Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday March 08 2017, @02:46PM   Printer-friendly
from the freedom-to,-not-freedom-from dept.

Charles Murray, controversial author of The Bell Curve, which promoted links between intelligence and race, was shouted down by protesters at Middlebury College last Thursday. PBS reports:

Murray had been invited by Middlebury's student group affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank at which Murray is a scholar. [...] Prior to the point when Murray was introduced, several Middlebury officials reminded students that they were allowed to protest but not to disrupt the talk. The students ignored those reminders and faced no visible consequences for doing so. [...]

After the students chanted for about 20 minutes, college officials announced that the lecture would not take place but that Murray would go to another location, which the college didn't name, and have a discussion with a Middlebury faculty member — livestreamed back to the original lecture site.

According to Middlebury officials, after Murray and the professor who interviewed him for the livestream attempted to leave the location in a car, some protesters surrounded the car, jumped on it, pounded on it and tried to prevent the car from leaving campus.

Other sources note that political science professor Allison Stanger, who agreed to moderate the discussion, was attacked while accompanying Murray to the car, ultimately requiring treatment at a hospital for neck injuries caused by protesters pushing her and pulling her hair.

Murray himself later gave an account of his experience on the AEI blog. He emphasized that Middlebury's administration and staff displayed in exemplary ways their encouragement of free speech:

Middlebury's stance has been exemplary. The administration agreed to host the event. President Patton did not cancel it even after a major protest became inevitable. She appeared at the event, further signaling Middlebury's commitment to academic freedom. The administration arranged an ingenious Plan B that enabled me to present my ideas and discuss them with Professor Stanger even though the crowd had prevented me from speaking in the lecture hall. I wish that every college in the country had the backbone and determination that Middlebury exhibited.

But Murray notes that the outcome was very different from his previous controversial appearances:

Until last Thursday, all of the ones involving me have been as carefully scripted as kabuki: The college administration meets with the organizers of the protest and ground rules are agreed upon. The protesters have so many minutes to do such and such. It is agreed that after the allotted time, they will leave or desist. These negotiated agreements have always worked. At least a couple of dozen times, I have been able to give my lecture to an attentive (or at least quiet) audience despite an organized protest.

Middlebury tried to negotiate such an agreement with the protesters, but, for the first time in my experience, the protesters would not accept any time limits. [...] In the mid-1990s, I could count on students who had wanted to listen to start yelling at the protesters after a certain point, "Sit down and shut up, we want to hear what he has to say." That kind of pushback had an effect. It reminded the protesters that they were a minority. I am assured by people at Middlebury that their protesters are a minority as well. But they are a minority that has intimidated the majority. The people in the audience who wanted to hear me speak were completely cowed.

The form of the protest has been widely condemned even by those who vehemently disagree with Murray, as in the piece by Peter Beinart in The Atlantic that claims "something has gone badly wrong on the campus left." He argues strongly that "Liberals must defend the right of conservative students to invite speakers of their choice, even if they find their views abhorrent."

Meanwhile, student protesters have responded with their own account, disclaiming the hair-pulling incident as unintentional and "irresponsible" but condemning the Middlebury administration for their "support of a platform for white nationalist speech." They further claimed "peaceful protest was met with escalating levels of violence by the administration and Public Safety, who continually asserted their support of a dangerous racist over the well-being of students."

Personal note: My take on all of this is that the actual subject of Murray's Middlebury talk has been lost in the media coverage, namely his 2012 book Coming Apart, which (ironically) is a detailed discussion of the problems created by a division of the intellectual elite from the white working class. He explicitly dilutes his previous connections of social problems with a black underclass by noting that many of the same issues plague poor white communities. While his argument is still based on problematic assertions about intelligence and IQ, the topic of his book seems very relevant given recent political events and issues of class division. There's some sort of profound irony in a bunch of students at an elite school refusing to allow a debate on the causes and results of division between elite intellectuals and the (white) working class. I personally may think Murray's scholarship is shoddy and his use of statistics frequently misleading (or downright wrong), but I don't see how that justifies the kind of threats and intimidation tactics shown at this protest.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:42PM (22 children)

    by LoRdTAW (3755) on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:42PM (#476567) Journal

    As if the left is the only group who preaches tolerance and then does the opposite....

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:27PM (20 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:27PM (#476660) Homepage Journal

    No, they're just the ones who make half their platform about tolerance then employ violence against anyone who disagrees with them.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:48PM (19 children)

      by edIII (791) on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:48PM (#476676)

      How about you just walk it back period. There is an awful lot of self-righteous preaching on both sides by people who couldn't understand the definition of tolerance if their lives depended on it. BOTH SIDES.

      You threw a barb at the other side, and one that doesn't stick very well. A very hypocritical one too.

      The right is filled with intolerant lying bastards and you know it. That's their whole shtick with their religiously based intolerance towards large groups of people. The left certainly lies as well, and yes, a veneer of tolerance lies over much of the left when tolerance isn't what they are interested in at all. These riots in schools prove as much to me, and some of the SJW crap on the far left is intolerance packaged up social justice.

      I see the intolerance and stupidity too. We would probably be more successful at pointing that out without the barbs and attacks, which are really just reminders of how most people choose between two shitty fucking sides that can't stop fucking over their constituents.

      This isn't an exclusive problem of the left.

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 09 2017, @01:11AM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 09 2017, @01:11AM (#476805) Journal

        TMB's "barb" does stick. You don't hear the right chanting that tolerance mantra. The right's mantra is more like, "Act respectable, and you'll be treated respectfully." I'm sick of that diversity bullshit, especially because it has been trotted out to defend some of the vilest people in this country. Focusing on BLM, they went into action for a criminal in Ferguson, but haven't made a sound for the Rice boy shot to death in Ohio.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Thursday March 09 2017, @01:26AM (4 children)

        by jmorris (4844) on Thursday March 09 2017, @01:26AM (#476813)

        Sorry but I have to hit you with a "Citation Needed" on that one. Show me an example of widescale right violence.

        I am NOT saying the right is more tolerant, I am not asserting the Right are 'better' people, I am NOT saying the Right wouldn't use violence if it could, I am not even denying that as things escalate the Right is very likely to begin using violence, in different ways than the left obviously. What I am saying is you are knowingly, with malice in your heart, using a false equivalence to justify the violence of your side. I double dare you to assert that there is anywhere in the U.S. where the Right could stage a riot on the scale of the recent Berkley riots and wreck a large section of a major city safe in the knowledge there would be zero arrests. That is the difference, we on the Right do not have amendable authorities who will pull the police back and permit us to use violence, we do not have a vast media operation to fog the issue and excuse / justify violence we commit. In short we currently abstain from violence because we can't get away with it.

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by aristarchus on Thursday March 09 2017, @02:59AM (3 children)

          by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday March 09 2017, @02:59AM (#476840) Journal

          "Citation Needed". Show me an example of widescale right violence.

          World War Two? Lots of Bell Curvy theories about races floating about then, too.
          ("jmorris, you really should be more careful! If I were you, I would leave before someone drops a house on you as well!" Glinda, Good Witch of the North)

          • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:12AM (2 children)

            by jmorris (4844) on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:12AM (#476849)

            Ok champ, riddle me this: Who was the "Right" side in WWII?

            On the Axis side you had fascists, socialists, national socialists and other assorted leftist misfits along with whatever the hell Japan thought it was doing.

            On the Allied side you had FDR's fascist leaning proto socialists, Joe Stalin and the Soviets who I really hope you are stupid enough to say was a "right winger" and a Great Britain who was pretty socialist before the war and went full socialist after and stayed that way until Thatcher. The U.S. kinda snapped back to reality after the war with Ike and has wobbled on the edge of falling into the socialist abyss ever since. Reagan was the closest we came to walking back from the edge and he didn't really do much, it was more a case of we stayed in place long enough to get some stability... before sliding right back left as soon as he left office.

            WWII was a war inside the socialist family between the nationalist wing and the internationalists.

            • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday March 09 2017, @06:48AM (1 child)

              by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday March 09 2017, @06:48AM (#476896) Journal

              Fucking Nazis, jmorris, fucking inferior racist trying to prevail by the pure force of will, and when that failed, by mindless storm-troopers. Mousellini even went there, but the Aryan Race stuff is a bit hard to miss. The Japanese had a similar view of all other Asians, if they were so weak as to be colonized by westerners, they should not object to being "liberated" and ruled over by the superior descendants of the Sun Goddess, right?
                  I am more or less certain that your view of history is completely mind-fucked into the realm of "fake history". Drunk history would be preferable. So, to answer your question, the Axis was the "right" side in WWII, which means they were the "wrong" side as well. It is only the fortune of history, and America, that makes them also the losers. So when ever a racist right-wing authoritarian like you asks this question, my only response is that, yes, it is perfectly alright to punch a Nazi in the face. And this applies to all right-wing racists. (And all racists are right-wing? Did you ever notice that? I mean, it can't just be a coincidence!)

              Are you once again going with the low-information conservative faction meme that since Nazis were, after all, National Socialists, that some how leftist movements are fascist? Your ignorance of political science never ceases to amaze me, jmorris! The "nationalist" part means that the "socialist" part is not in fact Socialist. Fascist is named after the Faeces,

              The Italian term fascismo is derived from fascio meaning a bundle of rods, ultimately from the Latin word fasces.[14]

              Got your Wikipedia citation right there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism [wikipedia.org] . Opps, looks like I misspelled it to mean something like "shit"! No matter! The "fascio" was a bundle of rods bound around the handle of an axe, a war-axe, and when the Roman Senate handed this over to someone, he was the "Dictator", the one whose "dicta" was law, for a period of emergency. What always amazed me about Rome was that the Senate did this several times, and the Imperator gave the fasces back. Usually when you grant someone supreme executive power, that is the last you see of it. It is a credit to Roman Generals, prior to that prick and Petraeus wanna be, Julius Caesar, that they used power only in the interest of the Senātus Populusque Rōmānus (SQPR, on the sheilds of all Roman legions).

              But, of course, this is your error, jmorris. You are American, no doubt, which means you are both geographically and historically challenged! The Founding Fathers of you nation, fortunately, were neither. They understood that supreme executive power had to be limited in order for Republic to survive. In other words, America should learn from Rome's mistakes. Handing over absolute power may work when you are attacked by Puns, like Hannibal, but it is not a sustainable model of governance. As a right-wing nut-job, I know that you crave in your heart of hearts to have a supreme leader, or at least an obercommander! to tell you what to do, since you obviously are not capable of working that out for your self and becoming a citizen of a democratic nation. I pity you, you pathetic bastard!

              But here is more to the point, and I go on too long an have other things to do right now, but I will make time for you, oh you misguided Soylentil: Leftists do not oppress anyone. It is antithetical to leftist doctrine! The only reason a leftist government would use to power of the state is to prevent some members of the state from oppressing and exploiting others. That is just the way it is. Now you might say the Kulaks were just decent landlords trying to make a ruble. But we all know they were not. So to suggest that there is equivalency between Hitler, a deranged American Republican Party Racist White Supremecist, and Stalin, who was not racist at all, is really a bridge too far. If your mind can cross that, your mind is truly broken. But then, any Soylentil who has been paying attention already knows that.

              For your edification, jmorris, let me suggest this way to understand the left/right divide. The left is always trying to achieve something. You may not agree with their goals, but if they use force, in protest, or revolution, or the power of the state, that force is always in the service of some further goal. Violence is alway instrumental to the left, it is never their primary aim.

              So, the right: For the right, it seems that power itself is the goal. And this could be the source of your confusion. Fascists in power are notoriously promiscuous in their ideology! Bread and Circuses? Trains running on Time? Keeping the Jews from taking our jobs with the HB-1 visas? Sound familiar? No, the main thing is the fasces , the power, and power with no purpose, well, welcome to the Dark Side, The Dark Enlightenment Side, the Bannon side, the Peter Thiel side, the Sith side. This is why, of course, the dark side always loses. They stand for nothing except standing for something, so that once they win, they have to stand against themselves?

              Evil cannot prevail, since it is parasitical on good. Look up Catholic Doctrine on the principle of bonum privatum, and realize that the right actually does not exist. It is only a mindless opposition to the left. But the left has actual plans and policies, so it can exist without the opposition of the right. Just think of what Trump(no)Care is: it is only a rejection of Obamacare, not substance, no real policy, just the resistance of those who have nothing better to suggest. And those who do, suggest a Bell curve.

              So my point, jmorris, is that you are a nihilist. Much like the Nazis, you believe in the use of force for no other reason than to destroy. But unfortunately, Nazism, Fascism, and Japanese KoDoism were all defeated in the last world war. Which side are you on, jmorris? Which side are you on?

              • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday March 10 2017, @09:18PM

                by edIII (791) on Friday March 10 2017, @09:18PM (#477534)

                Well, I did get a little too busy to deal with Jdumbass, but I doubt I could have dealt with him nearly as masterfully as you did.

                Thank you :)

                --
                Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:27AM (12 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:27AM (#476851) Homepage Journal

        This isn't an exclusive problem of the left.

        Tolerance hypocrisy? Yes, it most certainly is. They're the only ones who preach it with every other breath and then literally beat you bloody for disagreeing with them on anything.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 09 2017, @05:08AM (11 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday March 09 2017, @05:08AM (#476880) Journal

          This is going to blow your tiny little mind but bear with me here...tolerance of intolerance is a null set, a contradiction, a category error. It's rather like speaking of married bachelors, square circles, and so on. In logical terms, it's the informal fallacy of the stolen concept, wherein someone uses a concept to argue against that concept's genetic roots. Does this help any?

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday March 09 2017, @11:34AM (10 children)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday March 09 2017, @11:34AM (#476929) Homepage Journal

            Strawman. Tolerance of any dissent is what you lot have issues with not tolerance of intolerance. That and your incredibly violent natures.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 09 2017, @07:45PM (5 children)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday March 09 2017, @07:45PM (#477096) Journal

              I don't follow the standard (modern) leftists; they've taken entirely too many cues from YOUR kind in the last 20-odd years. I consider myself more of a left-libertarian, in that i want government to handle the stuff that has near-inelastic demand like healthcare and stay the hell out of, e.g., whether someone wants to smoke pot in their own home.

              You can quit generalizing now; it fools no one with their eyes open, and simply leaves you open to well-deserved ridicule.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 10 2017, @02:36AM (4 children)

                Libertarians are left on social issues and right on fiscal issues. You lean left on social issues and left on fiscal issues. There's already plenty of proper names for that but they all boil down to this: leftist.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday March 10 2017, @06:07AM (2 children)

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday March 10 2017, @06:07AM (#477270) Journal

                  You know, much of the fiscal policy I'd like to see implemented would SAVE money in the long run. This is something your kind seems not to understand: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Then again, it's YOU I'm talking to here; anything outside of programming or sysadmin stuff may as well be mountaineering (and you're an oyster).

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 10 2017, @04:26PM (1 child)

                    Yes, I'm quite aware of your fiscal policy. There is absolutely nothing even approaching libertarian about it. It can be summed up as "The Government Knows Better Than You How To Spend Your Money".

                    --
                    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday March 10 2017, @07:50PM

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday March 10 2017, @07:50PM (#477494) Journal

                      You are not in the least aware of it, Uzzard, and you're making yourself look really bad. I've never much expanded on it, and you are as far as I can tell not an esper, so how would you know the details? Oh wait, you don't, you just don't want to think too hard and it's easier to dismiss me if you think you can just lump me in with the naive leftists. Sorry, but that narrative doesn't hunt :)

                      To expand a little: things for which there is mostly or entirely inelastic demand, or for which externalities aren't factored in but are massively important -- think basic healthcare, clean water, our environment here -- should have tighter regulation and should be less laissez-faire. The less basic or close to the laws of physics/nature/survival something is, the freer the market for it should be. So, for example, fucking around on the commodity markets and causing crashes shouldn't be allowed, but when it comes to luxury goods like diamond rings or beachfront property, have a ball.

                      In simpler terms: the more people need it to survive, the less it should be left to the "invisible hand of the free market." It should only take a few seconds of logical thought to see why, and why inelasticity of demand is a proxy for this measurement.

                      Does that clear anything up?

                      --
                      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @11:25PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @11:25PM (#479197)

                  Libertarians are left on social issues and right on fiscal issues.

                  I know you better than that because I've seen others teach you what left libertarianism really is. [wikipedia.org]
                  Funny how that knowledge seems to have been filtered out from your consciousness.

            • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday March 10 2017, @12:11AM (3 children)

              by edIII (791) on Friday March 10 2017, @12:11AM (#477197)

              That does not fully describe the Left, nor the Progressives, or anyone other labeled group rising out of this hell hole that is our country at the moment.

              There are core concepts that are pretty good, fair, and reasonable on both sides. Then it gets layered with the bullshit, corruption, and intolerance.

              My point is that there are some screaming hypocritical snowflakes on the Left that don't represent the progressive values and ideas for Freedom that comprise most of Left. You can just point out how they've fucked up without trying to attack a much larger group.

              Most people that I know categorized as Left or Progressive are against banning Milo or anyone from speaking at universities, much less actually rioting or anything. Like Runaway said, you can protest just by being in the audience with a t-shirt. Do you think only people on the Right have problems with the idea of safe-spaces and riots against somebody speaking?

              --
              Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 10 2017, @02:31AM (1 child)

                Do you think only people on the Right have problems with the idea of safe-spaces and riots against somebody speaking?

                Nope. But I do think you on the left desperately need to get your house in order before bullshit like that becomes completely mainstream instead of just mainstream in colleges.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday March 10 2017, @09:16PM

                  by edIII (791) on Friday March 10 2017, @09:16PM (#477532)

                  I'M NOT ON THE FUCKING LEFT!!!!!!!!!!!!

                  Heh :)

                  I don't exactly know what I am, but I can tell you that I have problems with all sides. Maybe I'm more of a centrist. I dunno.

                  What I want is to kill or permanently marginalize all the MBAs (the true pox upon our houses), reduce government to only that which we NEED, and make sure that people who work for a living get a living wage. Ohhh, and when we find corruption we do something unprecedented! Punish them! Let the billionaires exist even without taxing their money at all (beyond what everyone pays equally). As long as the billionaires pay living wages then we don't have the hellish arguments over "entitlement" programs that are in reality subsidy programs because the billionaires don't want living wages. I'm against the social programs being as large as they are because it means that we have an unaddressed fundamental problem; The billionaires want desperate workers in a desperate workforce because it gives them leverage when making job offers. All of that bullshit about unions and right to work laws all come down to that one basic fact; Corporations refuse to pay living wages and allow a healthy, stable, and strong workforce capable of negotiating a fair work offer. It's a delusion to say that a fair work offer can be negotiated in these dark days of desperation and suffering.

                  Is equality truly a leftist notion? If you think so, then go fuck yourself. I say that as kindly as I can, but LGBTQ issues are not leftist issues. They are issues of humanity and my support for their equality is not leftist. It's human, and all fights for the civil rights of Americans are fights for our humanity and should not be partisan. It's only partisan fighting in that the politicians on the Right serve the interests of their religiously intolerant constituents who openly don't want some Americans to enjoy civil rights, but be punished instead for their social transgressions. I will always fight tooth and nail against it because quite simply there are LGBTQ people that I love because they are my friends and family. I won't let them be treated this way.

                  Is wanting single payer medicine leftist? I would say it isn't. Not by a fucking long shot. Greedy selfish bastards on the Right so fucking concerned that a penny ever leaves their hands to someone else without their judgment attached to it. That being it makes it seem to them like Americans are getting things they don't deserve every day, and their ignorant hasty judgment is that the undeserving Americans should just die in the gutter. Well, I fucking disagree. There are a few things that are clearly done better by us all doing it for each other together. It makes more sense to heal the person, than allow a desperate sick highly intelligent mammal to be roaming free in their desperation. That is responsible for creating crime, and much of the "first time" crime. Which is precisely why we need government in the first place, and what government should be doing. We all deserve free medical. Once you kill all the MBAs, remove the parasites, you will find that medical is all of the sudden affordable. There are other countries in the world objectively doing better than we are. It's time for reforms, and its time to remove profit from health care. Period. There should be no medial insurance premiums and no profits going towards private entities, much less FOREIGN private entities.

                  Is not wanting the military to be half our fucking budget in the largest social welfare program of all time leftist? I don't fucking think so. Priorities. Infrastructure, Health, Education, Social Programs (small and mostly for the disabled), then Defense. Defense is last. We have so much money going to defense we could reduce the budget by 80% and still have enough to defend ourselves. We both know that the lion share of the money is just going to shareholders anyways, and they should be shot for it. We're Americans dammit, and we pull together to defend ourselves. Not make obscene profits doing it. There are a lot of war profiteers that need to be actually and literally strung up and hanged. So there is a way for us to GREATLY REFORM the military industrial complex. It's INSANE that the majority of our efforts in America every single day are going to defense contractors. Fuck them, we have other things to spend money on then supporting their lifestyles of excess, luxury, cocaine, and hookers.

                  Of course, environmental issues. How is that leftist? It's only leftist in the sense that the Right has been fucking brainwashed by Big Corporate that environmental issues don't exist. LOL! Yeah, tell that to people in some cities in China! It's not a leftist issue to demand clean drinking water, clean air, and that corporations NOT be allowed to pollute the environment. But fuck, we can't have that. Let's argue the fuck out of it forever while we objectively destroy the planet. I honestly don't believe that I'm leftist for protesting against the Dakota Access Pipeline. I grew up in the oil & gas industry and I can tell you that they are fuck-ups of the highest order and have not demonstrated competency or responsibility in their existing pipelines. The EPA needs to exist because corporations WILL NOT regulate themselves. Not when MBAs pollute the upper echelons of business with their "profits are morally superior" attitude.

                  I'm not sure how I'm left on anything, but feel free to tell me. I know that I'm not Libertarian because Libertarians ignore Game Theory and are willfully ignorant that some people are more powerful than others, hence why we need government to be at least as big and powerful as they are. Otherwise, there is no check and balance against them and the people start to lose out. Which is exactly why America is the hell hole of inequality and abuse of the workers that it is. Nobody has ever put the Elites in check. Nobody.

                  But, sure, call me a leftist...... fucking whatever. It's just a meaningless insult to me,.

                  --
                  Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday March 10 2017, @06:08AM

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday March 10 2017, @06:08AM (#477271) Journal

                Ed, Uzzard here is part of our RWNJ infestation. Read through some of his post history. The guy's certifiable. He's not frothing and rabid like our resident diva J-Mo, but something is seriously broken in the man's brain.

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
  • (Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:31PM

    by Kromagv0 (1825) on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:31PM (#476665) Homepage

    In the US they are. The right is very open about not being tolerant of those on the left.

    --
    T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone