Friday, January 23, 2015



I'm comfortable simply calling it "cult logic", but having a verb may be useful.

Friday, January 16, 2015

If only PZ Myers understood what free speech is…

In If only they understood what free speech is…, PZ Myers said, "Both the Rice and Ali denials were by universities, not governments. I think they were in the right to boot them out. "

Now, I agree with Myers that Condoleezza Rice should be tried as a war criminal, but I rather admire Ayaan Hirsi Ali for getting herself on al Qaeda's death list. None of which has anything to do with the fundamental issue here.

The ACLU knows what free speech is. When Clark University denied Norman Finkelstein's opportunity to speak, Sarah R. Wunsch of the ACLU wrote:
…the cancellation of his speech violates the basic principles of freedom of speech and academic freedom which are so fundamental to an institute of higher learning. The existence of an opportunity to speak at another time or in another location does not remedy the wrong of censorship.
Relevant: The First Amendment protects private censorship, but opposing free speech is still wrong: a few points from the ACLU, Popehat, Salman Rushdie, and others

The curious contradictions of censorial socialists, and a few comments about Charlie Hebdo

it's all one thing: The curious contradictions of censorial socialists, and a few comments about Charlie Hebdo. Much of what I say at my main blog isn't relevant here, but this is.

And, yes, the people who I call identitarian socialists there are a subset of the web's social justice warriors, but I wish conservative capitalists would remember that the social justice movement began as an alternative to socialism. SJWs include many smug liberal capitalists, and their critics include many socialists. The SJW phenomenon ultimately has nothing to do with ideology—which may be the reason SJWs complain constantly and rarely call for solutions other than language policing.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Two names for warriors who think #JeSuisCharlie is about whiteness

I'm fond of Black Agenda Report because they refute the Democrat argument that all black folks are Obamapologists or Uncle Toms, but the BAR does have a strong identitarian problem. Case in point: Charlie Hebdo: “Je Suis White People".

My response?

1. Ahmed Merabet, policeman.

2. Mustapha Ourrad, copyeditor for Charlie Hebdo.

And if you think Jews aren't white, add:

3. Elsa Cayat, Charlie Hebdo columnist.

Friday, January 9, 2015

What to tell warriors who say Charlie Hebdo went "too far"

Saying the speech of someone who was murdered went too far is like saying the clothes of a rape victim were too provocative. Never blame the victim for the crime.

Thursday, January 8, 2015

The love of censorship unites far-right Catholics and Muslims


A social justice warrior defends the Charlie Hebdo massacre

Yes, this blog is live again. I apologize, but whenever I think warriors can't up the stakes, they do. Case in point:

At Unpopular Opinion: Satire Should Punch Up. Charlie Hebdo Did Not. | Miss Kitty Stryker writes:
It makes me sick to think that the people working for Charlie Hebdo got exactly what they wanted- the public riled up into violence against Muslims.
I think it's safe to assume that the people working for Charlie Hebdo did not want to be gunned down for exercising free speech.

Now, I agree with Miss Stryker that no one should confuse islamist murderers with muslims, just as no one should confuse christianist murderers like Anton Breivik or the Ku Klux Klan with Christians. And she's very right when she says Hebdo's brand of humor was generally reprehensible. But freedom of speech exists so none of us can be silenced simply because some people think what we want to say is reprehensible. That anyone who believes something that was once censored can turn around and support censorship appalls me, but too often, the bullied become bullies and believe having been bullied justifies their bullying in turn.

In many ways, Stryker's a typical warrior: she claims to oppose censorship, then goes on to explain that censorship is right for things she doesn't like. I fear she's not unique in conflating the idea that free speech has consequences with the notion that we should be prepared to be murdered when we say what we think.

One more point from her post. She cites Gamergaters doxxing and threatening people as an example of the abuse of free speech, yet says nothing about anti-GG people who do the same thing. In that kerfuffle, if you say a black person or a woman was doxxed or got death threats, you could be talking about a victim on either side. There are no saints in wars or flamewars.

ETA. A truth no warrior understands: Censorship is the tool of the oppressor. Free speech is the tool of the liberator.

ETA 2: When I say "generally reprehensible", that does not mean I approve or disapprove of what they say; it means I recognize that they offend many people. But anyone who says Charlie Hebdo is a racist publication because they mock all religions has a curious definition of racism. Here's who they are:

Charlie Hebdo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "Charlie Hebdo (French pronunciation: ​[ʃaʁli ɛbdo]; French for Weekly Charlie) is a French satirical weekly newspaper, featuring cartoons, reports, polemics, and jokes. Irreverent and stridently non-conformist in tone, the publication is strongly anti-racist[2] and left-wing, publishing articles on the extreme right, Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, politics, culture, etc. According to its former editor, Charb (Stéphane Charbonnier), the magazine's editorial viewpoin