The slope gets more slippery

Apple, LinkedIn, Spotify and Twitter have joined a growing chorus of technology companies to hit out at the far right and Donald Trump’s attempt to put white supremacists and leftwing counter-demonstrators at Saturday’s Charlottesville protest on the same moral plane.

Following the lead of Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Google, Go Daddy and others, Apple CEO Tim Cook pledged $1m donations to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League and sent a strongly worded memo to staff, quoting Martin Luther King, about the violence in Charlottesville on Saturday.

“We must not witness or permit such hate and bigotry in our country, and we must be unequivocal about it,” Cook wrote. “This is not about the left or the right, conservative or liberal. It is about human decency and morality.

Amid the ongoing fallout from the violence that saw a civil rights activist killed, music subscription service Spotify began removing so-called white power music, flagged by the SPLC as racist “hate bands”.

A Spotify spokesperson said: “Illegal content or material that favours hatred or incites violence against race, religion, sexuality or the like is not tolerated by us. Spotify takes immediate action to remove any such material as soon as it has been brought to our attention.

“We are glad to have been alerted to this content – and have already removed many of the bands identified, while urgently reviewing the remainder.”

What would Camille Paglia say?  Here is the article.  And here is a hate symbols database, to keep you on your toes.

Addendum: Some of you have given me grief over my posting of yesterday defending PayPal’s decision to stop serving some political groups.  I see it this way: giving PayPal its way passes a freedom of association test, and it also passes what I call a “first order Coasean test,” namely that Paypal and its affiliates wish to stop the relationship more than the cut off parties are willing to pay to maintain it.  Of course this development might have troublesome secondary consequences, due to slippery slopes, and also due to the spread of the practice to more monopolized sectors of the American economy.  Still, until major negative consequences emerge in verifiable and durable form…I am going to stick with the Coasean and freedom of association metrics for policy evaluation.  Should I have to deal with “extremist” groups if I don’t wish to?  No.  Is there a prima facie case for extending this same freedom to PayPal?  Yes.  But absolutely, I am all for vigilance to keep an eye on whether things start to go wrong in a big way.  And no, I don’t count all these “day after” reactions as nearly sufficient to establish that conclusion.


I for one welcome my new SPLC overlords.


Meet the new boss, same as old boss.

Many on this page do not notice how their whines and whinges drive home the win. Or from your perspective, the loss.

It is not lost on the American public that you are not climbing to a higher morality. Just staying low, kicking dirt.

Nazis lost, let's all show how sad that makes us!

We know that you intend to paint every Republican as a Nazi during your shame, assault, and murder campaign.

Again Thomas, I don't. Some just do it for themselves. They can't leave a "Nazis are bad" post alone. They have to "what about" or "both sides" it. In that process they, not I, make the binding that it is "their side."

If you want to avoid that instead make a statement like every Joint Chief did, attaching yourself to the higher ground.

Shocking to imagine that the American military is opposed to Nazis. Who would have guessed?

The statement by the head of the VA was particularly good.


Of course, Nazis and other haters are bad. To show how bad we think they are, of course, we must agree to drive them out of the public square. We aren't going to let Nazis and haters go around voicing political opinions we don't like. The SPLC and Antifa will help by telling us who the Nazis are and Antifa will help by physically attacking them. State and Local governments will help by letting Antifa attack the Nazis and social media companies will help by identifying the Nazis and driving them out of their jobs and homes. Look, the Joint Chiefs agree and veterans groups agree, and Tyler Cowen agrees, and Marco Rubio agrees. This will purify our communities and make sure that everyone has the same opinions.

I was going to say that we have seen this movie before and know how it ends but, in fact, the movie is already over. This year's Portland Rose Parade was cancelled because Antifa groups determined that Republicans are really Nazis or, at a minimum, had been infiltrated by Nazis. Local government (like Tyler and Marco and Paypal) did not want to be in the position of defending Nazis and, although the Republicans claimed they were not Nazis, well . . . they would, wouldn't they? The Republicans refused to do the decent thing, admit they were Nazis, and withdraw. So the parade had to be cancelled. The damn Nazis always ruin everything. I hate those guys!

This does not concern Tyler in the least because it is a "slippery slope" argument. Tyler is not a Republican and was not even planning on attending the parade anyway. Therefore, although technically this event has already happened, it is not evidence that something has "gone wrong in a big way." Nor is what happened to Brendan Eich, or Milo Yiannopoulos, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or Charles Murray, or Ann Coulter, or Ben Shapiro or any of the other people whom Antifa and the SPLC have previously identified as Nazis and haters.

'To show how bad we think they are, of course, we must agree to drive them out of the public square'

No, that would be wrong, and a clear violation of their 1st Amendment rights as American citizens. To the extent that anyone thinks that driving them out of the public square is a good idea, it publicly shows how little those people understand the 1st Amendment.

'We aren’t going to let Nazis and haters go around voicing political opinions we don’t like.'

In the public square, of course we are. With the obvious reality that people opposed to those views are also allowed to use the public square to voice their opinions too.

'The SPLC and Antifa will help by telling us who the Nazis are'

You are completely free to ignore them, just as they are completely free to ignore you. And really, anyone who cannot make up their own mind is probably not all that interested in the subject to start with.

'Look, the Joint Chiefs agree and veterans groups agree, and Tyler Cowen agrees, and Marco Rubio agrees.'

These persecution fantasies are starting to get out of hand. Absolutely no one in authority, much less the military, is demanding that Nazis be driven from their homes. However, that the American military is not a welcoming home for Nazis really isn't a surprise, is it?

'I was going to say that we have seen this movie before and know how it ends '

With the Nazis crushed, and America rebuilding Western Europe after mass genocide and a devastating war caused by the Nazis?


You can't claim its a fantasy after its already happened,

The White Supremacists in Charlottesville were literally in the public square with all of their First Amendment rights when Antifa attacked them and the police stood around watching. Milo also had First Amendment rights and the police watched patently as Antifa threw Molatov cocktails at a building he occupied at the time. All of the people listed in my post were prevented from exercising First Amendment rights by violence or the threat of violence. And Brendan Eich lost his job and was driven from his home.

They are communist, too.

This is an equally accurate description of events - 'The people protesting White Supremacists in Charlottesville were literally in the public square with all of their First Amendment rights when a Nazi attacked them.' To what extent 'the police stood around watching' is open to reasonable interpretation, considering how he was able to back up after killing one and injure 19.

Here is the key moment, bmcburney, and ..

I do not belong to, identify with, nor defend violent antifa nor even less violent opponents of free speech.

I don't "what about" or "both sides" because why should I?

They are not my people.


No, it is not "equally accurate" at all. The "Unite the Right" rally organizers were there first, choosing the time and place for their First Amendment expression. Antifa was there for the sole purpose of preventing, by violence, the other rally from being held at all. Antifa were free to express their opinions at any different time or place.

If this were the first such event, it might be possible to claim surprise or bad luck or poor planning for the occurance Charlottesville but no such thing. This is the same pattern of events we saw in Berkeley, Sacramento, Chicago, Portland, Middlebury College, and every other place where the issue has arisen. Someone the left doesn't like schedules a rally, or a lecture, or a book signing and Antifa shows up to stop it with violence. Blue State local authorities keep the police from interfering and the media blames the resulting violence on the existence of a "right wing" event.


The White Supremacists are not my people either. I am compelled to defend them only because I value my own rights. This is not a case of "both sides do it" and I have not made any such argument. Although things may have been different in the past, today only the left attempts to suppress free speech with violence.

Your rights? Real or imagined somewhere down a slippery slope?

The ACLU helped get these guys a permit. There was no united left wing front to shut down their speech.

They now wrestle with where speech stops and violence begins, but that sure ain't opposing the right. That is, as it should be, about balancing free speech and public safety.

If anyone here thinks they must support Nazis because the left is now so powerful and they need Nazis as a bulk work against them, I think that's pretty f***** up. It is just as f***** up as anyone who thinks they need antifa as a bulk work against the right.

o show how bad we think they are, of course, we must agree to drive them out of the public square. We aren’t going to let Nazis and haters go around voicing political opinions we don’t like.

You do realize that the Nazis and other haters would very much like to drive other people out of the public square - purely for their skin color. Right? And if given the freedom to do so - by the rest of us refraining from interfereing, they might actually succeed. If you think verbal harassment is sufficient to keep racists from talking, then it cuts equally well the other way - the racists would very much like to verbally harass non-whites into silence themselves.


Whether every single element of the left is now opposed to free speech is hardly the issue. A very significant portion of the left, including, nearly the entire Democratic Party, most large tech companies, most international organizations, academia and the media, now stands in outright opposition to free speech rights as and when they are applied to those individuals, ideas and groups to which they object. I do not exaggerate at all.

I do not need help from Nazis. I must support Nazis when their free speech rights are being suppressed; if Antifa's free speech rights were being suppressed I would be forced to support them. And, yes, it is F**KED UP. My solution is for you to stop supporting Antifa when they suppress the free speech rights of people you don't happen to like. Stop citing the Joint Chief or veterans groups or anyone else when they support the suppression of free speech. Stop giving aid and comfort to those suppressing free speech across the board. Stop claiming that you are suppressing violence when, in fact, you are encouraging violence and suppressing free speech.


When the Nazis show up at an "oppressed persons" rally to suppress free speech, I will support the "oppressed persons." It doesn't matter what you believe the Nazis believe about the free speech of others. You can't dole out free speech rights based on the content of the speech. As soon as you do, they cease being free speech rights. The Communists did not believe in free speech either but when they were blacklisted or their speech was suppressed it was wrong. It was not wrong because the Communists were good people, it was wrong because it was contrary to the traditions and nature of liberty and a free people should not tolerate it.

Who are you talking to, bmcburney?

I say on this page and elsewhere "arrest all violent protesters," charge them to the full extent of the law. I support free speech. So I am sure not supporting antifa.

It is probably important to remember that anti-fascists are a different bigger and better group of people. Antifa being a tiny mismatched set. They say half those guys are anarchists.

I'm not talking about showing up at rallies, I'm talking about Twitter, etc. shutting down Neo-Nazi websites and accounts. Twitter is entirely within it's rights to drive speech it feels is unacceptable out of it's public forums. That's not really any different than the right to discriminate against black people that the very neo-Nazis who are whinging about their free speech rights being violated are claiming.

I am talking to you, Anon, and to everyone else who can't see, or pretends not to see, what actually happened in Charlottesville, Berkeley, Sacramento, Chicago, and elsewhere.

Nazis are bad. Agreed. Let's all write an op-ed attacking the Nazis. But anyone and everyone who showed up at any of these events to prevent a speaker from being heard is a fascist, even (especially) the good people pretending to be anti-fascists. You, Anon, are the fascist. Support for these tactics, or any of the people who practice them, IS fascism. The left has somehow found a way of channeling a perverted form of virtue signaling to support for the violent suppression of speech. In an attempt to gain leverage over people who aren't Nazis at all, you elevate the Nazis threat to keep Charles Murray from giving a lecture or fire James Damore for writing a memo. And, of course, the actual Nazis love it. YOU are making the KKK great again. Own it.


Twitter and private forum issues are not really part of today's discussion.

From my perspective it is not reality that everyone anti-KKK or anti-Nazi was there as a censor.

So no point in continuing. Not real.

"Not real"?

Answer this Mr. Anonymous: why does one show up at a fascist rally unless one is a fascist of some type? Why go anywhere accompanied by black-clad, masked, helmeted, wannabe street fighters, carrying baseball bats, bricks, chains, and pepper spray, chanting for death of the people whose rally you decided to attend? What would you think if Nazis, dressed like that, with those weapons and similar chants showed up at your rally? You still gonna be cool with it when the local authorities tell the police to hang back?

You really believe this is all cool, there is no free speech problem at all, so long as there is one "non-censor" is in the crowd of fascists?

Trump just fired Bannon. Sorry, Steve.

Alarmed by fascism, Apple gives $1 million to the SPLC, which lists as hate figures Ayan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz, who risk their lives actually fighting fascism.

Either I've become really clever recently, or much of what passes for the elite has become gobsmackingly stupid.

America needs a solar flare to knock out the energy grid for a couple days to remind people how wonderful the world really is these days. This 24/7 hatefest is starting to look like a national psychosis.

Does the SPLC have to be perfect? Or does it just have to be better than the KKK?

(Feel free to suggest a better anti-KKK group to support as well!)

I think I want neither of them, and that SPLC are a lesser intensity but larger magnitude threat.

The SPLC has $303 million in the bank (although some of it is offshore in the Cayman Islands), while it is not clear whether the KKK even exists anymore.

Saw them with my own eyes. You can too.

I don't think people are complaining about the ADL donation, for instance.

The SPLC has devolved (for it used to be a highly useful organization) to be the left-wing equivalent of the FBI anti-terrorism units that do produce research on real terrorist organizations (both Islamic inspired and white supremacist) but also suspects Black Lives Matters of incitement.

Ironically enough, the SPLC would be convicted under its own expansive definition, since a crazy person used the SPLC's own lists to commit terrorism against the Family Research Council.

You may disagree, but the average giver is going to use resources like these. YMMV.

(Feel free to suggest a better anti-KKK group to support as well!)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The examples in this post don't seem like falling down a slippery slope; they seem to be far uphill of the slope. Corporate donations don't strike me as infringing on anyone else's freedoms in any way. Spotify is a seller of content (music). Of course, that inherently includes selecting which content to sell or not sell. Spotify is closer to a newspaper than a phone company. Newspapers selecting content, say inviting some guest writers but refusing others, is not an infringement on writers' freedom of expression. Newspapers' editorial control *is* freedom of expression. A phone company, however, blocking text messages based on content is problematic. Facebook, twitter, snapchat in contrast strike me as being closer to a phone company than a newspaper. Their censorship efforts (but not donations) would lie on the slippery slope.

One interesting thing about PayPal's freedom of association and the "growing chorus of technology companies to hit out at the far right". We all seem to agree that corporations' actions amount to speech, rejecting or not rejecting various ideologies, and we have been talking about that speech using the same framework as would apply to individuals' speech and actions. Implicitly, then, we seem to have finally reached a broad consensus that, when it comes to applying first amendment principles, corporations are in fact people, my friend.

I should clarify why I don't view the corporate donations to the SPLC as infringing on anyone else's freedoms. Although some members of the alt-Right like David Duke may run for office from time to time, the SPLC's activities are completely independent from those of David Duke's opponents' campaigns. Thus, since I view corporate speech in the same way as individuals' speech, I don't view these donations as a threat to our democracy. I will leave it to those opposed to Citizens United to explain why, in fact, these donations may be a threat to our democracy.

In this current paroxysm of Establishment-driven hate and fear, how long until a mob of good-thinkers lynches somebody?

I can already imagine the subsequent op-eds putting the no-doubt regrettable event into appropriate historical perspective: while the lynching of a suspected racist Nazi white supremacist hater was unfortunate, we must always remember the thousands of black men (not to mention Leo Frank) who were lynched by, no doubt, blood ancestors of the dead man, so when considering the long sweep of history, this erosion of white privilege must be tallied up as, on the whole, the arc of the moral universe bending toward justice etc etc.

Hilarious. A full on "my fever dream is worse than your reality so I win!"

Right, we should definitely not worry about the possible consequences of our actions. Reds and browns fighting in the streets; what could possibly go wrong?

What should go wrong should be a few arrests, of anyone who comes to fight, rather that to peacefully protest, on any side.

Okay, but that hasn't actually been happening, has it?

Isn't that basically what trump is being condemned for. Something something about morally equating the reds and the browns? It's all, which side are you on.

Sometimes. There will be an investigation into Charelottesville. They say too many guns complicated things.

To be fair, I have heard that some III%ers backed down and separated antifa and Nazis. If that is true they may have been more of a force for nonviolence than I expected.

I love the high-school-debating-level rhetorical strategy of reducing those who showed up to oppose Nazis to "reds". So clever! Communists are held in low esteem and there's a resultant inference of some kind of equivalent extremism. Of course, those who showed up to oppose the Nazis included not just communists but, rather, everyone who isn't a Nazi – but I'm sure this brilliant trick will distract people from that.

Is that what reds means? Including Mitt, I guess.

If we are being fair, anyone who showed up for a "unite the right" rally is not a nazi, neo or otherwise. The analogy of antifa to reds and spencerites to browns in hopes of awakening some historical sense seems reasonable. Some folks really did show up for a fight.

" those who showed up to oppose the Nazis included not just communists but, rather, everyone who isn’t a Nazi"

Incredible insight, you might be surprised to learn that not everyone on the other side was a Nazi either.

Tell me another, Steve. Maybe one where Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela return from the grave to eat our flesh.

Oh, Mother Teresa did plenty of evil already in life. No need to resurrect her!

Yeah, you are not some oppressed Christ figure. Come back when your fellow travellers stop ramming cars into crowds.

dont people like you have any sense of fair play? Steve has no closer connection with that guy than barrack Obama or joe Biden has with the Dallas terrorists.

Then why is he freaking out that someones gonna kill Nazis and not that Nazis are going to kill anti-Nazis?
Especially this week.

Steve did get his inclusion in Milo/Breitbart's "An Establishment Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right." So they like him. Did you ever repudiate that Steve? Mitt Romney style?

You realize that we are not taking about the people who invaded Poland, right?

Come back when your fellow travelers stop trying to assassinate Republican politicians and celebrating it as a strike back against Obamacare repeal.

It's a bit odd for you to get all paranoid about good-thinkers lynching someone in the immediate aftermath of a neo-nazi literally running down and killing an anti-nazi protestor. This week, it seems like the lynchings are still being done by ... the same people who were into lynching a century ago.


You never want to be the first one to stop clapping.

As Uncle Joe said in 1929 in a phrase that explains today's Higher Thought quite aptly:

"The fact is, we live according to Lenin's formula: "Kto-Kovo?" ["Who? Whom?"]: will we knock them, the capitalists, flat and give them (as Lenin expresses it) the final, decisive battle, or will they knock us flat?"

Since capitalism has clearly defeated the Soviet Union, and American companies clearly enjoy a large amount of economic freedom, you are quoting from two of history's most notable failures in support of what? That losers need to band together to commiserate about how the mean marketplace has defeated them?

Man, are you next going to start whining that the uniformed heads of America's military branches don't support racists, as they universally feel that the American values they defend are opposed to racists, in whatever guise they raise their contemptible heads?

Lenin and Stalin did okay for themselves, dying in their beds (or on their couches, as the case may be) as rulers of the largest territory in world history.

Think how even more successful Stalin would have been if he wasn't saddled with Marxism, but instead was simply a "Who? Whom?" ruler.

Are you genuinely this obtuse?

A territory that was only held together by naked political violence, and which fell apart after being successfully challenged by the capitalist West following WWII. Though it is true, the Soviet Union was more successful than the Nazis, even if today's Germany is more successful than either of those political units.

But please, keep telling about this alternate reality, where Lenin and Stalin were successful because they died in bed.

I guess you are.

Are you seriously attempting to argue that the Soviet Union was a political success? Really?

I disagree, I think the Soviet Union was one of the greatest political failures in human history, though it does have the dubious distinction of having a longer mass murdering run than the Nazis.

Nobody has mentioned the success of the Soviet Union, however defined, as a political entity besides you. I'm not sure why you think that is relevant.

'will we knock them, the capitalists, flat and give them (as Lenin expresses it) the final, decisive battle, or will they knock us flat?'

Do you think Stalin was talking to, or about, himself when talking about that final, decisive battle? And who do you thing 'us' was in this case?

Are you that obtuse?

I must be because I have no idea what your point is.

This has nothing to do with "capitalism", unless you buy into the left's belief that capitalism is inherently racist.
Capitalism does not require people to make irrational judgments of others based on skin color. Quite the opposite actually. Reading someone actual speech and finding it abhorrent is considerably more rational than look at someones skin and going "Eeek! Negros!"


It helps to be an economics professor so that you can pretend that monopoly power and cartels are impossible.

GMU econ dept professor - they are a truly special breed.


Private sector always knows best.

These days they sure as hell know better than the US government.

For sure, and net neutrality was evil, remember?

No, just stupid.

Isn't it what many want now?

Suddenly monopolies blocking access matters. When they were blocking Netflix it was fine. When it is Nazis not so much. You have to laugh.


Tyler, the Coasean/free association argument misses the fact that the value of transacting/associating is not fixed. For example, a campaign to "boycott business that hire blacks" may well decrease the value of hiring black employees, and lead businesses to (voluntarily and rationally) not hire them.

Yesterday it was PayPal. Today for the first time in history a website was completely removed from the internet because of hate speech. Hoping this blog will be allowed to exist tomorrow for some more next day reactions.

And adding to yesterday's comment, here's another hate thought this blog has exposed me to:

"Note that to the extent you treat parental IQ as affecting the IQ of the child through environment, these results are consistent with a wide variety of accounts of racial gaps in IQ. Still, there is no serious evidence, from these results, against the claim that the measured racial IQ gap is due to environment and environment alone."

I don't want this blog kicked off the internet.

Tyler buries the obvious under a truckload of intellectual folderol. He doesn't realize that insufficient zeal for social justice is grounds for suppression.

'insufficient zeal for social justice is grounds for suppression'

No it isn't. Ask the people involved with Hatreon, for example -

Or these people -

Lazy whining is never attractive, as it shows insufficient zeal compared to those willing to work for a vision that allows their will to triumph in the marketplace. And saying that the marketplace is to blame for failure is the sort of thing whining losers always turn to.'s app was just removed from the android App Store for "hate speech" You were saying?

"He doesn’t realize that insufficient zeal for social justice is grounds for suppression."

Of course he does, that's why he's always signaling.

Clearly Tyler was a Nazi the whole time. Only a Nazi would print something so racist.

Like how ALL brown ppl are leftists and those who are not are uncil toms? That's some racist shit of the leftist sjw nutjobs!

'Today for the first time in history a website was completely removed from the internet because of hate speech.'

No, that is laughably wrong. They simply need to find a new host, which to be honest likely would not be that hard - maybe the developers of Gab have a few spare gigabytes available, after all.

This incessant whining really does get irritating. Get a Raspberry Pi, install Wordpress, and you too can feel like a Stürmbahnführer.

It isn't as if a place like the pirate bay hasn't been dealing with this for more than a decade, after all. This is not the time to get all drama queen about an utterly normal process, though to spare your tender feelings, I won't mention several other examples of how difficult it can be to find a host that supports free expression.

Whoops - Sturm, not Stürm - and SS in this regard does not refer to 'steamship,' in case you were ignorant about that too.

It's not as easy as that -- to survive a basic DDoS attack you need someone like Cloudflare

Wait, you mean you have to actually work at doing something, and not merely whine?

And yes, DDoS can be a problem - one possible solution (just spitballing) might be something along the lines of assuming magnet protocol torrents that can block any IP address that exceeds various pre-set limits (which is what, 5? or 12? years old for DHT? - and would be a further example of routing around damage). Just don't be surprised when you discover a surprising amount of technical talent and political power arrayed against making it even harder to keep information from being spread reliably and anonymously, without chokepoints.

It isn't as if the torrent crowd doesn't have long experience in dealing with implacable enemies, who in no sense shrink from jailing people.

So you went from "get a raspberry pi and install wordpress" to...what exactly?

I agree that the incessant whining is irritating - about as much as your ignorance. Daily Stormer doesn't need a new host, they need new DDOS protection from coercion by DailyKos and their ilk. Or do you think DDOS is not coercion? Just voluntary packets traveling at will?

By the way Russia blocking Daily Stormer in Russia is funny in view of how many clueless (alt-)rightists pin their hopes on Russia. Here it is, out of the horse's mouth:

GoDaddy kicked them off -

if they have a new host (which should not really be all that hard), please let us know (watch the filters here, though - certain links prevent a comment from appearing).

GoDaddy is not a host, idiot. It's a DNS registrar.

You really don't bother to read, do you? From the very first words of the linked article - 'Domain name retailer and hosting outfit GoDaddy'

However, please do post some information concerning whose hosting that web site is currently using, or was using when GoDaddy stopped providing domain name services. To be honest, it all just sounds like whining about how the marketplace isn't supporting Nazis, regardless of specific details.

And sure, maybe GoDaddy wasn't hosting them, though this gets a bit tricky - when I run a website from my own laptop, I don't need a host per se, but generally, the ISP/DNS company providing the DNS service was traditionally (though possibly sloppily) known as a host. As this would certainly not be the first mistake I've made here in this comment section, please prove me wrong with a bit of info from whois, Netcraft, etc. and I will make sure to only say that GoDaddy stopped providing DNS services, without adding the now proved incorrect claim of GoDaddy also hosting data.

DDoS is a crime, as is well established, by the way. One assumes you already knew that, of course.

So American citizens need to pay for private protection from crime if the media thinks they don't merit government protection from crime. Got it. I think this can be fairly called "proscription", and I hope you realize it is an act of war. I'm certain you're certain your side will win, but what if you're wrong?

'So American citizens need to pay for private protection from crime if the media thinks they don’t merit government protection from crime.'

See below - cloudflare seems to be eminently in its rights. And it also seems as if things reversed. Cloudflare attempts to manage traffic (and hard as it might be to imagine, DDoS and sudden massive global celebrity have roughly the same effect on an ISP), no American citizen needs to pay them - if a DDoS event occurs, an American is still free to report that crime to the proper authorities (generally, the FBI).

Just clicked on the cloudflare link from above, which says this - 'Our terms of service reserve the right for us to terminate users of our network at our sole discretion. The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology.'

Yeah, sounds like cloudflare is being a big meanie because it does not want to be associated with a bunch of lying Nazis. Oddly, most Americans don't, unsurprisingly.

Thing is, Cloudflare took a big ol' noble and principled stand in 2015 in not blocking ISIS-affiliated sites. The fact that it's making an exception now gives away the game, as well as giving lots of ideological ammunition to the right.

First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Nazi

Then they came for the child molestors, and I did not speak out...

Yes, the Nazis must be stopped.

I clicked that link and just received this message, "das Kind mit dem Bade ausschütten"

There are different types of bathwater. The fact that half the country loses its shit over 300 tiki-wielding virgins tells me we are pretty well inoculated against the type of bathwater that keeps you up at night.

"There are different types of bathwater"

With many sides!!!

"The fact that half the country loses its shit over 300 tiki-wielding virgins tells me we are pretty well inoculated against the type of bathwater that keeps you up at night."

Your confidence is so encouraging. Meanwhile, one would have to be an ostrich to dismiss the alt.Nazi movement so quickly especially when the President calculates that he really needs their votes. I'm guessing he's expecting a few more than 300.

Have fun talking about the anti-Jihadists. The SPLC is a joke, but like most things in life you have to ask "compared to what?"

Compared to what? Not compared to the tiki virgins, IMHO. YMMV.

Yeah, and it was not the first time in history that a black person was kicked out of a restaurant because of skin color. Which is, you know, what the people running that website would like to do.

For the first time in history, white racists are being subjected to the social exclusion they have imposed upon non-whites in the past and wish to impose again. Apparently they don't like it. Big surprise there.

Yes yes pride pride

Interesting - need to pay the bills?

The real turning point will be when the ISPs start to block traffic to websites.

Tried to reach a certain pirate site using Cogent? - a site which cannot be linked here anyways, due to the filtering.

Forgot to mention the fact that this has been going on since the MP3 days - people are always calling on ISPs to block addresses, often with enough political clout to get laws passed mandating it.

After all, home taping will kill the recording industry, right?

I had no idea that all the "12" flags flying around Seattle were Aryan Nations supporters.

I don't have an opinion on this, but want to hear other's thoughts: how is this different from the baker who wouldn't bake a wedding cake for the gay couple? Why isn't that "freedom of association"?

I think the baker refusing service is not violating federal law but in some states like CA and NY , you cannot refuse service to someone based on sexual orientation. While the baker may object only to the fact that the gay couple is married but not to the fact they are gay, that state prohibition would probably still apply.

State law it seems to be, from the top 3 wikipedia google results -'s_Flowers_lawsuit

The difference is that bakers have monopoly power, while Facebook, Google, Apple, Paypal, etc. do not.

Those 4 kinda sorta do though, especially FB and Google

Sarcasm, you heard of it?

Yeah, I missed that one. My bad.

So justice and inequality concerns matter now, cool.

pretty funny.

Big Bake has a lot to answer for. Don't people realise how its pastries and donuts exert a malign influence over our public discourse?

Flour, sugar, and eggs are natural monopolies as well as vital goods under public accommodation. If I want something sweet and delicious there's no way I can avoid going to one of a handful of giant bakery gateways which dictate and constrain our tastes.

Yeah the gay wedding cake thing cracks me up. If there's no provider within reasonable distance who will do your gay wedding cake, that's one thing. If you have a choice, don't bother the bigots and just use (and help the business of!) the not-stupid baker. Talk about tempest in a teapot.

Ahh, yes. As soon as it's white racists who are being subjected to social ostracism, rather than black people, a million reasons are found why the government should step in to stop that from happening.

The intersection with antidiscrimination law is the important part, and sexual orientation is included in many state antidiscrimination laws. Though several of these cases are disputed because, while there's no doubt that such laws apply to ready made goods for sale at a shop, there's more concern about custom commissions (which may involve artistic elements) and attending custom events (like catering.) More broadly nearly everyone agrees in exceptions for specifically religious employees, like rabbis refusing to officiate interfaith marriages, but that doesn't extend to people who specialize in catering, etc. at weddings unless perhaps if specifically employed by a congregation.

Now, the situation feels a lot different when it's a small minority group with an extremely limited number of suppliers thus totally unable to get services, versus a large bustling metropolis where there are many alternative providers. (That this happens is why cities have always been refuges for diversity, including of very socially conservative varieties like Haredim.) In reality, though, the political power to pass and enforce these laws in concentrated in places where they aren't really needed to ensure bare access to service, and are more about enforcing unanimity against the recalcitrant. There are cases where a more liberal state has passed these intending to enforce against more conservative rural places, which I think covers one of the recent cases, but most of the prosecutions even then seem to be in the larger cities and suburbs.

The baker is not refusing service based on sexual orientation. He is refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, whether the bake is purchased by a gay person or a straight person. He would be willing to bake a cake for a straight wedding, even if bought by a gay person (say as a gift for a straight couple). There is a distinction between the product and the customer. A women's clothing store is not discriminating against men when it doesn't sell men's clothes. It would be discrimination if it refused to sell women's clothing to a man buying clothes for his wife or daughter.

It takes effort to bake a cake. It takes Paypal effort to block Nazis from using their website. There is an even more basic Galtian libertarian maxim: which is that the only thing someone *has* to do is die. You can't force someone to bake a cake, you can only threaten to deprive them of their life. Thus all rights can only be rights of life. Everything else in morality is duties.

Deliberative Action versus non-deliberative action is one of the most important less understood topics of Ethics. This is why thought experiments involving trains have to be designed to remove the biases of action versus inaction -it takes effort to push a fatman or effort to flip a switch. Entire elements of the theory of desert - what are you naturally deserving of versus what are you morally deserving of, intersect these implicit biases towards inaction. By taking effort - pushing fat people, pushing a switch, or blocking nazis - you change a moral problem from one of natural deserts to moral deserts and imposing a moral order on the universe.

I'm not sure how I feel about automated unfeeling programs being tinkered with to deliberately to impose the specific 'feels' and biases of the programmer. Every time I've used paypal, I've never had to think about what their moral order is saying in the past, and I'm not sure I want to do that in the future.

Regardless of actual political affiliation, the baker just needs to say he isn't baking a cake because the couple are Democrats.

"What would Camille Paglia say?"

Whatever she says will probably strike some sensitive souls as hateful speech that should not be tolerated, followed by pious calls that her books should be removed from e.g. Amazon, and that Amazon should re-direct readers to acceptable literature written by black lesbian dwarfs.

Have you actually bothered to read "Short 'n Dark: my life as a black lesbian dwarf"? It's quite well written. If you like that sort of thing. And you must.

How much is the threat of government prosecution and persecution influencing private companies decisions?
did those companies do it because they are all in ideological lockstep about the limits of free speech and politics or did they do it because they fear a DOJ or FCC investigation or regulation?
and I think its telling that an economics blogger like Cowen would suddenly forget about incentives when analyzing this trend

Maybe they are concerned about the possibility of customers' personal social data, the monopoly on which is their source of profit, being legally established as the customers' property, to which they are obliged to give access to whomsoever customers may see fit, and themselves being regulated as public utilities. Such ideas have been aired recently even in the NYT.

the threat of prosecution for what, exactly?

The slope gets slippier because a company donates money to the Anti-Defamation League after a torch lit parade with the participants chanting blood and soil, and Jews will not replace us?

How much slippier does the slope need to get? Until a president that publicly supports such an event and most of its participants is in the White House? Oh, wait ....

'Still, until major negative consequences emerge in verifiable and durable form'

Come on, just be pithy - 'economic freedom über alles' covers it a nutshell. Besides, it was always clear through which specific lens such beliefs would be focussed in these discussions, most certainly including employer freedom.

Donating money to ADL is a good way to take the wind out of the sails of the people chanting about Jews. I must have missed it when they donated money to police and the NRA after the Ferguson and Baltimore riots.

The slope is already slippery. I had a hard time finding a home for an 'anti-obesity' blog, because of organized email campaigns from 'fat rights activists'. Obesity kills 300,000/year in the United States, yet you can't tell fat peopke to put their forks down, or suggest that insurers shouldn't have to pay for fat people.

Used to be that compulsions like that were something to be controlled and managed and everyone knew it, nowadays compulsions are rights. Who knew?

Coasean thinking, which depends on Coase Theorem, does not work in the presence of coercion or threat thereof. To quote the central points,

It is usually the case with coercion, as here, that it is far cheaper for the coercer to cause harm than for the victim to prevent it. (...) (N)egative-sum games of coercion and extortion lead to highly inefficient outcomes, and they can only be avoided by carefully crafting the ex ante rules to avoid such coercion and extortion. These coercive threats that make negative-sum games possible, and that decrease the payoffs of positive-sum games, cannot be neatly distinguished in practice from innocent externalities (...)

If threats of boycott and threats to fire and make persons unemployable are not coercion and extortion, then I don't know what is.

'are not coercion and extortion, then I don’t know what is'

Well, assuming you live in the U.S., you seem to be unaware that calling for a boycott is covered by the 1st Amendment, and that a person like Prof. Cowen believes in economic freedom, which includes the right of an employer of an at-will employee to immediately terminate an employee for no reason at all.

The problem seems to be that you believe that people exercising their 1st Amendment rights and employers enjoying their economic freedom is the same as coercion and extortion.

Meaning that apparently you actually don't know what coercion and extortion actually is.

You assume too much.

If you don't live in the U.S. and are not an American citizen, then why bother to reveal that you don't know what you are talking about?

However, if you think private American citizens making decisions based on their basic rights as American citizens is coercion or extortion, please just stay wherever you live, and don't worry yourself about watching how a free society functions. And though not in reference to you personally, it isn't as if Nazis have ever approved of a free society, even before they lost a war to one.

No one in America needs to give a job to anyone else, nor keep them employed beyond the terms of whatever a contract/labor law says. And no one in America needs to support a business, nor justify to anyone else why they are calling for that business to be boycotted.

Keep your civics lecturing for your American 8th graders. Private companies firing people is one thing, organizing witch-hunts to get people fired and never hired again in a professional capacity (a favorite tactic of CPSU with recalcitrant professionals who didn't merit imprisonment, by the way) is another. I suppose it's too fine a distinction for somebody who never went beyond eigth-grade civics, though.

If no one in America needs to give a job to anyone else, then what do you have EEOC for? Is it OK if a business never hires African Americans or gays? Is it OK for a business not to sell to people it doesn't want to sell to? If not, how does it square with your other statements?


'organizing witch-hunts to get people fired and never hired again in a professional capacity'

Almost as if you know absolutely nothing about labor history in the U.S. for the last century and a half.

Do you perhaps mean the communist script-writers of Hollywood?

'If no one in America needs to give a job to anyone else, then what do you have EEOC for?'

The EEOC has become a socialist authority mandating employment for each and every American citizen? I certainly missed that memo.

'Is it OK if a business never hires African Americans or gays?'

Of course it is - exceptions include churches, and small businesses. Hard quotas for employment are not allowed in America, though if your company has 10,000 employees and does not employ a single woman or black person in any position, the EEOC/Labor Dept. will probably be having a word with you. Just ask google how that works in less extreme terms - (Pro tip - there is a difference between a black person and a non-black gay person in one glaring way - care to guess which? Maybe you can see it by looking hard enough.)

'Is it OK for a business not to sell to people it doesn’t want to sell to?'

Depends - that no shoes, no shirt, no service example is still valid, along with a business saying that a drunk or armed customer may not enter their private premises to start with. However, it is not legal for a tiki torch seller to not sell a tiki torch to a customer who just happens to be talking about their next night time blood and soil event. One hopes this is not in dispute.

'If not, how does it square with your other statements?'

Well, since I actually agree that a church or small business (say a family run bakery with 7 employees) has every right to not hire a black person or gay person (while acknowledging in an extreme example that a company with 10,000 employees and not a single woman or black employee is clearly using some filter for employment that has nothing to do with ability), and it is clear that a tiki torch seller not selling to a customer intending to use it in a torchlit procession while chanting Jews will will not replace us is breaking the law, it seems like those beliefs square pretty well with my other statements, actually.

'Do you perhaps mean the communist script-writers of Hollywood?'

No, I mean union organizers in the 1880s to 1910s. A number of them who were permanently blacklisted through being killed, by the way.

America actually has a history older than Hollywood, hard as that may be for some to imagine..

> it is clear that a tiki torch seller not selling to a customer intending to use it in a torchlit procession while chanting Jews will will not replace us is breaking the law
So tell me again why CloudFlare not selling DDoS protection to a customer intending to use it to organize torchlit processions while chanting Jews will not replace us is not breaking the law.

'So tell me again why CloudFlare not selling DDoS protection to a customer intending to use it to organize torchlit processions while chanting Jews will not replace us is not breaking the law.'

Of course, as it seems you are not really interested in reading.

Here is the beginning of the statement from CloudFlare itself - 'Earlier today, Cloudflare terminated the account of the Daily Stormer. We've stopped proxying their traffic and stopped answering DNS requests for their sites. We've taken measures to ensure that they cannot sign up for Cloudflare's services ever again.

Our terms of service reserve the right for us to terminate users of our network at our sole discretion. The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology.

Our team has been thorough and have had thoughtful discussions for years about what the right policy was on censoring. Like a lot of people, we’ve felt angry at these hateful people for a long time but we have followed the law and remained content neutral as a network. We could not remain neutral after these claims of secret support by Cloudflare.'

Selling a physical good in a physical store is essentially a public accommodation issue -

Providing a service under terms of service that a customer must accept before that service is provided is not the same as selling a physical good in a physical store, particularly when the contract reserves the right of the service provider to terminate that contract at any time for any reason (see at-will employment for how that concept works when applied to employment). Further, that physical store is also welcome to have something which could be called terms of service - no drunk customers allowed on the premises, for example. Do note that such a term of service is non-discriminatory - all drunk people are treated equally, whether white or black, gay or straight, male or female.

One would have thought that this is really not hard. If one does not wish to abide by CloudFlare's contractually established terms of service, one is free to find an alternative in the marketplace. Whether you find such a thoroughly typical example of economic freedom on the part of a company providing service as another example of the oppression inherent in the (marketplace) system is another question, of course.

> providing a service with a TOS is totally different from selling physical goods in a physical store, blah blah nitpick nitpick
So if I have a physical store I must sell to everybody who has money and wears a shirt (isn't that discrimination against nudists by the way?), but if I open a business leasing tiki torches via internet (and delivering them by drone for more techiness), it's A-OK for me to put on a TOS with vague conditions that will allow me to refuse your business if I don't like the uses you put the torches to. Nice cop-out.

'So if I have a physical store I must sell to everybody who has money and wears a shirt'

Essentially, yes that is the law.

'isn’t that discrimination against nudists by the way?'

No, public nudity is illegal in the U.S., and a store owner is completely within their rights to not serve a nude customer.

'but if I open a business leasing tiki torches via internet'

Sounds like an extremely strange model.

'it’s A-OK for me to put on a TOS with vague conditions that will allow me to refuse your business if I don’t like the uses you put the torches to'

Actually, it would be binding contract and not TOS, and business would not be transacted until that contract is signed. And if that contract says that the leasor can terminate the contract at any time for any reason and demand the immediate return of the leasor's property, well, only a fool would sign such a contract and then insist its terms are not binding.

'Nice cop-out.'

Nice public display of apparently not understanding of how contracts work in a commercial setting. If there is not a contract (one assumes that a website engaged in commercial activity has a contract in this case, as otherwise it would be violating the TOS, and be grounds for instant termination of the free service), it is completely up to the discretion of the person providing a free service who they provide that free service to. And Cloudflare's TOS are not vague in this area - 'Further, you agree that all terminations for cause shall be made in Cloudflare’s sole discretion and that Cloudflare shall not be liable to you or any third-party for any termination of your account, access to the Service, or any disruption to your services such a termination may cause. You expressly agree that in the case of a termination for cause you will not have any opportunity to cure. You further acknowledge and agree that notwithstanding any termination, your obligations to Cloudflare set forth in Sections 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 23, 24, 25 and 26 shall survive such termination.'

In other words, Cloudflare explicitly reserves the right to do whatever it wants in terms of providing service, and only Cloudflare is entitled to decide what is considered cause. Pretty standard, and nothing vague about it in the least - including the explicit exclusion of liability on Cloudflare's part.

My god you're a prat. Even those rare times when you aren't incorrect, you're just the worst.

+1. I don't like it. But it's important to uphold the right of free association here, even if used for virtue signalling cant. +1.

Sorry, but I reject the idea that supporting the 1st Amendment in its true glory is virtue signalling. And if it is, well, it is a virtue I am proud to support as an American citizen, as it represents one of the greatest achievements in human history.

I entirely admire the 1st too. Great achievement.

The private persecutions of the alt-right here is ugly and virtue-signalling. But it is not immoral or unconstitutional. It is entirely your / Paypal / Google's / right to act thus, and I support it to the death, etc.

'The private persecutions of the alt-right here is ugly and virtue-signalling.'

You seem to admire the 1st Amendment, without understanding it. Every American citizen is fully entitled to call for a boycott of any business for any reason - that is not private persecution, that is protected speech. They are also completely free to use their 1st Amendments rights to express their opinion about anyone else, using whatever language they wish - not to try to trip any filters here, but to say I think your mother wore combat boots is completely protected speech, even if your mother does not like a marine.

Just as a Nazi has every right to chant 'Jews will not replace us' in public, others have the equal right to chant 'Nazis will not replace us.' This is not private persecution on either side. Any American citizen is free to express their belief of who and who should not be employed. This is a public display of what someone believes - and their fellow citizens are completely welcome to make their own judgments based on that, public or private. Welcome to the marketplace of ideas, where the American government is not allowed to interfere. Which is true to an extent that many Europeans likely find extremely hard to imagine.

I have zero obligation to consider either a Nazi or the SLPC to be worthy of my respect because they demand it.

Yes, the middle is shrinking, but it is happening in part because the idea that someone freely deciding not to have anything to do with Nazis is now considered persecution. It isn't - nobody in the U.S. owes someone else respect for their beliefs, but they must respect the right of any citizen to express it in public. The 1st Amendment has never been a shield from discovering that your fellow citizens consider your beliefs (whatever beliefs - think Westboro Baptist Church protesting outside of funerals) contemptible, and act accordingly.

(Employment has basically nothing to do with the 1st Amendment, but that is a very different discussion concerning the sort of economic freedom that American companies prize so highly.)

I know the 1st very well and respect it very well. I agree with your post almost entirely.

I just think a lot of the attacks on the alt-right in this case are virtue signalling and hypocritical. But that's ok. I'm not going to shout them down and I'm _definitely_ opposed to using state power to shut them up or afford them anything less than equal protection and access to public space. And because I'm a nice guy who values debate, I'm not even going to kick them out of my house, even though I could.

Agree that employment / hosting is a different issue, under free association. You may or may not regard free association as a superset of rights, depending on how your ethics is constructed.

Free association? Do you support restrictive covenants, segregated workplaces and country clubs that don't accept Jewish members or women?

Yes. If you can shun Nazi's, then the Nazi's can shun you.

It goes both ways. You can't defend Google / Paypal .etc kicking out people they don't like _for any reason they choose_ and not allow the Nazi's to kick you out of the Robert E. Lee Country Club in turn. People you don't like have rights too.

Moral consistency across both friends and enemies is difficult, especially but it's worth the effort. If you don't get the odd uncomfortable result sometimes, you're probably doing it wrong.

@Alistair: do you make any distinction between who you are and what you believe? A black person can't change their blackness, so it seems unethical to deny them civil rights just based on skin color. But a Nazi or a Commie is choosing to espouse beliefs, and others with different beliefs can choose to associate with them or not.

Free association? Do you support restrictive covenants, segregated workplaces and country clubs that don’t accept Jewish members or women?

1. No. Keep the property or sell it to me. I own the property, I exercise discretion over who I rent to or sell to. Allodial tenure.

2. Not my business, really. If the properties of the segregation make it so unappealing that the wage isn't enough, I won't apply there.

3. It's a club. Their house, their rules re the Jews. Re dames, its legitimate for men and women to have refuges from each other. My grandmother and my mother belonged to women's clubs. You got a problem with that??

@msgkings respectfully no distinction.

1. 'voluntary' and involuntary qualia seem to me weakly distinguished at the margin. What if a 'voluntary' qualia causes me unbearable pain? Or is strongly but not completely genetically determined?

2. The ethics doesn't depend on the target 'deserving' censure in any sense. Yes, people can be shunned for reasons they have no control over. Free association is an AND gate.

3. Free association is entirely self justifying. If it has to be in some sense 'fair' or reasonable then it collapses as a logical construct and becomes conditional on what 3rd parties think/value.

@ artdeco I am open to persuasion on the ethics of covenants.

I'm going to make a prediction. I hope I'm wrong, as I was with my last prediction that we would see a nuclear detonation during the Obama regime.

We are going to see a Democrat Mayor of a northern city murdered for the apparent racism that they tolerate within their cities. This isn't some minuscule group of lowlifes, but the machine of Democrat politics that has successfully managed to keep African Americans in their ghettos, poor and ill educated.

The overeducated twits weaned on the marxist garbage emanating from the Universities will after demolishing a few more statues and ruining a few more lives realize that the segregated privilege they grew up in resulted from policies and practices exquisitely maintained by the party that screams racism the loudest.

The hungry dogs are being fed and trained to love the taste of blood. Their current targets will show their abundant weapons at one point, and they will turn against the soft belly of those who gave them birth.

Everything this week was throwing meat to the hungry dogs to distract them, to turn their attention away. We will see how long this lasts.

Cocaine is a helluva drug

We are going to see a Democrat Mayor of a northern city murdered for the apparent racism that they tolerate within their cities. This isn’t some minuscule group of lowlifes, but the machine of Democrat politics that has successfully managed to keep African Americans in their ghettos, poor and ill educated.

They tolerate racial hostility too, and promote it in select circumstances. However, the real vice of the Democratic Party is that it's the electoral vehicle for various non-performing occupational segments (and various destructive segments as well). It's raison d'etre is keeping those people well fed and attacking anyone who would damage their self-understanding. So, we have school systems whose primary mission is to provide employment for people with MEd degrees, social services apparats whose primary mission is to provide employment for people with MSW degrees, a higher education apparatus whose primary mission is to provide employment (and pampering) to people with PhD degrees, and lawyers who are drinking everyone's milkshake and insisting we all work for them.

You should stay away from prediction markets.

It's getting weird out there. I wonder if the 60s felt like this? Or is this a new thing, internet dread?

The drug-addled hippies made more sense. America was fighting in Vietnam so people protested the government.

Today, the radical left is killing police, shooting politicians, destroying colleges and regularly taking the bat to people in the streets - so who are people protesting - a puny rabble of nazis who actually applied for a permit to march.

It doesn't make sense unless you realize that this is just another stage of the resistance against the last election. They rode the Russia nonsense much longer than they hoped, so now we're on to nazis. From former KGB agent Putin to Nazis - Trump's nefarious connections are truly remarkable.

As for the confederacy, if their symbols go shouldn't the Democrat Party be next? After all, the confederate south contained some people who opposed slavery and not every confederate soldier died happily for the right to own people - while the Democrats - both south and north - supported it as party policy. Klan member Byrd was getting highways named after him all the way up till 2009.

One of your guys drove a car into a crowd. You could at least say sorry before you go off whining about other people for not liking enslaving blacks enough.

You could at least say sorry

For what am I apologizing? I've never driven a car into a crowd.

So Chip==Art Deco.

Any other identities?

Hey, he was one of Chip's guys. Don't you understand, Chip owns that murder because he isn't a left-winger?

So Chip==Art Deco.

Haha no one who has read their posts could actually believe that.

One of your guys tried to murder a bunch of GOP congressmen a month or so back.

So stop your triumphing.

"One of your guys drove a car into a crowd. You could at least say sorry before you go off whining about other people for not liking enslaving blacks enough."

LOL, sure. The White Nationalists are terrible people and the one that drove a car into the crowd is a terrorists and deserves the death penalty. I'm sorry for that woman that got killed and the people that suffered.

Now, can you apologize for the antifa fascism, the shooting of Republican Congressman and the past racism of Senator Byrd and the Democratic party of till the 60's?

Someone who probably belonged to the same facebook groups you do, such as occupy, antifa, and bernie, tried to assassinate half the Republican congressional leadership, while you celebrated it on Twitter with verified leftists.

And one of "your" guys kidnapped and tortured a special needs kid, called him a Trump supporter, and broadcast it on FB Live. Another one of "your" guys - three of them, actually - beat up an old man in the streets of Chicago for allegedly voting for Trump. Another one of "your" guys shot a kid point blank in the neck in Milwaukee.

You can at least wait until even 10% of your friends and coworkers have heard of any of the above news to start taking the moral high ground.

Obama's Mandela tweet about hatred being learned was one of the most retweeted ever. And yet liberals, many of whom likely favor drug rehabilitation over punishment, prefer chest-puffing punitive action on bigotry rather than an attempt to understand and address its causes.

Understanding and addressing its causes would be too uncomfortable and require dealing with hatefacts. Chest-puffing punitive action on bigotry is much easier, much better for one's moral self-satisfaction, and, frankly, much more fun.

The time for hand-holding you snowflakes is over. Either you are with or against the Nazis. You guys like Thiel wanted your manchild Trump to bring about Manichean moments of choice like these, but then you cry and hide when they come about.

Nah, it's about winning the war not the battle. It's not obvious to me that the current reaction is the best strategy for winning that war.

"Either you are with or against the Nazis."

The Nazis are a group with four digit membership. I used to imagine that you were clever, but it's embarrassing how easily the media narrative has fooled you. Do you remember two months ago when you didn't care much about the Democrat assassin because the media didn't tell you to?

This Nazi narrative is a convenient story pushed by Democrats to their moron base to get them all excited, and of course, Democrats like you always wanted to assault and kill average Republicans, so now you have your label and your scapegoat. Don't like that your neighbor wants to simplify the tax code? He's a nazi, and now ignorant morons like yourself can feel justified committing murder.

This comment is exactly correct and not the least bit hysterical, hypocritical, or pathetic.

My friend, we are watching the Democrat party and the wider left conflate anyone who opposes removing historical monuments, anyone who supports unfettered free speech, and anyone who supports things like eliminating explicit racial discrimination in law, to actual Nazis. At the same time, we are watching the wider left celebrating violence against Nazis. Put two and two together.

If the left in the US had paid more attention to class and less to race and gender, would things have worked out better?

The left cannot mobilize ordinary wage-earners qua wage-earners. "Paying attention to class" hasn't been an option since about 1966.

See James Q. Wilson's account of doing field research in Boston at that time and the crevasse between the mentality of city hall and that of rank-and-file Boston residents. The former were chuffering about 'poverty' and the latter were concerned about street crime. The self-concept of the bourgeois portside is commonly such that an indifference to and disdain for non-exotic wage-earners is built in, not tacked on. When it isn't, they run into a different impediment: ordinary wage-earners benefit from incorporating certain security-enhancing features into the political economy, but are fundamentally socially competent and do not need the ministrations of social workers, or school administrators who think they are social workers, or school teachers who fancy themselves evangelists.

Hate groups are breeding ground for terrorism. This goes for every group, may it be Christian, Islamic, Nazi, or some other Fascist (Communism included) group. There's no slippery slope here. The only argument against a service denial to hate groups would be that they might go dark and be harder to track by law enforcement agencies.

Will you support a campaign to kick Daily Kos off the internet?

Because there's a bright line you can draw that says "this is a hate group!" and then it's settled and we're all happy except for a couple of Nazis.

Except that's not the way it works.

Indeed. I've already prepared a list of hate groups to save you the trouble. Just the Hate Groups, you understand. Terrible people, yes, I know. We won't miss them.

I'll amend the list as necessary if we need to ban more Hate Groups.

What? Oh, you don't need to see it.

Trust me.

It's all fine.

The Israeli PM's son ( Yair Netanyahu) says the leftists are more dangerous than the Neo- nazis. I agree: I am not worried much about fascist ideology growing. I think their importance is way overrated and they are better ignored. NPR is going crazy this week as though a White supremacist insurrection were imminent. These bogeymen/ nazis have become a convenient vehicle for the far left to present themselves as honorable defenders of universal rights and to extend their censorship to all areas of life, subtly enforcing only speech that agrees with their ideology. We're slowly entering the Stalinist/ Maoist world of denunciations, public shaming for non left sanctioned opinions, denial of service, firings based on political affiliation. The result is looking over your shoulder , self censorship , saying the right thing and walking on eggshells in many environments because who knows who is listening. The fascists may get to the Gulag first but the rest who did not buy into the leftist groupthink will be next. it's the logical outcome of this ideology. A lot of us like James Danmore will need to be sent to the countryside for re- education. Let a 1000 flowers bloom.

Why don't the FBI and DHS agree?

They are communist too, everyone is.

The middle is shrinking. A predictable endgame of identity politics.

Damnit, I don't want to have a future where the only games in town are the KKK or the SJWs. What the hell happened to the classical liberals?

You don't have to choose between antifa and the KKK.

The FBI and DHS are certainly neither. They too may be flawed, but they are standing closer to the Constitution than most in this mess.

The choice is between antifa and the Republican party. The Democrats support indiscriminate violence against anyone who votes Republican, plain and simple. We know this because they support antifa, and antifa attacks indiscriminately, including everyone from random journalists simply filming events to elderly people and children trying to get in to a Ben Shapiro event. The KKK is inconsequential, whereas the antifa has high level support, with exposed members including Tim Kaine's loser son and the mayor of Berkeley.

Yes, it's not all bad. But the centre is still shrinking. And I severely distrust the capacity of powerful state bureaucracies like FBI and DHS to avoid capture by one faction or another in the long run.

I have long been a fan of political Independence, from either party. My reasons then were much milder, just that people shouldn't bind themselves to platforms, that it was destructive to accept great mixed buckets of beliefs together. And then to defend them.

Thomas, it is similarly destructive to see a great uniform blob of everything you fear.

I'm sure the Netanyahus would love millions of American Jews to move to Israel. Putting aside that many of us have absolutely no desire to do so, and that many of us have children that would be unclassified (not Jewish according to the Rabbinical Taliban, but obviously not another religion) and have difficulty getting married or even buried, Netanyahu might want to at least consider the admonition, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket”"

Diversity means lots of different genders, races, and religions all holding the same opinions. Or else.

As I've mentioned, for the Left, diversity is like M&Ms: many colors that all taste the same

We’re slowly entering the Stalinist/ Maoist world of denunciations, public shaming for non left sanctioned opinions, denial of service, firings based on political affiliation.

Slowly? ha!

What if this event is just nerds Vs jocks?

Even though one does not like fascists, I find no justification for denying them use of the instruments of speech.

As a business, what I would do is tell them: for every dollar of profit I make in a transaction with you, I will donate that, or more, to the Southern Poverty Law Center, and will run a banner advertisement next to your communication telling others that they, by going to my site and using my facilities, have made a contribution to the Holocaust Museum and SPLC.

There is a little more subtlety here that is also necessary.

A newspaper may decline to accept political or other advertising it finds offensive. The reason is: an externality. Readers who do not favor views will cease buying the newspaper because they are involuntarily being subjected to it, without their consent.

Electronic directed communications are different: you have to seek out the website to get the content, so the reader selects the materials and the site.

I choose to go the the MR website; if some white nationalist placed a add in my local newspaper or ran an infomercial on TV extolling the positions of white supremacy and promoting a Klan rally, that's different.

If they do it on their own website that's different. I have to enter the url to reach them.

Free speech extends to those whom you do not like.

'for every dollar of profit I make in a transaction with you, I will donate that'

John Scalzi has already done something like similar almost 5 years ago - it raised over 60,000 dollars in less than a week.

Who knew that Vox Day was such a dynamic force for supporting equality for women, gays and people of color, as well as a supporting an organization dedicated to helping those victimized by sexual assault.

I have more trouble with the PayPal declination of service because there is no externality: no one is involuntarily involved in the transaction other than the seller and buyer, unlike a newspaper which has to consider the reaction of its subscription base which involuntarily receives a racist add. On the other hand, I am sure that the Walmart manager can decline to sell rifles to an angry crowd outside of its store because there may be an imminent danger to others.

"Even though one does not like fascists, I find no justification for denying them use of the instruments of speech.

As a business, what I would do is tell them: for every dollar of profit I make in a transaction with you, I will donate that, or more, to the Southern Poverty Law Center, and will run a banner advertisement next to your communication telling others that they, by going to my site and using my facilities, have made a contribution to the Holocaust Museum and SPLC."

Bravo Bill, that is a truly thoughtful and well meaning stance!

Couldn't you pick, you know, an actual charity, and not those clowns?

If they picked an actual non-ideological charity, then it wouldn't have nearly as much effect. Donating to The Humane Society isn't really going to make anyone cringe. But if you are donating to the clowns on the other side, that's going to piss them off. Sure they can use your service, but they are accepting a negative consequence to do so.

Just going by charities mentioned here, the ADL is both superior as a charity, and should be superior for the purpose of pissing off Nazis. It doesn't have to be non-ideological, just not the damned SPLC

Good point. Donating to the ADL (essentially a Jewish organization) would certainly drive the point home to the neo-Nazis.

If only there were some sort of countervailing force that could defend you persecuted right-wingers against these heavy-handed corporations. Of course that would probably involve taxation and regulation which you also hate, so I'm not quite sure how to square this circle.

"so I’m not quite sure how to square this circle."

You mean like a Republican president that might well use the very enlarged powers of the Executive Branch to have the IRS do some deep investigations on these corporations and/or have the Department of Justice investigate Google. After all the EU has already levied some large fines against them, so there's a precedent.

"Apple, LinkedIn, Spotify and Twitter have joined a growing chorus of technology companies to hit out at the far right and Donald Trump’s attempt to put white supremacists and leftwing counter-demonstrators at Saturday’s Charlottesville protest on the same moral plane."

Let us be blunt here, it is a issue of political leadership. The savage red Chinese have a saying: "Sailing the seas depends on the helmsman". Everyone knows (even if some people pretend they don't) that neither crooked Clinton nor dishonest Donald could be a great helmsperson. So how can America's Ship of State avoid the rocks?

mmmm, that explains the might of Chinese navy before 1949 ;)

Yes, it does. The regimes of Qing and of the warlords were pathetic.

Where did this "same moral plane" stuff come from.

As we sy in Brazil, you are all on the same boat.

“This is not about the left or the right, conservative or liberal. It is about human decency and morality."

That line is perfect. IMHO, many people struggle to make a sensible judgment of the situation (Donald Trump included) because they see everything as a right and left fight, they cannot even realize that sometimes it's about right and wrong.

True, and a false dichotomy. I need not choose a side between Nazis and Antifa.

One may justly believe that failing to stand up to the Nazis is passive acceptance of their cause, but one need not confront them in their faces with violent threats, baseball bats, shields, pepper spray, and bags of urine and feces.

If you choose the path of violence against them, I understand even if I do not agree. But you don't also get to claim that you are a peaceful resister fighting for civil rights.

What would Camille Paglia say?

Isn't the only possible answer to this, no matter what she's talking about, "who cares?" Tyler has a lot of idiosyncratic views, but still caring (ever caring) what this no-talent has been who never should have been thinks is among the very most idiosyncratic.


What's good about Paglia? Even in Tyler's best attempts to explain what he likes, I've seen nothing (other than that, when he was a repressed teen, he found her liberating, but well, who should care about his personal stories?) Please, do explain what he adds to the world. I see nothing of value at all.

Because people will suddenly give literary scholars or humanities professors a bullshit pulpit if it fits their priors or makes them feel better. I really see no difference between her and say bell hooks aside from the crowd she generates. I tried reading her work and its really no different than a good chunk of the RealPeerReview stuff.

I really see no difference between her and say bell hooks

I take it you've never read anything by Bell Hooks.

Well, he can't write "what would Steve Sailer say?"

Why would he need to when he knows Sailer will show up here soon?

"What would Camille Paglia say?"
Imagine Scrabble letters being fired from a machine gun.

The SPLC? Is that the best that they could do? Jesus. I wouldn't be surprised if MR is listed on a SPLC database somewhere.

'I wouldn’t be surprised if MR is listed on a SPLC database somewhere.'

No it isn't. So many people apparently wanting to be persecuted, it is amazing to see what sort of imaginary fantasies they indulge in.

*sigh* The point is that the SPLC has been known to paint with a broad brush when compiling their lists. But whatevs.

Wait, you admit that what you wrote is just another example of a persecution fantasy?

And who cares what the SLPC thinks? I certainly don't, and why should I? They are just one voice among many, after all, most of whom more interested in fund raising than anything else.

Well, Tim Cook does, you fucking twit. As mentioned in the post. But that was thousands of your barfed up pixels ago, so you've likely lost the thread.

After a woman was killed by a Nazi, Tim Cook is quoted with this text - '“We must not witness or permit such hate and bigotry in our country, and we must be unequivocal about it,” Cook wrote. “This is not about the left or the right, conservative or liberal. It is about human decency and morality.'

That is not a persecution fantasy, that is merely an observation concerning events less than a week old, coupled with actions designed to keep other people from being hurt and killed. Actions you are free to disagree with, of course. Though one can hope you do not support actions designed to hurt and kill people.

Yes, and completely irrelevant, PA. As he said, Tim Cook does, and non of that blathering you're posting changes that.

Well, this individual comment thread started with Butler T. Reynolds writing '“What would Camille Paglia say?”' and then Brian Donohue starts talking about Tim Cook.

'As he said, Tim Cook does'

Butler T. Reynolds never said a word about Tim Cook, only someone who apparently had no interest in what Camille Paglia would say, or in the SLPC monitoring this web site.

Did you lose the thread?

Am I to understand that there is, or should be, a right to promote disorder and, in furtherance thereof, to incite violence? Even the Bolsheviks learned that upending the social order can be hazardous to one's health, the Bolshevik's health. That lesson is beginning to dawn on a few thoughtful and intellectually independent libertarians. Group think is the opposite of libertarianism, yet the libertarian movement has been hijacked by a cabal that rejects transparency and demands adherence to group think; and group think cannot tolerate anyone thoughtful and intellectually independent because she might challenge and undermine the group think. Disorder is like a virus: it can be stopped from spreading only if everyone disengages from society. Is that what those who promote disorder wish to achieve, the very opposite of the freedom of association and social and intellectual engagement that the libertarian claims to promote? The antidote to any form of extremism is its opposite form of extremism. In his column this week David Brooks promotes moderation. As a cradle Episcopalean, that's fine with me (moderation is part of our creed). If independence and moderation define the libertarian, then I am a libertarian; if not, then I am not a libertarian.

"yet the libertarian movement has been hijacked by a cabal that rejects transparency and demands adherence to group think"

Really? In what chat room?

"yet the libertarian movement has been hijacked by a cabal that rejects transparency and demands adherence to group think"

Exactly backwards. You win points for consistency though.

FFS, he's too far gone to even pretend he knows the law at this point.

Pay Pal helped convicted terrorist Mohamed Elshinawy in 2015 according to the DOJ.

Morality, or lack thereof, is not measured by the number of victims. It is measured by the hatred in one's heart and the evil of one's actions.

Trump never said the two sides were morally equivalent. A reporter attempted to put those words in his mouth, and he rebuffed it. Trump merely acknowledged that the violence of that day was instigated by people on both sides who came prepared for and committed acts of violence against the other. His response was appropriate. It is not the duty of the President to weigh in and take sides on every confrontation. He doesn't have to decide which of the Crips

When Nazis and Communists fight in the streets, you don't take a side. You pray for a meteor.

Incorrect. A mere attempt to say that both sides committed some violence would not be so offensive. The offensive part was that he claimed that there were "good people" at the Nazi rally. That's something that, e.g., the Sons of Confederate Veterans (who call the Civil War "the Second American Revolution") didn't do in their statement blaming both sides.

I concede that there are good people who don't want the statues to come down, but that's different from saying that good people march underneath Nazi flags.

The offensive part was that he claimed that there were “good people” at the Nazi rally.

The President isn't a sociological idiot and isn't concerned with faculty-lounge status.

Do you have evidence that there was no one except Nazis and Klansmen at the protest against removing the statues?

And when he said "good people on both sides," are you sure he was talking about both sides of the fight or both sides of the issue?

And while I believe you that you are not offended by saying there was violence on both sides, I submit that you are in the minority. Those who opposed the Nazis, including the news media and most Democrats, felt the violence against the Nazis was justified. They demonstrated their justification by ignoring Antifa violence , covering it up, dragging the red herring of the death that happened later, and pointing to peaceful counter demonstrators.

Why did peaceful and law abiding counter demonstrators march under Antifa flags?

Yes, because the protest wasn't a "protest against removing the statues." You can look at all the Nazi themed posters advertising the event. Lots of sledgehammers swinging at Stars of David, very little pictures of the statues. In any case, anyone who was mislead and attended the event should have immediately realized the problem.

Yes, his quote definitely specifically referred to people in attendance at the rally.

Yes, I don't think that antifa / Black Bloc people have a universally recognized flag the way that the Nazi flag is and should be recognized. Nor do I think that the vast majority of people there protesting the Nazis were antifa-- just as I'm not blaming the militia groups who showed up and specifically claimed to be neutral.

It doesn't matter whether I'm in the minority or not. It doesn't matter whether other people are wrong to let antifa off the hook. (Or, for example, wrong That is absolutely no excuse for you and the President to excuse Nazis. You could at least take the tack of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, who have more good sense than you and the President to distance themselves from that event (even as yes, they do actually protest in favor of keeping statues, even the ones that lie about my Tar Heel ancestors, whitewashing Confederates and white supremacists while slandering Unionists.)

It has nothing to do with "faculty lounge" status. It has to do with not being a moral idiot. No mistake on the part of others is worth you doing that yourself.

"Morality... is measured by the hatred in one’s heart and the evil of one’s actions."

Maybe, but that first part is between you and your creator. Among humans, of what concern is a heart that hates but is never expressed in action?

I care about what people do, not so much what they think or say.

Perhaps academics, who are all about thinking and saying rather than doing, struggle with this.

I submit that morality as a philosophical subject is rooted in religion where there are consequences for hateful thoughts even when one's actions are restrained. There are hateful people who do not act violently only because: 1) it is illegal and has punishment, 2) the enemy fights back, 3) they are cowards, 4) they are weak and incapable, 5) high opportunity costs, among other reasons.

As a former Jew and present Catholic, sin is as much a condition of the mind as ones hands, if not mores. For example, gambling is not a sin in Judaism because of adverse personal and societal consequences. It is sinful because it distracts from holiness: total devotion to God. While one may devote oneself to God in your profession or celebration or sport, one cannot devote oneself to God through gambling.

But as you say, in this secular world, mere evil thoughts are not a crime without acting on those thoughts. Unfortunately, I have a difficult time explaining this to my Jewish family and friends whose disdain for Nazis is well warranted. They see Nazis and their marches and symbols as de facto violence.

I get it. Tens of millions also suffered horribly in gulags and maybe see the hammer and sickle in a similar light, but I wouldn't countenance shutting down the schools of thought that lead to those outcomes.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, I think.

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant, I think."

+SPF 50

Unfortunately we are headed in the opposite direction by driving these groups into the shadows.

":Apple, LinkedIn, Spotify and Twitter have joined a growing chorus of technology companies to hit out at the far right"

+1 for Voltaire over here.

I suppose it is reasonable to be concerned with thoughts insofar as they are a guide to intent and future actions. As you say, that Nazi/SJW may be safe _now_ in the confines of your church coffee morning but very unsafe should they later achieve a monopoly of force. It is reasonable to sleep with one eye open on such people (but to take pre-emptive action against them...?)

I personally feel that many on the left only practise tolerance when they don't have the power to enforce their orthodoxy, and tolerance ceases shortly after they achieve it.

"I personally feel that many on the left only practise tolerance when they don’t have the power to enforce their orthodoxy, and tolerance ceases shortly after they achieve it."

I used to think that was a pretty fringe view on the Left, but it is certainly becoming more mainstream.

But as you say, in this secular world, mere evil thoughts are not a crime without acting on those thoughts.

Yes, they are not a crime. But they are a sin. I do not believe that everything evil is or should be a crime, and nor is everything a crime evil. I have no compunction against calling things evil that I don't wish to ban.

Do not conflate calling anyone who would participate in that march as committing evil and sin with wanting to ban it, even if some other people make that mistake.

I'm not sure a lot of people are making that mistake.

“Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to all that we hold dear as Americans.” - Trump

This from our white nationalist President, amirite?

Noted...I won't be able to find rap music at any of these providers...oh, wait, sorry

Frank Zappa solved that issue long time ago ;)

Rather broad brush you use isn't it?

There's quite a few Rap songs that are explicitly racist.

still, his post suggested all rap music, which indeed is a broad brush

That's true, but on the other hand if Spotify banned all music by any Rapper that had any racist songs, that would be the same sized brush and the list would be substantial.

Also related, the ACLU has announced it will not represent hate groups who demonstrate with firearms.

I assume State and federal court judges will be (at least partially) following suit. If you cannot assemble peaceably then you do not have a full right to assemble.

Ridiculous, and of course judges will not be following suit. Legally bearing firearms is no sign that someone is not assembling peaceably.

Also related, the ACLU has announced it will not represent hate groups who demonstrate with firearms. I assume State and federal court judges will be (at least partially) following suit. If you cannot assemble peaceably then you do not have a full right to assemble.

Thanks for an example of the games people play when a statement of principle interferes with what they really want. It's been an education.

Yeah, prima facie it looks like an excuse to selectively avoid supporting the rights of people ACLU dislikes. I don't recall this "safety case" excuse coming up before for anyone else, or see why it is relevant to the particular legal issues. Sad.

Kind of backwards, in this case: it's the right to bear arms the ACLU dislikes. Combine that with people they personally dislike, and it's easy to step out of the ring.

Well, in this case, the people in the Nazi's ring to hold their demonstration in the park, against the opposition of the police and local elected officials, was the ACLU.

It is always strange to not even know the very basic facts of a situation, particularly as a number of people are now pointing fingers at the evil ACLU for supporting the Nazi's right to hold a demonstration.

And the ACLU has a long tradition of supporting the Nazis, like in Skokie, where the ACLU successfully argued that displaying a swastika in public was a form of protected expression -

And no link. So, here is some information - 'ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero told the Wall Street Journal that the group would have stricter screenings and take legal requests from white supremacist groups on a case-by-case basis.

“The events of Charlottesville require any judge, any police chief and any legal group to look at the facts of any white-supremacy protests with a much finer comb,” Romero told the Journal. “If a protest group insists, ‘No, we want to be able to carry loaded firearms,’ well, we don’t have to represent them. They can find someone else."

The ACLU has come under fire after it filed a lawsuit in defense of the organizers planning the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville after city officials denied them a permit to hold the rally around a statue of Robert E. Lee set to be removed.

The group was ultimately granted the permit for the Saturday rally, which later turned violent and resulted in one death and more than a dozen injured.'

So, 'loaded firearms' is what the ACLU considers grounds for freely choosing not to represent someone. And loaded is exactly what one group at the demonstration had - 'Yingling called the weapons “one hell of a visual deterrent” to would-be attackers from either side. Although the weapons’ magazines were fully loaded, he said, the day’s standard procedure “was that anyone who was carrying a long gun was not to have a round in the chamber. Now, our sidearms are generally chambered and ready to go.”'

That is insane, by the way, and the American military would never allow soldiers to simply wander around in a crowd in public with sidearms having chambered rounds, and would discipline them severely if it was discovered they had been doing so. Hasn't anyone here ever heard of range safety rules, which most certainly do not include the idea of people just wandering around as they wish with weapons with chambered rounds, 'ready to go.'

So, the ACLU has decided that basic range safety rules should apply to someone carrying a weapon in public before they will work to get them a permit based on the 1st Amendment? Cry me a river.

Think of it this way - you go to a gun range, tell the RSO that you plan to wander around as you wish with a sidearm that is chambered and 'ready to go,' and then you whine when you are politely told to leave the range, and not to come back until you are willing to follow range safety rules.

In which case, the whiner just might face a river of tears - from everyone laughing at such a dangerous fool.

I agree it's crazy-irresponsible firearm discipline. But I haven't seen a safety case invoked as a basis for ACLU support before. Would they take the case if they un-chambered the rounds? Or is this just a convenient pretext?

With the best will in the world, one has to at least _suspect_ the latter, right?

The ACLU's new motto: "We support your Right to bear arms, as long as they are unloaded."

OR maybe: "We Protect the Bill of Rights! ... (some exclusions apply)"

The national ACLU has never supported the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment has never figured into the list of rights they care about.

(lower level ACLU chapters sometimes disagree with them on this and have gone to bat to protect it)

Try this tiny addition - '“We support your Right to bear arms - at public demonstrations involving a crowd - as long as they are unloaded.”

Strangely enough, that slogan would be fully supported by everyone I have ever known in the military, especially those who just might actually be in the area at the time of the demonstration.

'But I haven’t seen a safety case invoked as a basis for ACLU support before'

That is because likely even a short decade ago, the idea of multiple people wandering around a political demonstration with firearms with chambered rounds 'ready to go' would have been considered crazy.

This open carry fetish is positively frightening for anyone with even a passing acquaintance with firearm safety. Virginia has only fairly recently (apparently) become an open carry state, and my father, owner of a measly seven firearms, leaves the room when one of his neighbors comes into the gym or clubroom, saying that this person with the gun is a dangerous idiot scared of his own shadow. Some people understand that a loaded firearm is not a toy or prop - others, not at all, it seems.

I can certainly understand how an organization that dedicates its resources to acquiring a demonstration permit against public/governmental opposition would want to ensure that the people it is acquiring permits for are at least responsible gun owners, and not people walking around with guns 'ready to go.' That 'loaded weapons' is the point - want to walk around with your unloaded weapons? Pretty sure that the ACLU would be fully on board with that, though the future will tell if that prediction is accurate.

This is another example of the middle shrinking, by the way - I cannot imagine a single military person I grew up with supporting the right of people to walk around in public at a demonstration with loaded weapons, much less chambered rounds. I can imagine several of them (two Marine combat veterans come to particular mind from my Boy Scout days) being utterly merciless in the tongue lashing they would give such an idiot, while refusing them permission to use the firing range as punishment.

I agree on firearm discipline. I'm staggered the open carry laws allow rounds to be chambered in a pistol or long gun whilst the weapon is slung or indeed in any situation when the weapon is not being readied for immediate use. It's so....reckless.

But I still can't shake the suspicion it may just be a pretext, you know? The march permit isn't being refused on grounds of firearm safety (or is it?) The state doesn't seem to object to that? The ACLUs concern should be narrow in that the state is affording equal protection and upholding 1st amendment rights. Further issues of "march safety" aren't ACLUs concern, except to treat such concerns sceptically when advanced by States.

I think we need to see if ACLU would support a march with decent firearms discipline. That might resolve our confusion.

Chambered does seem like a stretch, I'll grant.

I do believe that the ACLU supported the Black Panthers when they brought weapons to a protest in California over a gun control bill aimed at them. That was many years ago.

'But I still can’t shake the suspicion it may just be a pretext, you know?'

We will see, but the ACLU tends to be attacked on all sides - after all, it was the ACLU that fought for the right for the Nazis to have their demonstration were they wanted, and not where the mayor wanted it to be (with very unfortunate results in this case, for which the ACLU is also being blamed). If they were to actively ensure that a demonstration occurred that had been opposed by the public, the police, and elected government, and a massacre with 10 dead people resulted from demonstrators carrying loaded weapons with chambered rounds 'ready to go', the ACLU would be blamed for its reckless support of the 1st Amendment.

As noted, we will see how this turns out in the future, but I would never support the right of a random person to have a weapon with a chambered round in a crowd, particularly at a demonstration - like the ACLU says, they can find someone else to support them.

(And if you don't personally know some of the sorts of people who think that they are providing a public service by being in a crowd with a weapon with a chambered round, lucky you - I've known a couple who think like that, though before the days of open carry. The contrast between people like that and anyone who actually knows how to handle a weapon is profound.)

To elaborate a touch - the reason I keep quoting 'ready to go' is because while I can easily imagine that means safeties off, I really don't want to say that anyone would be so utterly moronic to walk around in a crowd with a chambered round and the safety off without proof. And yet - yes, I can actually easily imagine it, based on the sort of wannabe that a number of such people are.

You donate to the $PLC, you contribute to expanding Mrs. Morris Dees collection of peculiar knick-knacks. The $PLC was exposed nearly 20 years ago as a sleazy direct-mail mill. It's pretty amusing these billionaires were taken in by it. We have a shirt-tail carrying a mess of student debt and resident in a high-rent district. These billionaire-clowns could do more for the common life if they financed a home purchase for him and his family.

Let's just cut to the chase. We are increasingly excluding racists from the market - employment, web services, etc. Forget about the slippery slope, where do we want to put these racists at the end of the day?

If no one is willing to employ them and they are unwilling to change their sense of personal identity what do we want to do with them?

Do we want to dump millions into their welfare checks because they unemployable? That seems idiotic; I would far rather spend limited welfare funds on children who are not racists jackasses.

Do we want to jail them? That is massively more expensive than welfare.

Do we want to leave them to die? Do we really think that people with a persecution complex are unlikely to stay law abiding while waiting to die? Anyone want to take a guess what sort of crime and what sort of victims avowed racists will find?

Likewise with refusal of service, should someone with a white supremacist tattoo be refused the right to buy food at the grocery store or gasoline from a service station?

Where do you propose drawing the line? It seems very difficult to draw a line anywhere that does not create major expenses for the non-racist parts of society when we already are saying that processing payments and positions cooking hot dogs are too charged to afford to racists.

I find it astonishing that society would rather give buckets of money to racists one way or another rather than forgo moral purity. Persecution has a terrible historical track record of eliminating offending ideologies so if we are going to wholly exclude racists in the new panopticon, what do want to do with them instead? Should we just use some sort of reverse Final Solution and just kill all the Nazis? Because that might be the only option that doesn't burden the masses so we can maintain anti-racist moral purity.

It's a good point but just wondering if you're suggesting replacing pig blood with some other blood for the bullets.

let me change that from "point" to "questions" as it's not the conclusion I think is necessarily good but you do have a point in asking the question and it's one that should be discussed.

I suppose one alternative you didn't mention might be a hate-offender list that is published in all communities like sex offenders get.

And what would that registry do?

Remember we are not talking about the government forcing people not to commerce with racists. We are talking about the public shaming and passively coercing businesses into not commercing with racists.

Again we come back to the same problem, if we boycott everyone who serves racists and racists are a minority we need to figure out what we want to do: welfare, crime/imprisonment, or death. Otherwise we need to demarcate some level of "service" that can be provided to racists without knocking the service providers for so doing.

All I am asking is where do you want to demarcate that line. If EVERYONE is supposed to shun racists from EVERYTHING, then do you want to subsidize them, imprison them, or kill them?

Interesting concerns if they're so numerous. But, are they millions?

By the left's definition, they are very numerous. Remember the basket of deplorables comment?

I condemn the kkk, but I'm not so stupid to think the Left won't come for me regardless.

Well how broad do we want to make the "shall not commerce with Nazis" net?

There are maybe a few thousand actual Nazis, maybe a few ten-thousands KKK types. Up from there things get dicey for identification purposes. However, if we are going to include "homophobia", well that will easily be in the millions.

Even for just a few thousand though that gets expensive quick. Welfare benefits typically cost at least $25K per annum to administer, doing that for 40 years is a million dollars per racist. I would rather not subsidize hate for those amounts. I would far rather that they have to work to support themselves than to have everyone one else shell out millions towards their upkeep.

The whole point of political censorship is precisely to make sure the people espousing unorthodox views don't become numerous. And, yes, it works. If it's made very costly to express a certain idea, most people will shut up.

A side effect of this is that the few stubborn dissidents are typically self-selected for weirdness and their movements are usually highly toxic.

If it works so well, why do we have athiests? They were widely condemned for holding unorthodox views. Ditto Protestants, Masons, Jews, and Muslims.

In Eastern Europe the Communist states made it very costly to express Christian ideology. Today all of these states are majority Christian and with few exceptions are more Christian than they were before those costs were raised. Or take weed, proponents of weed legalization were routinely harassed, arrested, and fired, yet somehow weed is decriminalized in a large swathe of the country.

But take your position as granted. How high should the cost be? We are already shaming people out of work as hot dog cooks. Is that too high, just right or not high enough of a cost?

Should racists like these idiots have to pay the cost of perpetual unemployment?

If so, what then?

Do you want to subsidize them with welfare? Do you want to leave them to crime and the inevitable cost of imprisonment? Do you want to execute them?

What is the end point of shaming when the toxic ones refuse to comply? Seriously, what cost is high enough?

"In Eastern Europe the Communist states made it very costly to express Christian ideology. Today all of these states are majority Christian and with few exceptions are more Christian than they were before those costs were raised. "

Not really. It was never illegal to be Christian, you wouldn't go far in the party, but if your job was to make hot dogs, you could do it. In other words, they were in a similar position to fundamentalist Christians in Western Europe today.(Ask a recent leader of the Liberal Democratic Party.)

Also, to say it failed in all countries is incorrect. See Estonia, Czechia, and East Germany.

When I say it "works" I mean it limits the extent to which people are willing to express their true views and the ability to spread them. But I don't think that is a good thing, just to be clear.

As far as what to "do" with racists, I say people should be free to express whatever controversial (racial or whatever else) ideas they want to, and the internet is the natural place for such discussions for obvious reasons. I don't think most employers are much inclined to concern themselves with what views their employees express outside of work, so I don't see any inherent reason why controversial views should make a person unemployable in most cases. The issue is more that the left has adopted a very nasty tactic of doxxing and harassing people who make controversial statements and pressuring their employers. I would probably look at ways to prevent activists from doing this, maybe privacy protections or allowing victims of such harassment to sue for damages. Or we might see some form of labor market segmentation where busybody companies like Google want you to have the correct politics while others stress a laissez faire philosophy.

The left appears so unnerved by the Trump era they seem to have decided they must outright ban racist thought from the internet. And they believe they have enough institutional control in Silicon Valley and in the media to do this through private channels to avoid constitutional challenges.

Check your dates, Estonia ceased being majority Christian over a decade after the fall of Communism. Czechoslovakia was majority Christian at the fall of Communism. The DDR is harder to find data on, but I believe it also failed to go majority non-Christian prior to the fall of Communism. As far as the legality, please this is about harassment and all three of these states imprisoned, blackmailed, and otherwise harassed the clergy. For the non-clergy social advancement was heavily limited by the need to join the party and of course good luck getting a job if you refused the Jugendweihe.

Repression that included imprisonment and death has not been terribly successful in the past, I doubt it will be terribly effective today given the already high cost of being a racist. We are well past the point of diminishing returns for repression to limit racist ideology.

" Do we really think that people with a persecution complex are unlikely to stay law abiding while waiting to die? "

And of course the current reactions reinforce the persecution complex. Things aren't going well.

Well what they all should be doing in defining some corporate standard that is not targeted or biased and apply that standard to everything they are doing. Don't single out white suprimists of those spouting hate from that persepective. That would be where they can claim some corporate moral high ground.

In reality it is likely going to be more a corporate image reaction and similar knee jerk poltical reaction and in a year or two on one will probably be able to (for any that actually have access which should be very limited) and see that lots of these groups and songs are right back in there with new names.

The biggest problem is that Truth is not considered a defense. Victory in the market place of ideas is simply a matter of force majeure, which just rewards the powerful. There is no market place of ideas when reasoned argument itself can get people into trouble with the capitalist superstructure that rules the world. In fact, reason itself is considered suspect by the avant-garde. Somebody recently responded to something I argued in real life with "you say that as a white male." No, I argue as a rational animal, my white maleness is accidental to my ability to argue. Reason must be the lingua Franca or else it's going to be force.

Good to see Apple take a break from helping the Chinese government repress its citizens.

No harm to "human decency and morality" in cooperation with totalitarianism I guess.

At the same time, the new Administration is ending Operation Choke Point, that encouraged banks to preemptively end their banking relationships with Escort Services, Coin Dealers, Firearms Dealers, Fireworks Dealers, Tobacco Dealers, Porn dealers, Pawn shops, Payday Loans, Drug Paraphernalia sellers, Online gambling services, and other sellers of vice. Essentially it sought to attack those industries by denying them access to banking.

"Should I have to deal with “extremist” groups if I don’t wish to? No. Is there a prima facie case for extending this same freedom to PayPal? Yes."

I hate to beat a gay wedding cake to death is this different than the gay weddin cake?! I am honestly split down the middle of the libertarian/bleeding heart ground on how that case should be decided - but nobody is willing to explain how they are internally consistent on these two issues. Gay people are not "extremist" I know, but Tyler is making freedom of association arguments.

Does public accommodation not apply to online services? Or are you treating them differently in your mind even though they are the same under the law?

People of specific sexualities are frequently a protected class. Being a racist is not. It's that simple: there's a law against one and not the other.

You've got no ability to argue that they're legally the same. you need to argue from the position that they should be treated the same

Don't be specious. Specific sexualities are generally not protected in the majority of states; oddly enough, religion is a protected class and Asatru is a religion, albeit a heavily racist one. If we are going go for protected classes as our yardstick then Stormfront has a VERY strong case for religious discrimination.

Thanks that's what I wanted to know. That the law does treat them different and there is precedent to back that up.

So I have freedom of association unless you belong to a specific class of person.

'Does public accommodation not apply to online services?'

Not if you have to accept contract terms before the service starts. Including such an utterly routine contract term as the provider of the services reserving the right to terminate service at any time for any reason. Don't like the contract terms, don't sign the contract. It really is that easy.

Not always just "that easy," considering the body of California law and case law skeptical of shrink wrap licenses and providing extra protections. In most states, however, yeah, pretty much.

Sure, there are details - a contract that explicitly forbid black people from being able to purchase/use the service would not be legal.

Personally, I do not really consider a shrink wrap license a contract, though the law in this area disagrees with me. My thoughts were more along the lines of an actual contract, with a signature, not merely clicking yes to accept.

The California part sounds interesting - is contract law in California really that different?

When are the SJWs going to start tearing down the original slaveholders Washington or Jefferson monuments'?

What bothers me about this whole discussion is that the people who are being excluded are themselves claiming the right to exclude others, based on skin color. They are simultaneously claiming their freedom of association rights include not associating with blacks and other minorities, AND that their freedom of speech rights are violated by other people exercising their freedom of association rights to NOT associate with them.

In other words, if they were in charge of Twitter or Apple, they would claim the right to refuse service to black people. But they hypocritically think it is wrong for Twitter and Apple to deny them service on the basis of their views.

Imagine how this debate looks to the average black person - to see people wondering whether there is something oppressive about firing people for holding racist views - while they themselves have been subjected to much worse social ostracism simply for their skin color.

"In other words, if they were in charge of Twitter or Apple, they would claim the right to refuse service to black people. But they hypocritically think it is wrong for Twitter and Apple to deny them service on the basis of their views."

Hazel, that statement is just completely wrong. I object that Twitter and Apple have an inconsistent standard. I don't have a problem if they want to create a policy that bans all racist groups (BLM, La Raza, various Black power groups, White Nationalist groups, etc). As long as they apply their standard reasonably fairly I don't mind. However, when they start picking sides, well then they've fricking picked a side. You don't stop racism, by being racist.

@JWatts: the problem depends on the ingroup and the outgroup. Racism against blacks in the US simply isn't the same thing as racism against whites, because of their relative positions and how they experience the world. White people can't use the N word, is that racist that they don't have that privilege? Technically yes, but in the world of grownups, it's just common sense. In a world where your skin color still gets you worse treatment (and it does for blacks most of all), distinctions should be made.

Ultimately, freedom and association and freedom of speech on this subject just comes down to which set of social standards you think should prevail in the public square. If you want the public square to be one where black people get treated equally, you should support the enforcement of norms which exclude racist speech. If you want it to be one where racists get treated equally, you support norms which forbid the exclusion of racist speech. But that will come at the cost of allowing blacks to be treated poorly, and not doing anything about it. You can look at it from the point of view of skin color as well - do you want norms which forbid the exclusion of people from public spaces based on skin color, or do you want norms which permit the exclusion of people based on skin color? It's ultimately a choice between a society where people get excluded because they have the wrong skin color, or one where people get excluded because they have racist views. It's hard to avoid one of these options, and I have yet to see anyone propose a balance in which racists can be themselves and simultaneously not have black people get treated like dirt. Personally, I would rather be inclusive of all races, even if it means that some white people have to keep their opinions to themselves in pulbic.

If you want the public square to be one where black people get treated equally, you should support the enforcement of norms which exclude racist speech.

Somehow, I think I a supervisor can write evaluations of his staff and Stephanie Blake can run for public office and Carole Simpson can appear on television without Richard Spencer being told he has to stay off public property and shut his mouth.

But that will come at the cost of allowing blacks to be treated poorly,

How are 'blacks treated poorly' if Nick Griffin appears at a panel discussion?

Right now, blacks are treated OK, at least in elite settings (maybe not so much in lower class environs). But present social norms regarding how racist you can be in public, are exactly what alt-righters want to overturn. They're trying to take us back to the days when it was cool to tell racist jokes in public. THAT would be a situation where racists are tolerated at the consequence of creating a society where black people being treated like dirt.

Right now, blacks are treated OK, at least in elite settings (maybe not so much in lower class environs). But present social norms regarding how racist you can be in public, are exactly what alt-righters want to overturn. They’re trying to take us back to the days when it was cool to tell racist jokes in public. THAT would be a situation where racists are tolerated at the consequence of creating a society where black people being treated like dirt.

Hazel, trailer park denizens in Vernon, NY aren't 'mistreating' blacks. They don't encounter many and they have their own fish to fry which seldom include anything like that. Bourgeois blacks live nestled unobtrusively in suburbs where they are left in peace or in small affluent urban enclaves that they dominate. The more prosperous wage-earners, ditto, just in cheaper suburbs. Impecunious wage-earning blacks live in inner city concentrations wherein they are harassed: by black lumpenproletarians (and, occasionally, Puerto Rican lumpenproletarians). Richard Spencer chuffering at some state college in Georgia affects their life not at all.

We aren't a better country because there are Bugs Bunny cartoons you cannot show anymore. It's witlessly priggish to make an issue of ethnic jokes given the horrendous vulgarity that is tolerated as a matter of course. I know appreciating humor is beyond you, but you could at least get some idea of what you don't know as well as what you do.

You haven't a clue what the purpose of the animadversions used by the purveyors of identity politics really mean. Terms like 'racist', 'sexist', 'homophobe' and the like are means of allocating to very rude and stupid people the franchise to allocate recognition, including determining who may not be assessed in a manner offensive to their (commonly narcissistic) self-concept. These terms don't incorporate actual fixed meanings. They are signifiers used improvisationally.

Go back to Canada. You're just never going to get how it works here.

Somehow Blacks managed to be treated well without boycotting everyone who employs racists. Call me simple minded but I would need some evidence that this will change if web services are provided to racists.

As always, I have found actually listening to actual racists to be the best salve against ever endorsing racism. Persecuting them seems highly likely to be counter productive, after all the historical track record from the Jewish Programs to the League of the Militant Godless to Bull Conner shows a very slow response to this sort of "persuasion". Certainly this allows them to co-opt legitimate worries about freedom of expression.

But suppose you succeed - no one is willing to hire racists, no one is willing to sell goods or services to racists - all through social pressure. What do you propose we do with them then? Give them millions of dollars worth of shelter, food stamps, and healthcare? Imprison them where they consume even more millions of dollars? Or just kill them all in a reverse Final Solution?

Seriously, what is the end game? We are shaming their employers so they cannot do such critical jobs as cooking hotdogs or such powerful acts as payment processing. If merely making life painful changed people's ideology there would be no racists today, nor would there be any athiests, American Roman Catholics, or Masons. Persecution did a terrible job at converting Jews, Protestants, Communists, Hindus, and many others as well. Most often persecution just drove objectionable ideology underground or to emigration. I do not see anywhere that would allow these sorts to emigrate so what exactly is your recourse in the highly likely event that racists like these become unemployable and cannot function in the economy at all? How much money do you want to take from the public to spend on racists?

Driving it underground is the goal, Sure. Be a Nazi in private. Society says there's a cost to public Nazism. Good!

'I object that Twitter and Apple have an inconsistent standard.'

You really, really hate economic freedom, don't you? Companies are free to have pretty much any standards they want in the marketplace, at least in the U.S. Nobody is forcing you to use Twitter or Apple for any reason, and Twitter and Apple have basically no obligations to you.

'As long as they apply their standard reasonably fairly I don’t mind.'

They can apply whatever standard they wish, however they wish, whenever they wish, as long as it follows the contract terms you both agreed to. (And certain laws, such as not having contract terms explicitly banning black people from purchasing/using the service.)

If Apple decides they do not wish to provide any GPL software in their app store, they are welcome to do so. Private companies are not public utilities.

Which leads to a much bigger discussion, which might be worth having when the electric company starts shutting off the power to the KKKK or the SLPC. No company is obligated to meet your standards of how you think they should act. Contractual aspects aside, of course . if Twitter cancels a user and Twitter's TOS say any user can be terminated at any time for any reason at Twitter's sole discretion, then it is time to use another service.

Economic freedom is not about socialism or people who do not own the company getting to tell the company owners how to act in the marketplace.

Check out the Heritage Foundation's tireless work in this area for the past generation.

"Nobody is forcing you to use Twitter or Apple for any reason, and Twitter and Apple have basically no obligations to you."

You're an idiot. I'm an Apple shareholder. They sure as shit do have obligations to me.

Actually, they have obligations to all their shareholders, and not just you. If you are in the minority of shareholders in terms of Apple ownership and are attempting to influence management, you have two choices - convince a majority of shareholders to support your position, or sell your shares. (We can ignore games involving someone having a few billion dollars seeking leverage over company management, correct?)

If your position(s) are not supported by a majority of shareholders, Apple has as much obligation to you as it does to a shareholder wishing Apple management to fund manned space flight or another shareholder that wants to management copyleft all of Apple's software.

This seems like a fairly good overview of Apple's obligations to you -

Including the obligation to utterly ignore a small shareholder who is not in the majority in the following case - 'Arguably, the greatest right for common shareholders is the ability to cast votes in a company's annual or general meeting. Major shifts within a publicly traded company must be voted on before changes can take place, and common shareholders hold the right to vote either in person or via proxy. Most common shareholder voting rights equate to one vote per share owned, resulting in greater influence from shareholders who own a larger number of shares.'

Black Lives Matter is a racist hate group?

Seriously, Twitter and Apple can decide for themselves which groups they consider to be racist hate groups. They aren't required to adhere to your designations. Nor is it racism against white people to support Black Live Matter, or to ban neo-Nazi websites. Lots of white people hate Neo-Nazis and support Black Lives Matter.

"Seriously, Twitter and Apple can decide for themselves which groups they consider to be racist hate groups."

You mean just the way that companies were openly racist against Blacks in the past? You aren't arguing for a better future, you are arguing for a re-arranging of the deck chairs.

No I'm arguing for social norms in which black people get treated fairly, even if that means that racists are not tolerated.

Which would you rather have?
A) A society where people with certain skin colors are socially excluded.
B) A society where people with racist views are socially excluded.

I have yet to see anyone make a convincing case that socially tolerating open racism won't effectively result in the ostracism of people based on skin color.

I have yet to see anyone make a convincing case that socially tolerating open racism won’t effectively result in the ostracism of people based on skin color.

It's not anyone's job to refute your dubious sociological claims. It's your job to argue them.


You somehow think racism was less "socially tolerated" in the 80s, 90s or 00s than today? We have about 50 years of evidence that allowing racists to engage in commerce did not drag us back to the days of racial social exclusion. Somehow Stormfront managed to be part of the internet for *20 years* and we managed to have multiple black candidates for president from both parties, have one win the presidency, and have the Republicans in *South Carolina* elect both a governor and senator with "certain skin colors". In culture the top selling vocalist, the top golfer, the top debaters, and many others have had "certain skin colors".

What exactly does the average black, who appears to support keeping all the Confederate memorials accord to the best polling I've seen, gain from making schlubs unemployable or websites difficult to reach?

Black Lives Matter is a racist hate group?

Pretty much. This isn't difficult Hazel, for someone who isn't terminally obtuse.

Please take your meds.

Lame Hazel.

'Somehow Blacks managed to be treated well without boycotting everyone who employs racists. '

Just a note, you are aware of why the right to boycott is protected by the 1st Amendment, right? 'National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled 8-0 (Marshall did not participate in the decision) that although states have broad power to regulate economic activities, they can not prohibit peaceful advocacy of a politically-motivated boycott.

In March 1966, black citizens of Port Gibson, Mississippi, and other areas of Claiborne County presented white elected officials with a list of particularized demands for racial equality and racial integration. After not receiving a satisfactory response, at a local National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) meeting at the First Baptist Church, several hundred black persons voted to place a boycott on white merchants in the area.'

SPLC *is* a hate group, it's just a left-wing hate group.

This is crazy...

Ha ha ha. There is nothing about the $PLC that isn't spurious. It's just shtick for fund-raising from the very gullible. Reporters fall for it because reporters tend to be inferior individuals with one utility: they can turn in copy on time.

There's nothing wrong with businesses resisting outright racism.

However, companies' use of group evaluations by SPLC, which rates as racist groups that are clearly not but whose politics it dislikes, tells us all that we need to know about how this will work out. Business leaders have already shown themselves as spineless as university presidents. The result will be that conservative and some libertarian views are going to become as outre in business as they already are in the academy. I do not consider the increased suppression of dissenting views to be a good thing.

I do not consider the increased suppression of dissenting views to be a good thing.

One name for you to consider: Dixie Chicks

I think 'suppression' is getting misused above. If you consider the metaphor of 'a marketplace of ideas'....well what happens in a market when something is losing? As a product or business loses more and more market share, what happens to its access to capital? To having partners willing to work with it? To stores willing to give it space on their shelves or distributors willing to carry it?

I think you fail to consider that 'free flow of ideas' does not mean there are no barriers anymore than the fact that you in theory could take on Wal-Mart or Amazon means that doing so should be as easy as opening a local pizza shop.

Why is this? Because 'marketplace' also implies there's some sort of competition between different vendors and competition implies consequences for winners and losers. How do those who say they support an open 'marketplace of ideas' propose to determine which ideas win and which lose?

I would say like the market for products, there are some who go really deep. You have people who are really keen on cars, for example, and absorb all the info they can on all the latest models and form very detailed opinions on their qualities. For most, however, it's a lot about peer pressure. AS a consequence, if you want to win at the car game you have to ideally master both realms and win the market. It will not necessarily be fair. You may create a car that is technically better but if you can't get the market to buy in then you will find yourself in a huge uphill battle to secure capital, suppliers, dealers etc.

So in the battle for ideas, why not accept the fact that some people simply don't have very good ideas. Milo, for example, does not. If you think he does then explain to us what ideas he has that are worth a lot more consideration than maybe 30 seconds of muted laughter at a so-so funny joke? If he doesn't win this competition for ideas his influence goes down. TV appearances move from top shows to B-level ones to even lower. People don't want him speaking at their venues, publishers don't want to publish his book and authors don't want their books sharing the same publisher as his. Does that make life harder for the Alt-Right? Yea, so what? You'd think a group of culturally superior people could easily handle being shunned by debased cosmopolitans. Regardless plenty of people on the left have been every bit as 'suppressed' as is claimed by whatever the latest right wing 'victim' of the moment is claiming and you almost never hear about it.

Boonton, you missed the point of my comment: it's that speech that someone dislikes (not truly racist speech) that is going to be suppressed by businesses. Yes, it may be the businesses' right to do so (though not in some states). No, I do not consider that a healthy thing for our society or politics.

I think you missed my point. If speech is about a 'marketplace of ideas' the other side of the equation is the market. Stuff that doesn't sell does end up suppressed. Not suppressed in the sense that police show up and arrest people speaking but suppressed in the sense that advocating losing ideas gets you shunned from 'polite society' which has a cost. It means if you are going to keep advocating that unpopular idea, you are going to pay a higher and higher price.

That, believe it or not, is fair. I may trust the rest of society more than the judgement of the lone wolf crank but at least I see the crank believes enough in his idea that he is willing to pay a high price to keep pushing it. That alone will always give a few people the inspiration to give the crank's ideas a re-examination to see if everyone else might have missed something.

But that high price is part of how markets have to work. Try to sell a product no one buys and you either give up or you waste all your money hoping the market will eventually see its value. Imagine, though, if we said no one pays a price for products that are crap? No one 'goes out of business'? Well you get the 'market of ideas' that exists on Facebook and Twitter full of brain dead viral 'memes' that are endlessly debunked but never goes away because credibility is not a commodity people care to have.

One name for you to consider: Dixie Chicks

Who've never stopped touring and reputedly have net-worths in the 8 digits. We should all be so suppressed.

I'm sure Ann Coutler speaks all over and still sells plenty of books and has a net worth closer to $10M than $1M but I wouldn't be shocked if she's even higher than that. I don't know how much money Milo has, his flash of fame was pretty fast & he strikes me as someone who might have blown his money thinking he was destined for a lifetime of huge celebrity.

Regardless play by your own rules. You cost the Dixie Chicks a lot, even if you didn't drive them into poverty. You cost Milo a book deal when you decided making fun of transpeople was ok but speculating that maybe it wasn't so bad for adult men to receive blowjobs from 14 year old boys. You are either going to abide by a blanket idea of free speech or a more limited one that applies to the gov't but allows an idea marketplace to decide to ditch some ideas and concentrate on others.

You cost the Dixie Chicks a lot,

I cost them nothing.

They weren't prevented from performing, much less prevented from performing by mobs with the connivance of public officials.

People quit buying their records. Happened to Shaun Cassidy too.

You're really bad at analogical reasoning. Less gassing, more thinking, please.

No mob has stopped anyone's speech. Murray has spoken more often on TV, colleges and other gatherings because of his critics. If the left didn't exist, it would have paid for Murray to borrow a hundred thousand or so and pay people to stage protests. One talk got cancelled. That's a risk of doing talks.

Consider this, during a concert tour an audience gets very rowdy and starts rioting. The concert gets cut short early and the next performance is cancelled since the local police don't have the manpower to stop a repeat. Is that free speech suppression? Nope, it's called a risk of doing the concert tour business.

The right here is being incoherent. They support the idea of a high social cost for expressing anti-social ideas when it's their hobby horses but they are pushing a view of a marketplace where no one pays a cost for products that don't sell. They don't understand their own ideology.

No mob has stopped anyone’s speech.

Both Murray and Yiannopolous have had speeches disrupted by mobs, one of which put Murray's host in the emergency room. You cannot stop lying, can you?

Leaving the subject at hand aside, I would genuinely be interested in Prof. Cowen's explanation for his use/implicit endorsement of the slippery slope or "continuum" fallacy.

Just an observation, the only government sanctioned form of funds is currency and coin. You can give your currency to any right wing group you please. The KKK and neo-nazis somehow managed to have funding long before PayPal ever existed. There are multiple ways to handle transactions other than PayPal...including Bitcoin which in theory has no management that could exclude payments to or from nazis or KKK type groups.

"Should I have to deal with “extremist” groups if I don’t wish to? "

does it *have* to be extremist? Is that the only test? or can it be anything? I think we need some logical consistency here.

Tyler, I will try to put this in economic terms.

Consider a model wherein individuals have private thoughts and beliefs which may differ from the reigning orthodoxy. Under an authoritarian system, expression of these beliefs is simply not permitted. Under a free system, it is permitted; however, others are also free to react to such dissent. Hence, there is some private cost to expressing dissident views. In addition, to a narrow, legal view of free speech, we might further discuss the broader matter of whether a society has high or low cost of dissent and whether the cost might be sub-optimally high.

What we are seeing now is a large scale, coordinated effort to deny those with dissident views platforms to speak coupled with a conscious strategy of increasing the cost of dissent to shut people up, usually by means of character assassination, harassment, and invasion of privacy. Legal questions aside, imo it's better to have a society with a low cost of dissent and open access to platforms.

The concept here seems to be there should NOT be a private cost to dissent. Absent a private cost, all sorts of ideas will be brought forth and everyone will feel better.

I say this is false. First considering ideas seriously is not free. It takes time to work with an idea, map out its implications, see how it can be applied in the real world, etc. etc. Example: String theory may or may not ultimately be the right path for physics. Going down it will take time and effort that might be wasted. Those that advocate it should not do so without cost. If the majority of physicists turns against string theory it *should* be uncomfortable for the die hard advocates. Doing so means they are putting, to borrow Taleb's phrase, 'their skin in the game'.

The alt-right, however, is premised on the idea that radical accusations and assertions should be made as a free public good. Figures that do not stand behind their assertions, do not let them be tested and challenged on the facts or logic should suffer no stain on their credibility. Instead they should be endlessly indulged because they 'have ideas'. That's not how a market works.

So how "hard" should it be? Should they be unemployable (e.g. no jobs cooking hot dogs)?

If we want a society that makes racists unemployable as the just deserts of their beliefs, then what do we want to do with them? Subsidizing them with welfare seems more terrible to me than not shaming their employers. Imprisoning them is going to burn even more money. So how hard do you want it?

Unable to get jobs and forced to turn to crime to survive or should we cut to the chase and do the reverse Final Solution?

They want to do something wrong, they should pay a price. Okay, fine, name the price. At what point should we want the mob to stop, when is life hard enough for violating good social norms?

How often do you buy hot dogs? Out of all of those times, how many times did you know anything about the people working there? It's probably easy to get fired from a hot dog cooking job, but it's probably equally easy to pick up another hot dog cooking job. How many jobs are there in the food industry where the boss doesn't even speak the language of the employee...let alone know his views on much of anything?

But to answer your question, how dedicated is the guy to his idea? Does he feel he must tell everyone that the earth is really flat, that string theory is false, that the Jews have a secret conspiracy to run the Fed? If so then he's probably unemployable but he's choosing that price for his offbeat belief and his exceptional dedication to it.

So, the Left has decided to bypass the 1st Amendment by outsourcing their censorship, then?

Censorship is always a temptation. It is human nature to unite against unpopular views and being against something is probably a stronger way to feel part of a club or tribe than being for something. However the right does far more censorship than the left and given the opportunity to demonstrate by action embracing less censorship, they have consistently failed.

Comments for this post are closed