadenfreude of seeing bigots get fired.

    Davethulhu (b5d57e) — 7/7/2020 @ 9:49 pm

    Should bigots who call conservatives names or those who make false claims against conservatives be fired?

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  63. https://abc7news.com/2-charged-with-hate-crime-after-allegedly-defacing-blm-mural-in-martinez/6305461/

    Here’s your insanity and shows you who has real power and privilege in our twisted world.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  64. This is a silly argument. You can’t change society without being part of that society.

    You’re avoiding the obvious question of why you want to change a society when there seem to be several available that comport to your worldview. Path of greatest resistance? I don’t think so.

    In “my world” everyone would have such a contract.

    Interesting. A contract that protects against those that cry wolf, but still allows bigots to get fired? Or, are bigots protected too? How does that work exactly? Again, who decides? I think you may need to flesh this out more, and I’d be genuinely interested how it does. And, every worker is to have such protection? OK, let’s hear the details.

    beer ‘n pretzels (906ea1)

  65. “You’re avoiding the obvious question of why you want to change a society when there seem to be several available that comport to your worldview. ”

    https://i.imgur.com/lI76i9I.jpg

    “Interesting. A contract that protects against those that cry wolf, but still allows bigots to get fired? Or, are bigots protected too? How does that work exactly? Again, who decides? I think you may need to flesh this out more, and I’d be genuinely interested how it does. And, every worker is to have such protection? OK, let’s hear the details.”

    You’re being patronizing, but I will humor you. I already said something closer to European standards, which you could easily look up. But here you go:

    When it comes to the process of termination, unfair dismissal can often be an issue. While there is no European-level legislation granting employees the right not to be unfairly dismissed, most employees are afforded some level of protection.

    This means employers often need a justifiable reason for dismissal and must follow some form of fair procedure. This generally involves issuing a prior warning and conducting some form of consultation. The reasons used can vary from poor performance to misconduct.

    Where an employee is dismissed without a valid justification, employees are frequently entitled to claim financial compensation before the courts or tribunals. Even further, in some countries such as Germany, reinstatement of the employee into their old position (complete with back pay in respect of the interim period) is the only remedy for this. In others, such as Austria, this is at least a potential outcome of a claim.

    American companies already do the “prior warning and consultation” part if they’re concerned that they’re going to fire someone who might file a discrimination suit. Why not extend this to everyone?

    Davethulhu (b5d57e)

  66. “Should bigots who call conservatives names or those who make false claims against conservatives be fired?”

    Start a twitter campaign and give it a shot.

    Davethulhu (b5d57e)

  67. Davethulhu, the cartoon you linked is so very nuanced and deep. Progress has been achieved more by people voting with their feet, and thus refusing to take part in the society of the moment, than by people voting at the ballot box. Likely your ancestors made that exact choice in coming here. You seem to mock it, and them.

    This means employers often need a justifiable reason for dismissal and must follow some form of fair procedure.

    Who decides what’s justifiable and fair? I see it — “courts and tribunals”. No thanks. But, you’re certain they would judge VanDerWerff as crying wolf, and rule against bigots. You have nothing to base that on. And, anyway, it’s not for you or anyone in the government to decide. In Europe, or here for that matter.

    The best worker protection is worker mobility. You disagree, it seems. History disagrees with you, as does your own choice with your feet.

    And, no I’m not being patronizing. I spend the time to discuss this with you because you are reliably civil, unlike many here, and you are direct with your opinions and I really want to understand them as someone who disagrees with me.

    beer ‘n pretzels (2ec4e8)

  68. Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/7/2020 @ 6:11 pm
    I know you do, Colonel. So does Dustin who wants to find common ground with you.

    felipe (023cc9)

  69. ?The best worker protection is worker mobility. You disagree, it seems. History disagrees with you, as does your own choice with your feet.

    And, no I’m not being patronizing. I spend the time to discuss this with you because you are reliably civil, unlike many here, and you are direct with your opinions and I really want to understand them as someone who disagrees with me.”

    Well, I’ve answered your questions. What’s your solution?

    Davethulhu (b5d57e)

  70. harkin (5af287) — 7/7/2020 @ 7:00 pm

    Yes, harkin. I believe they have had enough.

    felipe (023cc9)

  71. Well, I’ve answered your questions. What’s your solution?

    My solution is to prove we can keep free speech without canceling those who exercise it.

    Why not join me in that by calling out those who are working to disprove it?

    beer ‘n pretzels (4d3c08)

  72. “Should bigots who call conservatives names or those who make false claims against conservatives be fired?”

    Start a twitter campaign and give it a shot.

    Davethulhu (b5d57e) — 7/7/2020 @ 10:32 pm

    Stop deflecting. No one mentioned twitter. You mentioned you liked bigots getting fired. I asked you if bigots who target conservative should be fired. What is your answer?

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  73. “My solution is to prove we can keep free speech without canceling those who exercise it.

    Why not join me in that by calling out those who are working to disprove it?”

    Free speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. You and I post here entirely at Patterico’s pleasure, he can ban us for any reason or no reason at all. He’s restrained only by his personal values. The same applies to the large social media companies, although their value systems are a lot more complicated.

    I’m also not going to lose any sleep because a company fired some guy screaming at people in a Costco because someone asked him to wear a mask. Gryph on these forums refuses to wear a mask, but to the best of my knowledge he doesn’t demand that others accommodate him. I don’t agree with his mask stance but I wouldn’t want to see him get fired because of it.

    Davethulhu (b5d57e)

  74. “Stop deflecting. No one mentioned twitter. You mentioned you liked bigots getting fired. I asked you if bigots who target conservative should be fired. What is your answer?”

    I’m not deflecting. As I said, I’m powerless in the firing decisions of these companies. I’m not one of the people flooding their contacts demanding that they be fired. I just enjoy seeing terrible people like this get fired.

    I’d probably get less of a kick out of it if the situation was reversed, but give me an example and I’ll let you know.

    Davethulhu (b5d57e)

  75. Do you think the Costco guy would be fired for his views, or because he was being an uncivil jerk? His views, minus the attitude, shouldn’t get him fired. With the attitude, I won’t lose sleep either.

    You know what we’re talking about here, and it’s spelled out by the letter with all the signatories that’s the subject of this post. It’s not complicated. It even has bones thrown to lefties.

    I think we can both defend that, and vigorously call out those who would take issue. Right?

    beer ‘n pretzels (4d3c08)

  76. A good reason to pray.
    Dustin (b62cc4) — 7/7/2020 @ 5:12 pm

    Amen, Dustin.

    felipe (023cc9)

  77. The letter and the illiberal reaction to the letter’s signatories (but not really to the letter itself) has gotten the notice of the NYT. This letter-signatory situation really has become a sort of barometer of the Left (it’s hard to find intolerant illiberal reactions from the hard right, even though “Trump” and “radical right” were called out) about our current cancel culture and intolerance toward dissenting points of view.

    Paul Montagu (c9d3c1)

  78. Call the left-wing reaction to the letter’s signatories the Karen Kancel Kulture, or KKK for short.

    Paul Montagu (c9d3c1)

  79. 73. He said he felt schadenfreude over bigots getting fired. That’s a guilty pleasure, Rob. To say that he likes bigots getting fired is a gross mischaracterization of what he did say.

    Gryph (08c844)

  80. 74. I don’t wear a mask. To say that I refuse to wear one is also a gross mischaracterization. I just don’t go anywhere that requires one, whether to work or be a customer. Fortunately, that’s not all that hard for me considering where I live. And here we are.

    Gryph (08c844)

  81. it’s a systematic thing, you start with the little tail, the header that fidel put on the diario de la marina, it ends with you kneeling while the khmer rouge comrade pulling a gun, or slicing your head off, and dumping you in a ditch, that’s the progression in these things,

    narciso (7404b5)

  82. and the times cheered the former, and covered up the latter, till schamberg, was able to smuggle out the evidence of the latter, I think susan sontag wised up for a minute, then went back to the two minute hate, that’s where I’m coming from. the predecessors of this movement were celebrated by donald sutherland, the late peter boyle and jane fonda, of course leonard bernstein,

    narciso (7404b5)

  83. Davethulhu (b5d57e) — 7/7/2020 @ 11:55 pm

    Free speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.

    This is a convenient excuse for people who are accepting of cancel culture. It allows them to do exactly what is done in the rest of the comment and in @75, i.e. claim that it’s out of their hands because someone else is doing the dirty work. This is an argument that seems to be reserved for a very small set of situations. For example, you’d be more than happy to mandate employment contracts that really wouldn’t solve this issue but would be injecting outside control into a private arrangement.

    By and large, free speech should be free of consequences. The old adage is the response to speech you don’t like is more speech, i.e. more speech, not enforced silence. There should be very few exceptions to this rule. The letter makes this point:

    We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.

    But we’ve allowed this to become wildly disproportionate. Comparing a blog host’s right to maintain a blog with getting someone fired and ruining their career isn’t a comparison at all and trying to get someone fired for being in favor of free speech isn’t any sort of reasonable consequence. Like everything else we see from the left, this is about the opposite of freedom, it’s about control.

    frosty (f27e97)

  84. there is no systematic framework for elimination, of contrary thought, except what we’ve seen through the journolist, through the sjw human resources department, the tech departments of social media companies, the boycotts furthered by ppp funded and tax exempt mediamatters, are you seeing the bigger picture,

    narciso (7404b5)

  85. narciso (7404b5) — 7/8/2020 @ 6:27 am

    that’s the progression in these things

    It’s far more likely that America would embrace fascism instead of marxism. So, the progression would be more like marxists keep resorting to more violence, the government fails to respond, people in the suburbs get on board with the flowery shirt meme, America builds a better interstate highway system and comes up with a plan to drain the Gulf of Mexico for farmland.

    People still get shot and dumped in a ditch, just not exactly the same people.

    frosty (f27e97)

  86. not if these people have their way, in the uk they were the same against brexit, chomsky was an open khmer rouge denier, there may be some paramilitary response to some of this, but they’ll be largely on their owns,

    narciso (7404b5)

  87. there was also the experience that the griffin family of missionaries, noted in their memoir, almost all their comrades in rhodesia, were slaughtered the forces of mugabe and co, with the full approval of carter and callaghan, and frankly thatcher didn’t do much in the aftermath of mugabes accession after muzorewa’s election was voided, and the massacre in the matabele, so no ‘it won’t be fine’ and probably it won’t even be noted, in most places,

    narciso (7404b5)

  88. “Makes me feel less safe”

    I wonder what in the letter specifically makes “her” feel less safe at VOX. “She” really doesn’t flesh that out. I guess it’s the notion that there should be debate…and that “she” will hear opinions that are counter to “her” own…..and I suppose “she” was promised that VOX would be a protective bubble to nurture “her” delicate psyche.

    “do make my job slightly more difficult”

    I’m curious what exactly is that job….and why a rather bland letter that encourages not punishing non-conformists would be threatening. Maybe “her” response should be to quit in outrage….and find a more protective bubble….but I think “she” knows that won’t go well…..and so the shot across the bow….”less safe” indeed….

    AJ_Liberty (0f85ca)

  89. knowing where this movement is coming from, it’s hard to see another conclusion, if it’s ignored in manners we have seen very clearly, with the police having to kneel like a surrendered army,
    with the military high command refusing to suppress the rioters, and a chorus among the wisemen in washington, who marched a generation into the sands of afghanistan, to prevent these vandals from taking power,

    narciso (7404b5)

  90. The notable thing here, is that they give no examples of things that have become impossible to say or for which people might be punished for saying or doing. And that is most telling. It proves what they are saying is right.

    Sammy Finkelman (70b0bc)

  91. UPDATE BY PATTERICO: I think it’s a great letter — signed by a lot of people I admire

    No, it’s a cowardly letter – too cautious, and so vague that if you don’t know what it is talking about, you won’t learn it from there.

    It won’t work until they get more explicit. The letter shows fear.

    Sammy Finkelman (70b0bc)

  92. Davethulhu (b5d57e) — 7/7/2020 @ 7:01 pm

    Cancel culture works because it’s purely capitalist in its implementation. … People get deplatformed because companies care more about damage to their bottom line than setting an example.

    This is a myth perpetuated by proponents of cancel culture. There’s a reason get-woke-go-broke is a meme. Cancel culture literally destroys capital. In relation to twitter it should get more revenue by allowing more conflicting opinions that generate more clicks and tweets, etc. My guess is that this is what’s behind facebook’s position.

    It’s also a myth that cancel culture is based on some sort of majority opinion. The left replaced rule of law with what it claims is rule by the majority but is really rule by a small minority of bullies.

    frosty (f27e97)

  93. Sorry, but Vanderwaffle (sic) is not a “delicate little snowflake”. Calling these left-wing enforcers and censors who – in some cases – get people fired and/or thrown off social media, minimized how dangerous they are. I’m not too sure why the Center-Right always goes for this “aren’t those leftists funny/silly/childish” approach. If they’re so “Childish” or “Confused” then they are no threat, and so who cares? The American Spectator laughed at the Left for 30 years and all the while those “kooky” leftists were gaining power and implementing their agenda.

    I’ve come to the conclusion the center-right takes this approach because they can’t imagine anything really mattering except $$$ or persona safety and have trouble figuring out how censoring ideas and the Left enforcing its social rules on the USA eventually will hurt them.

    rcocean (2e1c02)

  94. As for Matt Yglesis, well its nice he signed a tepid letter supporting free speech. But lets not imagine he’s somehow a great person or that we can count on him for doing anything more than signing a harmless letter. This is a man who not only laughed when Breitbart died, he publicly stated he was HAPPY Brietbart died – and hoped other conservatives (who he regarded as the enemy) would also die.

    Some of the signers of this letter did so for pragmatic reasons. Either they think the Lefties are coming for them next OR they think the Democrats and liberals support for soft totalitarianism will hurt the CAUSE. In other words, they may support a future crackdown if it benefits the Left.

    rcocean (2e1c02)

  95. narcisoo @94 I meant till the people signing such letters get more explicit.

    Sammy Finkelman (70b0bc)

  96. narciso (7404b5) — 7/8/2020 @ 7:00 am

    I don’t think what you describe is radically different from post-WWI pre-WWII Germany. During that period the German people saw a number of external shocks that exacerbated an already bad economic situation that was tied to foreign debt obligations. The post-WWI military and political leaders did nothing to stop the rise of communism within Germany which was growing increasingly violent and targeted the German middle class. The military and politicians had in fact marched a generation of men into horrible battles across Europe and were not effectively resisting the communists. The German’s were told that being German meant tolerating this right up until someone started telling them being German actually meant something else.

    While it’s a mistake to view fascism only in terms of the nazi variant the fiction that the nazi variate is simply a result of WWI misses a lot of the story and pro-marxists are certainly going to want to leave out the part marxism played.

    frosty (f27e97)

  97. there are many forms of ideological renewal regimes, as herman kahn, noted, many were straight up military dictatorships like franco’s spain, or horthy’s hungary. fujimori fighting the shining path, bordaberry and the tupamaros.

    narciso (7404b5)

  98. It’s also a myth that cancel culture is based on some sort of majority opinion.

    The shrieking, demented fascists who press – and live for – ruining other people’s lives are the base.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  99. Dustin (b62cc4) — 7/7/2020 @ 5:12 pm

    Trump is absolutely not an option, and for him, Democrats are not an option. We both feel this way resolutely, from our perspective for the right reasons.

    One day Trump will be gone and the D’s will remain. If you look at the past and project that into the future Trump will be a small blip in the curve. At best he’s a reduction in the rate of change but he’s nowhere near an inflection point.

    frosty (f27e97)

  100. https://www.newsweek.com/facebook-advertising-boycott-leader-rashad-robinson-mark-zuckerberg-arrogant-billionaire-1515926

    The president of a group leading the Facebook ad boycott has said Mark Zuckerberg’s stance on freedom of expression has been “arrogant.”

    Rashad Robinson, who spearheads the civil rights organization Color of Change, one of groups that started the “Stop Hate for Profit” campaign last month, spoke out about the social media boss this week ahead of a meeting with Facebook executives.

    Zuckerberg previously said his website’s policies are based around facilitating as much freedom of expression as possible, but the founder and CEO was widely-criticized last month after failing to remove a controversial post by president Trump.

    The advertising boycott soon followed, quickly growing to include hundreds of brands such as Starbucks, Adidas, Coca-Cola, Unilever, Verizon and more…..

    Robinson told The Guardian the campaign was targeting the profits and the stock price. Facebook currently makes roughly 98 percent of its revenue through ads.

    “We have a list of 10 full demands. One is Facebook needs civil rights expertise in [its] C-suite,” he told the newspaper. “They continue to make policy and products without any kind of understanding of voter suppression, of suppression of voices.”

    “Mark Zuckerberg spends his time lecturing us on freedom of expression. It’s such an arrogant thing for a billionaire to tell Black activists about freedom of expression, as if the fight for social change and progress that Black people have isn’t one of the baselines of freedom of expression. Part of that freedom is ensuring that our voices can still be heard in the face of powerful unchecked forces,” he added…..

    Sammy Finkelman (70b0bc)

  101. Orwellian: Censorship is promoting freedom of expression (for the censors.)

    Sammy Finkelman (70b0bc)

  102. Frosty, I think you’re analysis is incomplete. Both the Marxists and the fascists were feeding off of German discontent with conditions created by the treaty of Versailles. In short, I don’t think the Nazi rose to power as a backlash against Marxists. I think they rose to power based on the frustrations of the German people. The Marxists were trying to do the same thing, but Nationalists had better answers for this specific situation than Communists.

    Time123 (ae9d89)

  103. One day Trump will be gone and the D’s will remain. If you look at the past and project that into the future Trump will be a small blip in the curve. At best he’s a reduction in the rate of change but he’s nowhere near an inflection point.

    frosty (f27e97) — 7/8/2020 @ 8:05 am

    I sincerely hope you are right, but I disagree. Trump cultivated and fueled the nation’s greatest weaknesses, damaging us fundamentally. We have less trust in all institutions, our friends do not trust us, we do not trust ourselves. We are mad at race car drivers, cops, black men with cameras, it’s absolutely terrible what Trump did.

    If he were an agent of Putin trying to harm the USA as much as he could, he is brilliant. So brilliant I start to doubt this kind of performance is possible, albeit Trump would be getting instructions.

    Trump was a lifelong democrat. A hard lefty democrat. Big government bribe per permit, cash for Hillary and Schumer democrat. Disgraced for his attack on innocent black teens, he picked up the birther campaign and won over people who classically would also have been democrats but for the 1964 civil rights bill (they don’t know that though).

    Just as LBJ shifted the dynamic permanently (and cynically) in desperation to save his losing election hopes, Trump has shifted the dynamic permanently for somewhat related reasons, along similar grounds.

    Trump is not a blip. He will probably remain a significant political entity until he dies, hopefully naturally and hopefully soon. Cynical people are perfecting Trump (Tucker Carlson for example). The racial division in the country isn’t going away, and the problem was never the democratic party.

    Dustin (b62cc4)

  104. Speaking of justice……

    “A British judge ruled Wednesday that Christopher Steele violated a data privacy law by failing to check the accuracy of information in his infamous dossier, ordering the former spy’s firm to pay damages to two businessmen he wrongly accused of making illicit payments in Russia…..

    ….. The ruling involves a long-discredited claim in Steele’s dossier – repeatedly used by U.S. news media – that Russia’s Alfa Bank, connected to Aven and Fridman, was transmitting secret messages between Moscow and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.

    The FBI concluded the computer pings were not nefarious messages but rather routine behavior most likely connected to email spam. Special Counsel Robert Mueller told Congress last year he did not believe the allegations.”

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/british-court-rules-against-christopher-steele-orders?fbclid=IwAR356aPOxQqQrqH2vCiV8IwlZnpnk00bk1c4amudl83fzosRsrgaU6bbGcs
    _

    harkin (5af287)

  105. We have less trust in all institutions, our friends do not trust us, we do not trust ourselves. We are mad at race car drivers, cops, black men with cameras, it’s absolutely terrible what Trump did.“
    __

    You forgot cities with decades of Democratic governance imploding before our eyes, blacks destroying their own communities, media and medico opinion on a pandemic based on politics instead of science, 911 operators telling callers they’re on their own, statues of great people being ripped down in the name of progress, BLM going bonkers over perceived racial slights yet ignoring the wholesale slaughter in their own communities.

    I have very little trust for anyone blaming Trump for this structural decay in our society.
    _

    harkin (5af287)

  106. Dustin (b62cc4) — 7/8/2020 @ 8:56 am

    I’m sorry Dustin, but this is absurdly shortsighted and gives President Trump way too much credit/blame for the current situation. The left has been remaking our history and marching through our institutions for over 40 years. They have been sowing the seeds of destruction by pitting brother against brother and telling people that the American dream is a fiction and a tool of white supremacy. You need to purge the poison in society at the source. Not merely attack a symptom which is what Trump was. People were sick of the politicians in DC and how they fed off the public. So they chose something different. Perhaps they chose wrongly, but look at the alternative.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  107. Time123 (ae9d89) — 7/8/2020 @ 8:24 am

    I agree it’s incomplete, it’s a simplification of a very complex issue. But I think this is simply a difference in degree.

    Both the Marxists and the fascists were feeding off of German discontent with conditions created by the treaty of Versailles.

    True; but not only conditions create by Versailles.

    I don’t think the Nazi rose to power as a backlash against Marxists

    True; not only as a backlash against them but in part.

    I think they rose to power based on the frustrations of the German people

    And part of those frustrations were with marxists.

    The Marxists were trying to do the same thing, but Nationalists had better answers for this specific situation than Communists.

    And most Germans when forced to chose between the two picked facists.

    My point is that if you really want to avoid fascism, which I do, you’ve also got to keep marxism in check. Once you abandon traditional liberalism things will drift toward one of these two extremes.

    frosty (f27e97)

  108. Frosty, I get what you’re saying, and I can’t disagree that resistance to Marxism had some impact, but where I disagree is that I think it was primarily the conditions created by Versailles.
    Had it not been for that I don’t think any of the other reasons would have had a lot of impact.

    Time123 (6e0727)

  109. Here’s a reasoned analysis of the woke left’s criticism of the letter.

    https://reason.com/2020/07/08/lefties-hate-on-liberal-open-letter-on-free-speech/

    They’re complaining that the signatories are championing censorship of leftist speech! These people.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  110. Dustin (b62cc4) — 7/8/2020 @ 8:56 am

    Trump cultivated and fueled the nation’s greatest weaknesses, damaging us fundamentally.

    We have less trust in all institutions

    That didn’t start with Trump and he’s a blip on this one. We don’t trust institutions because they’ve been captured by political agendas, almost all of it leftist.

    our friends do not trust us

    I’m not convinced this is true. It’s a standard NeverTrump talking point. Leftists around the world are no longer convinced that the status quo will hold but this is really just a reaction to the idea that they may not in fact be able to proceed as quickly as they thought.

    we do not trust ourselves

    I’m not sure what this means. I trust myself. If you mean that some Americans don’t trust other Americans that’s because we’ve had that moment best described in the Family Guy episode when Brian and his roommate watched the OJ verdict.

    We are mad at race car drivers

    Not Trump’s fault. Do you think that’s only an issue because of Trump? Sure, he’s fanning the fire but he didn’t set that fire.

    cops

    Some yes, some no.

    black men with cameras

    What is this even about?

    it’s absolutely terrible what Trump did

    This is pure fantasy. Some of my bagels had mold on them this morning. Is that also Trump’s fault?

    frosty (f27e97)

  111. I have very little trust for anyone blaming Trump for this structural decay in our society.

    There’s some of that clarity of vision. So it isn’t we don’t trust this or we hate that, it’s NeverTrump aligning with their fellow travelers in BLM, the media, academia, Hollywood, and the Democrats.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  112. Tsk tsk… oh what’s become of us… where’s the fainting couch…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  113. it’s NeverTrump aligning with their fellow travelers in BLM, the media, academia, Hollywood, and the Democrats.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/8/2020 @ 11:07 am

    It’s just reality. Trump himself said many times that prosecutors and judges were rigging things against him. That his own election was rigged and invalid. that Barack Obama and Ted Cruz were born in other countries and couldn’t be president, and even that one of his foes’s dads murdered JFK. When the president is elected while saying the institutions in our society are untrustworthy, that seems destabilizing.

    Not Trump’s fault.

    Trump tweeted personal attacks on Bubba Wallace, demanded an apology, and you say this isn’t Trump’s fault. Unfortunately you and Haiku are unwilling to offer even a tiny shred of good faith that direct and specifically proven criticisms of Trump are quite valid.

    Dustin (b62cc4)

  114. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/two-nfl-apologies/

    If you want to see who really has the power in society, look at the way the media and the power in the USA made Drew Brees grovel for saying that standing for the flag is important and that he is proud of what it stands for versus their “nuanced” take on DeSean Jackson spewing racism towards white people and those of Jewish faith by quoting a fake Hitler quote and that anti-Semite Farrakhan.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  115. You need to purge the poison in society at the source. Not merely attack a symptom which is what Trump was.

    NJRob, I do not believe electing Trump or defeating him will purge all the problems from society. I think those who really thought Trump was somehow going to accomplish all his dishonest promises and do this were also full of doubts, but then pushed into their vote by this insane hatred and fear of democrats, which is now applied to a lot of republicans and independents.

    Basically if you don’t like Trump helping Putin murder our soldiers and undermine NATO, you’re a fan of Antifa and BLM. This is the poison. The refusal to listen.

    Can you articulate the case for voting for Joe Biden, in terms a Biden supporter would agree with? If it’s just ‘I think owning a house is white supremacy’ that’s simply irrational.

    Most democrats, most republicans, most Trump fans, most Biden fans, are basically the same. Trump is indeed unique, totally unlike anyone else, presenting serious and special challenges to our form of government, and damaging the institutions that make our nation stable.

    Dustin (b62cc4)

  116. Basically if you don’t like Trump helping Putin murder our soldiers and undermine NATO, you’re a fan of Antifa and BLM.

    This is insane.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  117. frosty (f27e97) — 7/8/2020 @ 9:58 am
    Time123 (6e0727) — 7/8/2020 @ 10:04 am

    I commend the two of you for such a fruitful conversation. Your display has the appearance of collaboration and collegiality. It gladdens this weary traveler.

    The next step is to be this civil towards those who show less civility to you and your positions. The step afterwards is to remain civil, trying looking for the good in an opponent’s clumsy argument. Perhaps the hardest part in fostering a healthy exchange of ideas is in dealing with an adversary who engages in bad-faith by misrepresenting you arguments and being uncivil.

    Whether convincing or not, arguing with civility and patience is always rewarded, in the valuable currencies of respect and friendship.

    felipe (023cc9)

  118. It is easy to be civil and agreeable with those who are like minded. But what of those who are on opposite sides of a spectrum?

    Dustin (b62cc4) — 7/8/2020 @ 11:50 am
    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/8/2020 @ 11:57 am

    These two long-time commenters are a good example of such a pair. Both have had such spirited – wait, who am I kidding? Both had had such bitter debates that, at one time or another, each has experienced exile (forced or elected) from this site. That was then.

    Today I see much more civil interactions between them, even while they do not shy from stating exactly what they think. I value both of their presences here because what they say is important for us to hear. The environment these two bring, here, are exactly what the site Persuasion yearns to foster. If the site owner can exercise the wise policies or our esteemed host, then they may be successful.

    I thank both Dustin and Haiku for demonstrating the courage of their convictions.

    felipe (023cc9)

  119. Dustin (b62cc4) — 7/8/2020 @ 11:29 am

    Trump tweeted personal attacks on Bubba Wallace, demanded an apology, and you say this isn’t Trump’s fault.

    You are trying to lay that entire situation at Trump’s feet. He could have remained completely silent on the subject and people would still be on both sides of this issue. You’re about to complain about good faith and even here you’ve narrowed “Trump’s fault” to tweeting personal attacks when it was originally people being upset at Wallace. Trump didn’t make people upset at Wallace. People can easily have their own opinion about that without Trump’s help.

    Unfortunately you and Haiku are unwilling to offer even a tiny shred of good faith that direct and specifically proven criticisms of Trump are quite valid.

    I’m guessing this is directed at me since you quoted my comment. This is simply untrue. In the comment you’re commenting on I acknowledged that Trump poured fuel on the fire, i.e. made the situation worse. You are misrepresenting my position and you consistently do this. What I’m unwilling to do is join you in saying all of this is Trump’s fault. We’ve gone over this ground multiple times. You take an extreme position and consider it justified by things that are overstated, misrepresented, or simply don’t justify the position. Can you honestly say I’m misrepresenting your position when you’re saying that Trump is helping Putin murder our soldiers?

    frosty (f27e97)

  120. Trump tweeted personal attacks on Bubba Wallace, demanded an apology, and you say this isn’t Trump’s fault. Unfortunately you and Haiku are unwilling to offer even a tiny shred of good faith that direct and specifically proven criticisms of Trump are quite valid.

    Dustin (b62cc4) — 7/8/2020 @ 11:29 am

    Lumping Frosty in with CH is inaccurate, I’ve never know frosty to do other than argue patiently, reasonably and in good faith.

    Time123 (ae9d89)

  121. felipe (023cc9) — 7/8/2020 @ 12:07 pm

    This is fairly easy with Time123. I don’t think it’s news to anyone that we have a lot that we don’t agree on. I won’t deny that in my head I’ve made some comments that would be offensive if said out loud. I’m guessing Time123 has had the same experience and if not we should start preparing the paperwork for sainthood. But I don’t think I’ve ever seen Time123 intentionally misrepresent my position. We’ve both been wrong about each other’s position and we’ve adjusted based on new information.

    Perhaps the hardest part in fostering a healthy exchange of ideas is in dealing with an adversary who engages in bad-faith by misrepresenting you arguments and being uncivil.

    This is indeed difficult. I’m not convinced it’s possible to have a healthy exchange between those two individuals. I think the best that can result from those situations is to explore via example the possible options for any sort of communication. That keeps the door open for at least a return to spirited debate down the road.

    frosty (f27e97)

  122. Frosty your wrote

    You are trying to lay that entire situation at Trump’s feet. He could have remained completely silent on the subject and people would still be on both sides of this issue

    Bubba jumped to the conclusion that the noose found in his garage was a racist insult directed at him. Investigation showed that he was mistake about it being directed at him. Given the circumstances it’s arguably reasonable mistake to make. He eventually owned it and backed down.

    Trump chose to make the situation worse. He could have left it alone. He could have used it as a cautionary tale about patience, he could have done any number of things to lower the temperature on the subject. He chose to make the situation more contentious, not less. It’s fair to fault him for the things he does and says.

    Time123 (ae9d89)

  123. @127, thank you for the kind words. FWIW I think you do better than I do at being polite. I’m sometimes too hasty.

    Time123 (ae9d89)

  124. Time123 (ae9d89) — 7/8/2020 @ 12:46 pm

    I’ve never know frosty to do other than argue patiently, reasonably and in good faith.

    Thanks. I’m often wrong, sometimes stupifingly so. I often misunderstand a point, sometimes one that is obvious to everyone. I sometimes fails to express myself, sometimes in ways that make it seem like I’m saying the opposite of my intent and even I shake my head when I read it back. But I appreciate our debates.

    frosty (f27e97)

  125. Ezra Klein
    @ezraklein

    A lot of debates that sell themselves as being about free speech are actually about power. And there’s *a lot* of power in being able to claim, and hold, the mantle of free speech defender.
    __ _

    blackpilljay
    @blamelessjay
    ·
    what is the power motive in using an engineered kerfuffle to silence a coworker then slagging him in subtweets?
    ___

    Password is Taco
    @pw_is_taco1
    ·
    There’s even more power in being able to claim that words *are* violence, and then appointing yourself the arbiter of which and whose words transgress that standard
    __ _

    O.T. Ford
    @ot_ford
    ·
    If liberals have to pick a side between #freespeech and wokeness, Ezra picks wokeness. This is such a #woke framing of the issue. In case you still thought it would never escape from campus.
    _ _

    The Duke of Omnium
    @plantypalliser
    ·
    Critics of free speech are attempting to silence arguments they can’t defeat in the marketplace of ideas. That’s the real power play here, boss.
    ___

    Charles C. W. Cooke
    @charlescwcooke

    Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission is simple: Instruct its writers not to tweet anything about a topic, and then subtweet them about it in front of 2.6 million people.
    __ _

    harkin (ca2d1a)

  126. Time123 (ae9d89) — 7/8/2020 @ 12:53 pm

    Trump chose to make the situation worse. He could have left it alone. He could have used it as a cautionary tale about patience, he could have done any number of things to lower the temperature on the subject. He chose to make the situation more contentious, not less. It’s fair to fault him for the things he does and says.

    Yes, I completely agree. I wouldn’t take exception to anything you’ve said here. This is why I said he poured fuel on the fire. This is me agreeing with you and faulting Trump for something. This is also how I run afoul of Dustin. I acknowledge that Trump did something wrong but I just don’t do it strongly enough. This gets turned into defending Trump because that’s how purity tests work.

    However, what you’ve said isn’t what Dustin said, he said:

    We are mad at race car drivers

    because of Trump (I’m obviously paraphrasing)

    Now, I could have read that wrong and Dustin could have corrected me. Instead, he doubled down in @119 and shifted the goalposts. I’ve made my case on this already and that’s probably why Dustin tried shifting the goalposts.

    frosty (f27e97)

  127. frosty (f27e97) — 7/8/2020 @ 12:51 pm

    Well said. Also, when I said:

    Perhaps the hardest part in fostering a healthy exchange of ideas is in dealing with an adversary who engages in bad-faith by misrepresenting you arguments and being uncivil.

    I meant fostering an environment in which a healthy exchange of ideas may occur. This essential meaning was lost in the economy of words I chose in that phrase.

    I agree that debate with an adversary who chooses to argue in bad faith will not result in any benefits between them. But an example of how to comport oneself, in that unfortunate situation, can have a salutary influence on observers of the exchange.

    felipe (023cc9)

  128. I guess I should read Dustin’s stuff more closely.

    Time123 (6e0727)

  129. 110. harkin (5af287) — 7/8/2020 @ 9:26 am

    BLM going bonkers over perceived racial slights yet ignoring the wholesale slaughter in their own communities.

    They want everybody else to ignore it also, and are pushing for more neglect and ineffective solutions.

    It is nothing less than an evil, dishonest, pro-crime organization.

    Which is why they need to control debate.

    Sammy Finkelman (70b0bc)

  130. Sammy Finkelman (70b0bc) — 7/8/2020 @ 1:23 pm

    This can’t be said enough. BLM is advocating for things that will harm everyone, especially black communities. And yes, it is exactly why they need to control the debate. They’ve been very effective in doing that so far and we’re still at the stage were any criticism of BLM is interpreted as being in favor of more racism. If BLM were run by the aryan brotherhood I don’t think they’d be doing anything differently.

    frosty (f27e97)

  131. Lumping Frosty in with CH is inaccurate, I’ve never know frosty to do other than argue patiently, reasonably and in good faith.

    Time123 (ae9d89) — 7/8/2020 @ 12:46 pm

    Fair enough, I suppose. I’m trying to be generous to Haiku because he seems to deserve that lately. He’s mad but there’s plenty to be mad about, even from his point of view. I don’t think Haiku is insincere at all. I just think he’s not trying to see the other perspective.

    Regarding Frosty, who had an elaborate, basically unreadable fisking, I am associating Trump with his comment, where he used his role as leader of the free world to demand an apology from a race car driver for an honest mistake, where that driver was actually quite professional and generous, even inspiring. Frosty uses some weasel words so that anything he’s interpreting is absolute, and therefore objectively wrong. This isn’t good faith. Good faith would be to restate someone’s position in words they understand, rather than saying an insane version of them and then saying ‘hey he didn’t correct me specifically point by point’ as though that’s how human beings interact.

    Frosty says I actually said I blame Trump for “all” criticism of Bubba. No, I’m not. I don’t even care about what most are saying about Bubba or the rebel flag. Trump brought us back to the subject. The leader of the free world has a bully pulpit, and Trump used it.

    I do not think we live in a world where one person could be responsible for “all” of a thing. Frosty calls this ‘shifting the goalposts’. He’s muddying the waters. I don’t even know why. Frosty had to admit I was correct, that Trump’s comments were “wrong” in the most limited way he could.

    The real point is that when the president of the united states does something to someone, demands an apology from a private citizen, for example, he is accountable for his actions totally. Now this was just one of over a dozen examples of this in a single Frosty comment. I usually ignore him for this reason. He’s got an axe to grind for Trump, and so does Haiku, but there’s something more honest (albeit not as kind) about how Haiku is doing it.

    Now, I could have read that wrong and Dustin could have corrected me.

    Corrected you that trump didn’t write his tweet? No, I assert Trump wrote his tweet. I assert this is why we are talking about it, on a blog that recently had a post about the tweet. And you conceded Trump was wrong. This is a tedious way to hold a president accountable.

    Dustin (b62cc4)

  132. Basically if you don’t like Trump helping Putin murder our soldiers and undermine NATO, you’re a fan of Antifa and BLM.

    This is insane.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/8/2020 @ 11:57 am

    OK, which part is crazy? I’m guessing you only really disagree with one part: where I say Trump helped. I bet Frosty could write 51 billion words about how Trump wasn’t helping but I am taking as fact that

    1) Trump knew (he certainly knows by now)
    2) Trump told us it wasn’t true
    3) Trump has done nothing about it

    If I were one of the goons paying half a million dollars to the Taliban to kill American soldiers, I would consider that very helpful.

    Dustin (b62cc4)

  133. I guess I should read Dustin’s stuff more closely.

    Time123 (6e0727) — 7/8/2020 @ 1:17 pm

    Probably not. I appreciate you taking me to task. I don’t comment as seriously as some do, and frankly I’ve been doing it a long time so there are a lot of old issues. I’ve been exceptionally uncharitable to Haiku over the years, perhaps for good reason but I regret it a lot.

    Frosty comments a lot like I used to, when I was a Republican trying to prove something little by little. Once I realized, big picture, the GOP really was a big bag of crap, I regretted that too.

    Dustin (b62cc4)

  134. https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/07/seattle-trains-white-employees-to-recognize-their-complicity-in-the-system-of-white-supremacy/

    I do agree the gop is almost nearly useless, its the proverbial dead parrot, against the left assaults on the culture,

    narciso (7404b5)

  135. Had to dust this one off…

    This goes out to NeverTrump (Nobody on this blog), BLM, antifa, media, Democrats, far-left educators, Hollywood, etc. I preemptively condemn myself…

    …………………./エッ/)
    ………………..,/ッ../
    ………………./…./
    …………./エッ/’…’/エッッ`キク
    ………./’/…/…./……./ィッ\
    ……..(‘(…エ…エ…. ッ~/’…’)
    ………\……………..’…../
    ……….”…\………. _.キエ
    …………\…………..(
    …………..\………….\

    Dustin… I believe you are a good person at heart, may the Lord watch over you and yours.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  136. Thank you, Haiku. I also wish you well, man.

    Dustin (b62cc4)

  137. Dustin (b62cc4) — 7/8/2020 @ 1:54 pm

    Frosty comments a lot like I used to, when I was a Republican trying to prove something little by little. Once I realized, big picture, the GOP really was a big bag of crap, I regretted that too.

    It used to be that limiting yourself to statements that were proveable, avoiding hyperbole, avoiding extremes, reasoned debate, i.e. establishing things little by little, etc. were all considered good things, virtues even. This is still an approach I try to follow. It’s possible to try it without being an R.

    frosty (f27e97)

  138. #141 — I decline to be part of any group where admiring or respecting Donald Trump is regarded as a non-negotiable measure of virtue.

    His niece, a PhD in clinical psychology, says he’s a sociopath who combines hubris with willful ignorance, and who has made cheating a way of life — which isn’t telling us anything that wasn’t already discernible. His sister called him a clown with no principles at all (again, not exactly news), and thought it absurd that he might be president.
    Many people who worked closely with him have said that he really isn’t a better or wiser person than his public persona indicates; if anything, he’s worse.

    There’s really no shame in earning the hostility of anti-NeverTrumpers.

    Radegunda (cd8c8c)

  139. Radegunda,

    What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Even Reagan had a family member sell him out for leftist adulation. That isn’t equating Trump to Reagan in any other way.

    NJRob (4d779a)

  140. Felipe #124: that was very well put, and I agree completely.

    Simon Jester (8378a9)

  141. There’s really no shame in earning the hostility of anti-NeverTrumpers.

    Lefties don’t embarrass easy, but they do dance on the interstate…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6189 secs.