Left-fascist youth mobs enabled by progressive college administrators. Latest target: James Kirchick. https://t.co/ifM9jCO5Vp
— IGF CultureWatch (@IndeGayForum) May 11, 2017
This says so much:
Kirchick [was] expected to address the ways in which oppressive regimes endanger gay rights. The event has generated controversy on campus, with DePaul officials censoring a poster promoting the talk due to its statement: “Gay Lives Matter.”
More. It’s not just Jamie Kirchick. Leftist Protesters Shout Down Gay Journalist at Portland State University, referencing Chadwick Moore’s attempt to share his views. Writes Tom Knighton:
College campuses aren’t welcoming places for any speaker who isn’t a Leftist—the Left’s dirty little secret is that identity doesn’t really matter to them at all. …
The student group that put on the event, Freethinkers of PSU, is reportedly a non-partisan student group. They reported that they attempted to place flyers for the event with PSU’s Queer Resource Center, but were denied.
From the comments:
Kosh III: The true danger to the First Amendment is from Trump and his cult followers such as Miller and other quislings. But maybe Miller hopes for a sinecure in the Fourth Reich?
Jason replies: Only in the Alice-in Wonderland delusions of the left would opposing mob tactics to keep invited speakers from expressing views that the mob dislikes be seen as the Nazi side.
53 Comments for “Assaults on Free Speech Continue”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Left-fascist youth mobs enabled by progressive college administrators. Latest target: James Kirchick.
Huh?
Without doubt, this is the least coherent post I’ve ever read on IGF.
Did anything actually happen? Were there any mobs? Was Kirchick prevented from speaking? Was Kirchick or anyone else injured?
Who invited Kirchick — leftists, rightists, gays, feys? Who composed the mob — leftists, rightists, gays, feys?
Did the administration at this prominent Catholic university in Chicago take any action, other than to ban a “Gay Lives Matter” poster?
About the only thing that is clear from the linked accounts is that the conservative outrage machine seems to be in full throat before anything actually happened, other than a planned protest of some sort.
Mud is clearer that this post.
A fact or two might add some coherence.
Whatever.
posted by Lori Heine on
I don’t understand it, either.
The outrage machine has become a perpetual-motion machine.
posted by TJ on
Facts? Why be limited by facts when you can be a homocon who has sex with his own magical unicorn and lives next to the Jetsons?
posted by Jorge on
“Assaults on Free Speech Continue”
Indeed. It seems you can’t even do your job nowadays without being axed. Oh, wait, there was a Supreme Court case about that; the plaintiff lost.
A fact or two might add some coherence.
Well, how about an opinion? The article it links to is more fluff than substance.
As for facts, that article has only a few:
1) James Kirchick was scheduled to speak
2) There’s a Facebook post expressing opposition, accusing him of racism, Zionism, and of similarities to Milo.
3) One promotional poster for the event, with the phrase “Gay Lives Matter,” was denied by the campus administration. The reasoning was that the organization in question had no connection to BLM, and that the poster served to pit two marginalized groups against each other*:
4) Kirchick has a resume of opposing Milo Y, condemning Islamic radicalism, supporting gay rights, and being punched in the face by a fascist.
5) Kirchick compares the people opposed to his event are children.
And that’s it.
I don’t share Mr. Miller’s, or the article’s opinion.
*: But as for the college’s reasoning for rejecting one of the posters, quite frankly that’s none of the college’s business in my opinion, and I must express a bit of outrage at the objectification involved. Some powerful outside force is pitting gays against another community? Excuse me, EXCUSE ME, sometimes us gays pick the fight on own own volition. Stepping in in that way shields the gay community from the consequences of its more nefarious ways. We criticize the other effect–shielding other minority communities from the consequences of hating and killing gays, which they do of their own volition as well. This idea that there is something artificial about marginalized communities fighting each other instead of working together is precisely what will perpetuate the situation, by creating an incentive for them to separate rather than work out the conflicts. That’s why these kind of events are needed in the first place.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
On the assumption that the “Wednesday night” mentioned over and over in the linked articles was last night, Wednesday, May 10:
(1) I checked the online editions of Chicago’s papers this morning and there appears to have been no violence, rioting, arson or other incidents related to Kirchick’s appearance at DePaul last night, at least none worth reporting.
(2) Neither Turning Point USA’s Facebook page or Twitter feed report anything happening at DePaul last night.
(3) I asked a friend who is an DePaul emeritus professor about the situation last night, and woke to find an e-mail telling me that he and his dog had taken a long walk on campus last night about 9pm and there was no sign at all of anything unusual going on — no crowds, no police lights or sirens, no police tape or barracades, and so on.
It is early in the morning still, and homocon outrage machine may not yet be out of bed. I’ll check again tonight if Stephen hasn’t reported further.
But it sure looks like either Kirchick chicked out and didn’t come, or nothing much happened when he did. Or maybe “Wednesday” was some other Wednesday, past or future.
As an aside, my professor friend was inducted into the Chicago LGBT Hall of Fame some years ago, and he seems to be quite amused by the situation, commenting that gays used to be made of “sterner stuff” than “Kirhick [sic] & Company”. I’d quote the relevant parts of his e-mail (because he can be very caustically funny when he puts his mind to it and this is one of those times) but any further criticism would probably send homocons into a complete panic, and what’s the point of doing that?
It seems that we have reached the point where homocons have come to believe that free speech is the right to speak without any opposition or blowback whatsoever, from anyone at all, no matter how off-the-wall the opposition/blowback might be.
That’s not free speech, or at least not free speech in a robust marketplace of ideas. That’s thumb sucking.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Update May 11 at 4:43 pm: Tom Ciccotta (billed as a libertarian who writes about economics and education for Breitbart News) reported: “Tom Ciccotta is a libertarian who writes about economics and higher education for Breitbart News.” [Breitbart, Report: DePaul University Banned ‘Gay Lives Matter’ Poster for Gay Reporter’s Lecture on Radical Islam, May 11, 2017].
Since I’m pretty sure that Breitbart would be all over any leftist-fascist youth mob violence, and is silent, it appears that Kirchick spoke without incident. I guess we are down to the poster issue.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Turns out that my comment above, though sloppy cut and paste, is as incoherent as Stephen’s original post.
Here’s the corrected first sentence of the preceding comment:
Tom Ciccotta (billed as a libertarian who writes about economics and education for Breitbart News) reported: “On Wednesday evening, Kirchick, who is gay, spoke about the radical elements of Islam that threaten members of the LGBTQ community in a lecture titled, “Dictatorships and Radical Islam: The Enemies of Gay Rights.” [Breitbart, Report: DePaul University Banned ‘Gay Lives Matter’ Poster for Gay Reporter’s Lecture on Radical Islam, May 11, 2017].
posted by Jorge on
Since I’m pretty sure that Breitbart would be all over any leftist-fascist youth mob violence, and is silent, it appears that Kirchick spoke without incident. I guess we are down to the poster issue.
I love the tactic of looking up the enemy.
I used to do it with Media Matters every so often.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I love the tactic of looking up the enemy.
Breitbart isn’t the enemy. Breitbart is a popular conservative media source, along with Daily Caller, Daily Wire, Free Beacon, Patheos, Washington Times, and so on.
Stephen cites them frequently, so I assume that they are all respectable sources.
But I don’t “look up” or scour the sources. I look up the subject, as in “Kirchick DePaul” (in this case) on Google/Bing, and the search leads me to the sources. Of the search results, the Breitbart report was the only one written post-speech, so I quoted it.
posted by TJ on
BreitBart; For When You Want To Obey Nazis and Wannabe Libertarians.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Update 2 (More, Furthermore, and Moreover) – May 12 at 7:57 am: I checked again this morning and the homocon outrage machine is dead silent about DePaul — no mention of protestors either inside or outside the event, no mention of any disruption at Kirchick’s speech, no mention of anything, for that matter. Nothing in the DePaul newspapers, either. So I guess after all the buildup, nothing happened except that Kirchick spoke at DePaul University, probably boring the audience into a near-death experience.
posted by Kosh III on
The true danger to the First Amendment is from Trump and his cult followers such as Millet and other quislings.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/10/527754346/west-virginia-reporter-arrested-for-yelling-question-at-hhs-secretary
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/05/opinions/jail-for-protest-no-laughing-matter-randazza/index.html
But maybe Miller hopes for a sinecure in the Fourth Reich?
posted by Jason on
Only in the Alice-in Wonderland delusions of the left would opposing mob tactics to keep invited speakers from expressing views that the mob dislikes be seen as the Nazi side.
posted by TJ on
Wait. is this really the moral argument; Its OK for the FCC to censor Stephen Colbert, but any criticism or blowback against bigoted bakers or lecture circuit pundits is a violation of the First Amendment?
posted by Jason on
TJ, do you even read this blog, because it sure doesn’t sound like it. Stephen was opposed to using the FCC against Colbert. But why let the facts get in the way of your hate.
posted by Doug on
Steven’s posts are becoming as bizarre as Trump’s tweets.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
More. It’s not just Jamie Kirchick. Leftist Protesters Shout Down Gay Journalist at Portland State University, referencing Chadwick Moore’s attempt to share his views.
The linked article:
Chadwick Moore doesn’t seem to have been intimidated or silenced (“Moore responded in sometimes feisty rebuttals as the two sides clashed.”), so I’m not sure what is so awful about what happened.
Sounds an awful lot like free speech to me. Rowdy, raucous, at times disruptive, free speech. Not the polite, “I’ll speak, you listen with your hands folded on your lap …” type of free speech favored by the tassel-loafer crowd, but free speech nonetheless.
As an aside, any news on the “left-fascist youth mobs enabled by progressive college administrators” at DePaul? All I can find is a Breitbart report that Kirchick spoke last night as scheduled and nothing happened. The DePaul student newspaper might report something in its next edition. I’ll let you know.
posted by Jorge on
Sounds an awful lot like free speech to me. Rowdy, raucous, at times disruptive, free speech. Not the polite, “I’ll speak, you listen with your hands folded on your lap …” type of free speech favored by the tassel-loafer crowd, but free speech nonetheless.
Hmm, I was probably with you until you made this argument. This sounds like “defining deviancy down” to me. “Disruptive free speech” is an oxymoron.
I think if someone invites someone to an event, that event should be a safe space for speaking to the host. People in minority communities should be able to learn from potential mentors and models without becoming the victims of crime. If a free exchange of ideas is what is desired, then of course that’s a little different. There should be a fair chance for all those present to speak.
(I am sure that universities do not permit their student activities fees to be used to invite speakers for private, members-only discussions.)
Wait, actually in practice that’s exactly what happens with these speakers, only it’s behind the scenes.
Okay, fine. Free speech it is. Damn, I was hoping I’d stumbled onto some excuse for supporting the “safe spaces” concept.
posted by JohnInCA on
“I think if someone invites someone to an event, that event should be a safe space for speaking to the host. “
Only if you mean “free from violence” by “safe space”. If you, as a speaker, want the rest? Private venue, a speaking fee, security that will eject non-violent protestors? That might be reasonable, but you’re not entitled to it, and that’s something you need to negotiate for.
Face it, there is no “right” that says everyone else has to shut up when a person is talking. Two street preachers can stand side-by-side and shout till their faces are blue, and no one’s rights are being infringed until one decides to throw a punch.
That doesn’t change just because the street preachers are in a private venue and one is collecting a pay check. Same deal: no one’s “rights” are being violated. That said, once you’re in a private venue, it is the option of the venue to eject one or both of the street preachers. And that won’t violate their rights either, because while you’re free to speak, you aren’t entitled to other people’s property as a platform.
To make a long story short, as much as people like to talk about these as “free speech issues”, they really aren’t. Pretending they are just obfuscates the line between “rights” and “is right/polite”.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I was hoping I’d stumbled onto some excuse for supporting the “safe spaces” concept.
Conservatives want “safe spaces” — arenas free from dissenting views, protest or opposition –for conservative speakers, but won’t use the term because use would de-weaponized “safe spaces” as an attack tool on left/liberal/progressives.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Conservatives want ‘safe spaces’ — arenas free from dissenting views, protest or opposition –for conservative speakers, but won’t use the term because use would de-weaponized “safe spaces” as an attack tool on left/liberal/progressives.”
They’ve done the same thing with “identity politics” and “political correctness.” As if calling them by different names–or, rather, not mentioning them at all when they engage in these same practices–makes them invisible.
It’s like little kids, who cover their eyes with their hands and think they’ve become invisible.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
They’ve done the same thing with “identity politics” and “political correctness.” As if calling them by different names–or, rather, not mentioning them at all when they engage in these same practices–makes them invisible.
Yup. Pretty much across the board.
posted by JohnInCA on
Just once, I want someone complaining about “safe spaces” to explain why a church isn’t one. Heck, most even have a place literally called the “sanctuary”.
It might be a (relatively) new term, but it’s something people have always sought out. The only “new” thing is explicitly slapping the term on groups that didn’t explicitly have their own domains before.
posted by TJ on
1. Quite a few people have talked about LGBT rights as a global human rights concern. I can thing of several NGOS that issue in-depth country reports on the issue. Governments that are actually oppressive tend to have pretty shi@@ human rights records overall.
If Mr. K is acting like he has hit upon some magical treasure of unpublished facts, by taking about homophobia in oppressive regimes, then he is a fool….or a conman.
The common problem with people who get paid to talk about global gay rights, is that they have little serious understanding of foreign policy or how global development works.
These complex cultural, historical, political and economic factors are important, but not necessarily easy to package into a “trendy” lecture circuit career…..a career that the speaker is hoping becomes a book deal, cable news talking head.
posted by Jorge on
The common problem with people who get paid to talk about global gay rights, is that they have little serious understanding of foreign policy or how global development works.
I can’t wait for the day when gays gain the right to wear ankle-length socks in Saudi Arabia. Cue eyeroll.
posted by TJ on
Well, what LGBT people in Saudi Arabia want, may be a tad bit more important then what you say they want.
Saudi Arabia has an underground Green Party, but even in a free election, they would probably not do well. They are probably the only Saudi group to support any gay rights.
Class and tribe and sect still has alot to play in Saudi politics and what life is like for its people; male, female, gay, straight.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Cue eyeroll.
Careful, Jorge. Eyerolls, according to Kellyanne Conway, are sexist. Don’t want you to get kicked off the Trump Train or anything.
posted by Jorge on
I can’t help it if the only eyerolling a handsome gay man is ever likely to give to a venerable woman is vertical with a scowl instead of sidelong with a grin. We were born this way.
posted by Kosh III on
“College campuses aren’t welcoming places for any speaker who isn’t a Leftist”
Yes of course, were Angela Davis to speak at Bob Jones Univ. or Wheaton College the audience would listen with hands folded on their laps.
posted by JohnInCA on
Not to mention that purposefully obfuscating “not welcoming” with “assault on Free Speech” is kind of dishonest.
posted by JohnInCA on
To restate a bit of what said above…
Generally speaking, when I hear about these “Free Speech” stories, I imagine whether or not the person’s “rights” would be harmed if, instead of a paid speaker with a venue and security, they were just a regular ol’ street preacher.
As is well established, street preachers can stand side-by-side and shout opposing ideas. No one’s rights are “harmed” by that.
So noisy protestors? Sorry, but Hells Angels have a right to rev their engines just as much as Westboro Baptists have a right to wave their signs and chant.
So not being paid to speak? Sorry, but you were never entitled to that paycheck and venue, so it’s a contract issue, not a Free Speech issue.
So other people not wanting to advertise your event? Sorry, “Free Speech” doesn’t mean “Free Advertising”.
You really do have to find actual cases of violence before it becomes a Free Speech issue. Either with protestors attacking speakers, or police silencing the street preacher. But non-violent protesting, dropping engagements and refusing to advertise? They might be dick moves, but they aren’t attacks on free speech.
posted by Jorge on
…….
So not being paid to speak? Sorry, but you were never entitled to that paycheck and venue, so it’s a contract issue, not a Free Speech issue.
If it’s a paid speaker who is shouted down, and the paid speaker’s volume is not a free speech issue, then the heckler doesn’t have any right to be there, either. It’s a wash.
And that is not all. For the hosts, those who pay the speaker, still retains their free speech interest. They’re the ones who paid for it. They have the freedom to pay for the speech. If they cannot listen to what they have paid for, then they have a First Amendment right to require that the government enforce the laws and policies against disorderly conduct equally on their behalf as on the behalf of any other host who pays to listen to noncontroversial conduct.
posted by JohnInCA on
“It’s a wash.”
Kind of my point. As far as “free speech” goes, the heckler and speaker are on equal footing. Which is why the next step is property rights.
“For the hosts, those who pay the speaker, still retains their free speech interest.”
Interest? Sure. But not right. So sure, the venue can call the cops on trespassers if someone doesn’t leave when told they’re no longer welcome, but it’s not a free speech issue, it’s a property rights issue.
And the part you keep gleefully skipping over… if the venue is fine with protestors and hecklers and so-on? They are under no obligation to eject them.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
And that is not all. For the hosts, those who pay the speaker, still retains their free speech interest. They’re the ones who paid for it. They have the freedom to pay for the speech. If they cannot listen to what they have paid for, then they have a First Amendment right to require that the government enforce the laws and policies against disorderly conduct equally on their behalf as on the behalf of any other host who pays to listen to noncontroversial conduct.
The First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”) prohibits the government from abridging freedom of speech. The First Amendment does not require the government to provide a safe-zone coccoon for every damn fool that wants to speak his/her mind.
The government does have an obligation, within reason, to take steps to ensure public safety, including the public safety of speakers in public venues, but “within reason” is an important limitation. The obligation is not limitless, and the government does not, for example, have an obligation to provide a bodyguard for every asshole that likes to shoot his mouth off walking around town.
Take the recent conservative uproar concerning Ann Coulter at UC-Berkley as a vehicle to look at the issue.
As you may recall, a student conservative group hired Coulter (speaking fee $20,000 – $50,000) to speak at Berkley. The potential for serious, and perhaps violent, protests emerged. UC-Berkley engaged the services of about 300 police and security personnel to protect Coulter and keep the peace, but concluded that the resources would not ensure public safety, given the timing and venue. UC-Berkley then told the student group that the time and venue would have to be changed to ensure that the peace could be kept during Coulter’s appearance. Coulter and the young conservatives declined, and the event was cancelled.
Now, could UC-Berkley have provided adequate security for Coulter and the conservative students at the original time and venue, even if 300 police and security guards were considered inadequate to the task?
Certainly, with enough resources.
As a public university, UC-Berkley could have prevailed upon Governor Brown for protection from the California National Guard. The California NG has a MP battalion available for call-up to provide direct security, and at least three Infantry battalions available for call-up to provide support, each consisting of about 1,000 personnel.
I have no doubt that with 4,000 soldiers available, UC-Berkley (which is a geographically small campus) could have set up a perimeter isolating the venue and all surrounding buildings and grounds from which a sniper could fire upon the venue, cleared all buildings and grounds within the perimeter, screened anyone entering the perimeter with metal detectors and other scanning devices, and so on.
In other words, UC-Berkley (with cooperation from the State of California) could have provided effective security akin to the level of security provided the President.
Did it have an obligation to do so, just because a student conservative group decided to pay Coulter #20,000 to $50,000 to lay some Whoop-Ass on evil progressives?
You seem to think so. I do not.
posted by Jorge on
The First Amendment does not require the government to provide a safe-zone coccoon for every damn fool that wants to speak his/her mind.
The government does have an obligation, within reason, to take steps to ensure public safety, including the public safety of speakers in public venues, but “within reason” is an important limitation.
To be perfectly honest, I don’t see the distinction.
Take the recent conservative uproar concerning Ann Coulter at UC-Berkley as a vehicle to look at the issue…
…Did it have an obligation to do so, just because a student conservative group decided to pay Coulter #20,000 to $50,000 to lay some Whoop-Ass on evil progressives?
You seem to think so. I do not.
What that tells is that UC-Berkley was unwilling to provide sufficient security in order to meet its obligation to provide a reasonable amount of security for the event.
It is not only the efforts that must be within reason, so too must the results.
Once upon a time, nine people received a comparable level of protection as the President of the United States when that President federalized the National Guard and had them escort those students to school. He did this in order to carry out the law of the United States because a governor ordered the National Guard to defy the law of the United States. In doing so, that governor acted outside of his legal capacity of an elected official who swore to uphold the US Constitution. The President did not agree with that law meant. But he knew that something greater was at stake if a governor, one of the most powerful officers of the government sworn to uphold the law, was permitted lead and win a movement to defy it.
You’re damn right I think UC Berkeley had an obligation to provide enough security for Ann Coulter to speak.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Once upon a time, nine people received a comparable level of protection as the President of the United States when that President federalized the National Guard and had them escort those students to school. He did this in order to carry out the law of the United States because a governor ordered the National Guard to defy the law of the United States. In doing so, that governor acted outside of his legal capacity of an elected official who swore to uphold the US Constitution. The President did not agree with that law meant. But he knew that something greater was at stake if a governor, one of the most powerful officers of the government sworn to uphold the law, was permitted lead and win a movement to defy it.
Not to belabor the obvious, but the two are not equivalent.
The President acted to enforce a lawful order of the Supreme court, which Governor Faubus chose to defy using the power of the state, calling up the Arkansas National Guard to surround Central High School and keep the nine students from entering the school. The President deployed the 82nd Airborne to ensure that the ruling of the Supreme Court was upheld.
The situation at UC-Berkley was not equivalent, or even close. UC-Berkley offered an alternate venue and time for Ann Coulter to speak, a time and venue in which security could be ensured. Ann Coulter and the conservative student group that was sponsoring her refused to accept the alternate.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You’re damn right I think UC Berkeley had an obligation to provide enough security for Ann Coulter to speak.
UC-Berkeley did exactly that, Jorge.
Faced with the reality that police had “very specific intelligence” of threats “that could pose a grave danger to the speaker” and others if the event were held at the originally scheduled time and venue (which police deemed to be “unprotectable”), UC-Berkeley cancelled the original event but offered an alternate protectable venue and time at which the 300-odd police and security personnel engaged by UC-Berkeley could “provide enough security for Ann Coulter to speak”.
Coulter and the Cornflakes** turned UC-Berkeley down, and threatened (with reckless disregard, in my opinion) to go through with the event as originally scheduled, no matter the risk to Coulter, the Cornflakes and everyone else in the vicinity. Luckily, Coulter and the Cornflakes were all toot and no salute in that regard, as is typically the case with conservatives.
And, as is typically the case with conservatives, the uproar was manufactured, for the most part, for public consumption. Coulter and the Cornflakes are transparent as hell, interested only in provoking controversy and violence, and not interested in having Coulter actually speak. The minute that UC-Berkeley offered a protectable venue and time for Coulter to speak, Coulter and the Cornflakes lost all interest in having her do so.
Who was using whom is an interesting question. Was Coulter using the Cornflakes to obtain a venue in which to stir up violence and threats of violence in order to sell her new book, or were the Cornflakes using Coulter to give some credence to their pretensions of political courage in the face of liberal orthodoxy? Probably both. Just about the only thing that is certain is that neither was interested in having Coulter speak; the controversy was the product.
**The conservative version of snowflakes; Coulter sycophants who think that her views, a rehash of 1950’s racism and religiousity, are fresh, clever and courageous.
posted by TJ on
Meanwhile gay people in Chechnya are being sent to concentration camps….
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It’s been several days now, and it is as plain as a goat’s ass that Stephen’s breathless alarm about “left-fascist youth mobs” shutting down Kirchick at DePaul was unadulterated bullshit, just another example of the resentment politics of the right.
Kirkchick spoke as scheduled, nothing happened, and the only casualties were three people in the audience who nearly died of boredom.
posted by TJ on
1. College students are – across the political spectrum – thinking that talk radio, cable news talking heads, and the presidential debates are actually what constitutes serious debate.
People upset over actual cases of political incivility on campus should look at decades of mostly far, right-wing TALK RADIO, CABLE NEWS, And the general (bipartisan) downfall of presidential debates.
posted by Anthony Mallerdino on
Can we all agree that left-fascist means absolutely nothing? Fascism is specifically a right-wing, crony-capitalist, nationalistic, authoritarian/totalitarian/statist ideology, and left encompasses any number of ideologies ranging from democratic socialist to communist, anti-racist to nationalistic, anarchistic or democratic to authoritarian/totalitarian/statist. By using them together they cancel each other’s meanings out. A better turn of phrase would be authoritarian-left.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You are obviously right, but Stephen is not using the term “fascist” to in either the political/economic sense, or even in the ordinary language sense for that matter.
Instead, he’s deploying “fascist” as a weaponized allusion to Nazi Germany, as in Tony Perkins’ infamous “I’m beginning to think, are re-education camps next? When are they going to start rolling out the boxcars to start hauling off Christians?”
A few years ago, the Nazi card was a bridge too far for Stephen, and he frequently deployed Robespierre and the Reign of Terror as his favorite allusion. I don’t know why he’s joined the “fascist” crowd.
posted by Anthony Mallerdino on
Only public universities, as well as public elementary and secondary schools, are legally obligated to protect and defend their students’ rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights, i.e. freedom of speech, a free press, free exercise of religion, etc. As a private school, DePaul has no such obligation.
For example, a few years back DePaul’s student newspaper had an article about a series of sexual assaults in the neighborhood surrounding its campus. Mind you, these assaults were not on campus, not committed by students, and only some, but not most, of the victims were students living off campus. The University decided that the student newspaper had no right to bring these assaults to the attention of the student body. University administrators confiscated almost the entire run of that edition. The University was perfectly within its legal rights to do so. However, the paper’s staff had the last laugh. They brought the matter to the attention of Chicago’s newspapers and television outlets. The University administration was publicly embarrassed, the University’s students and neighbors, as well the entire Chicago metropolitan region, were made aware of these assaults, and Chicago Police Department was forced to do their job.
posted by John in Chicago on
I can’t say that I was at all surprised to read at the Atlantic today that the liberal opponents of Richard Spenser, the alt-right Nazi sympathizer and Trump supporter, are fond of accusing him of being a “homo”, the outspoken liberals, who knew him as a student. No actual evidence whatsoever that he is gay, of course, but hypocritical liberals are just as inclined as conservatives to defame their male political enemies with accusations of homosexuality, it seems. The difference? Liberals always offer an “apology” afterwards.
Let’s face it. Gay men are more than a little bit suspect among liberals, because we both like men and are men. Want to be fully acceptable among comfortably cisgendered heterosexual liberals, if you’re actually a cisgendered gay man? Best to claim that that both your gender identity and sexual orientstion are “fluid”. Queer, seems to be the term.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I can’t say that I was at all surprised to read at the Atlantic today that the liberal opponents of Richard Spenser, the alt-right Nazi sympathizer and Trump supporter, are fond of accusing him of being a “homo” … Let’s face it. Gay men are more than a little bit suspect among liberals, because we both like men and are men.
If you are waiting for the day when straight men (of any and all political persuasions, or none) aren’t going to disparage gay men and use allusions to gays (as in “you homo”, “how gay is that”) and gay sex (as in “he’s a real cocksucker”, “the bosses shoved it right up my ass”) as insults and put-downs, I think that you are in for a long wait.
What counts is not “acceptance”, but support for equal treatment under the law. On that score, most liberals are on board, and that’s what matters.
posted by John in Chicago on
Interesting distinction you make between the law and people’s fundamental attitudes. Too bad that the former is never really secure except on the basis of the latter. That said, we gays have the tremendous advantage that we keep very annoyingly popping up within the families and circles of those, who would rather hate us and really too bad that they can’t shut down the internet. They had their churches as places to feel empowered and oppress us, but now we, who once were so often isolated, have the internet to tell our stories and roll back our dehumanization. Guess which forum is the mightier. There’s that and then there’s human beings’ primeval fear of male passivity. Looks to me like the controversy will never end.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Interesting distinction you make between the law and people’s fundamental attitudes. Too bad that the former is never really secure except on the basis of the latter.
I think that you may be conflating “accepting gays and lesbians as like us” and “accepting that gays and lesbians, although not like us, should be treated equally under the law”. The two are distinct.
My comment spoke to in-group anti-gay put-downs and insults, as common now as they were when I was growing up 60-70 years ago. I could have given similar examples about Jews, Catholics, African-Americans, Native-Americans, Irish and Polish Americans, and a half dozen other out-groups. Prejudice/bias/disdain toward out-groups is as American as apple pie, probably because it seems to be hard-wired into the human brain at some level.
It doesn’t follow, though, that prejudice/bias/disdain toward an out-group necessarily results in legal discrimination.
You may not want your daughter marrying one, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that you support laws banning inter-racial marriage, for example. I won’t go through the whole litany, but you can make your own examples if you think about it for a minute or two.
I don’t know if we will ever see the day when people don’t draw straight/gay lines, but I do think that we will see the day, little by slowly, when Americans accept the idea that gays/lesbians should be treated equally under the law in all respects.
Accepting that idea doesn’t require that that anyone has to accept us. It just requires that people stop supporting discriminatory laws.
As an exasperated gay man I know blurted out during Wisconsin’s 2006 anti-marriage amendment fight, “All I want is to be treated as good as a nigger!” I don’t think that prejudice/bias/disdain among whites directed toward blacks has lessened all that much in the last 60-odd years, but I do think that we’ve reached the point where a return to segregation days is unthinkable for almost all Americans.
I think that we can get to that point, and will. We are reasonably close from a legal standpoint.
I do understand your larger point, though — the majority (in this case straights) can turn on a dime, and cultural prejudice/bias/disdain can quickly turn into oppression, long after legal equality has been achieved. What can be done through law, can be undone through law.
Most Jews keep a wary eye on the simmering anti-Semitism of our fellow Americans. We do it for a reason. We know that Germany was, in comparison to England, France, Poland and other European countries at the time, a mecca of tolerance and acceptance during the late 19th Century and early years of the 20th Century. We know how quickly tolerance and acceptance was turned on its head during the 1930’s, and the results.
The problem in Germany was not the unspeakable evil of the Nazi regime so much as it was that “good” Germans stood mute in the face of that unspeakable evil, paralyzed and afraid, unable or unwilling to stand up and resist, We are well aware, at gut level, that things could turn on us just as quickly in this country, and that we will have few allies among the gentiles if that comes to pass. It is a reality we live with every day.
So I understand what you are getting at, I think, and I share your concern about the cultural prejudice/bias/disdain toward gays and lesbians. What can be done through law can be undone through law, and it just as likely as not that gays and lesbians, who have been scapegoats for centuries, may find our gains laid to waste once again if conditions are right.
It was not that long ago that we were routinely arrested, fired, shunned and discriminated against in more ways that I can count, and we have strong forces in this country attempting to turn the clock back to those days. It could happen, and I sleep with one eye open, so to speak, in that regard. We all should.
But the chances that either of us, or our children, will live to see the day when straight men don’t insult each other with “cocksucker” or complain that a boss is trying to “stick it right up my ass”, is a vain hope in my opinion. I don’t think that it is realistic to hope to change that inbred cultural prejudice/bias/disdain any time soon.
We can, however, insist on legal equality and fight for it ceaselessly.
We can keep the issue on the top of the stove, reminding Americans that the supposedly “moral” forces in our country work in concert with a major political to convert prejudice/bias/disdain into government-sanctioned discrimination.
We can appeal to Americans’ sense of fair play, and we can be visible in our families, in our neighborhoods, in our workplaces, and in our places of worship.
We may not be able to change or eliminate straight prejudice/bias/disdain, but we can make it unacceptable to act on it. That’s what we should be focused on, not “acceptance”.
posted by JohnInCA on
” I don’t think that prejudice/bias/disdain among whites directed toward blacks has lessened all that much in the last 60-odd years, but I do think that we’ve reached the point where a return to segregation days is unthinkable for almost all Americans.”
Wot? You’re kidding, right? You can’t mandate segregation anymore, but it’s still the reality on the ground in many places. Here’s an article on it from a few years ago. And that’s not even getting into how some states have done a pretty good job of maintaining racial purity. Oregon has done such a good job of keeping black people out that you’re more likely to run into a gay person then a black one.
I mean face it, HOAs might not be able to put racial requirements in their contracts, but many have done a damn good job of doing it anyway. And that’s not even getting into the fact that realtors consistently show different houses and neighborhoods to clients based on their race.
So sure, we don’t have a law that requires folks live in different neighborhoods. But in many places, we do anyway.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: I don’t think that prejudice/bias/disdain among whites directed toward blacks has lessened all that much in the last 60-odd years, but I do think that we’ve reached the point where a return to segregation days is unthinkable for almost all Americans.
JohninCA: Wot? You’re kidding, right? You can’t mandate segregation anymore …
No, I’m not kidding, and you answered your own objection. It would be unthinkable to change the laws to return to segregation, notwithstanding the fact that prejudice/bias/disdain among whites directed toward blacks has lessened all that much in the last 60-odd years.
JohninCA: … but it’s still the reality on the ground in many places.
I lived in Chicago, one of the most segregated cities in the United States, for approximately 25 years. I know. But defacto segregation is evidence that prejudice/bias/disdain among whites directed toward blacks has lessened all that much in the last 60-odd years.
I’m sorry that I shocked you.
posted by JohnInCA on
Unthinkable? The CRA (1964) gets struck down (on Free Speech/Association/Reliigion) grounds) as collateral damage in one of these “bake a cake” cases after Ginsburg dies and President Trump replaces here. That takes out most state non-discrimination laws too as they apply to the private sphere.
So public schools can’t segregate, but private schools suffer no such limitation. At the same time as you see a bunch of new “whites only” private/charter schools, you see those same states pursuing “school choice/voucher” programs. Realtors start to make explicit what they’ve been doing for decades, and HOAs start to brag about the demographics of their communities to attract people. Not surprisingly, banks start refocusing on who gets buisness and mortgage loans.
… so sure, if you only count segregation if it’s mandated by government, I guess you have a point that it’s unthinkable. But the government doesn’t have to mandate segregation, it just has to permit it. And that? Is quite thinkable.
posted by Kosh III on
What counts is not “acceptance”, but support for equal treatment under the law. On that score, most liberals are on board, and that’s what matters.”
And conservatives, GOP, avowed evangelicals and TPers are NOT on board, are in fact vigorously working to destroy equality for gays.
posted by Doug on
This just in “Donald Trump drastically expands ‘Global Gag Rule’ on abortion”.
Sure sounds like an assault on free speech doesn’t it Stephen.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
For those interested, you might find “Good and Upsetting? Free Speech at the Law School“, discussing the tensions inherent in the question as the tensions play out at the University of Chicago Law School, of value.