Popehat (Ken White): Kyle Duncan and Stanford Law
March 20, 2023 12:40 PM Subscribe
Yeah, White's the guy who openly argues that hate speech is the price of free speech, even after a decade or so of demonstration why that position not only doesn't work, but actually leads to less free speech as the bigots chase out their victims, as Karl Popper pointed out after WWII. He also loves to use the weaselly bad faith argument of "speech you don't like" - an argument used to divorce opposition from context in order to avoid the uncomfortable discussion of why he's defending bigotry and hate.
In short, he's the sort of person getting called out here for being more concerned about the bigots and their allies than their victims. And that's why his argument here where he tries to play an irritated Pontius Pilate falls flat - because he wants his position of "we're obliged to give bigots, abusers, and fascists a seat at the table for Free Speech" to be seen as noble, when more and more people are realizing the harm such a position causes.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:10 PM on March 20, 2023 [44 favorites]
In short, he's the sort of person getting called out here for being more concerned about the bigots and their allies than their victims. And that's why his argument here where he tries to play an irritated Pontius Pilate falls flat - because he wants his position of "we're obliged to give bigots, abusers, and fascists a seat at the table for Free Speech" to be seen as noble, when more and more people are realizing the harm such a position causes.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:10 PM on March 20, 2023 [44 favorites]
As usual, those who pretend that right-wingery is merely awful, an emotive evaluation of something unpleasant, rather than the harm and the murderous danger it is to everybody not in the right-wing in-group, must pretend both that Free Speech! is the paramount concern and also that words are merely words and are in and of themselves free of consequence. So which is it? Is speech a trivial, ephemeral thing, frivolous and evanescent and incapable of causing harm? Or is speech a subcategory of action, and in need of evaluation like all action?
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:13 PM on March 20, 2023 [18 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:13 PM on March 20, 2023 [18 favorites]
Is speech a trivial, ephemeral thing, frivolous and evanescent and incapable of causing harm? Or is speech a subcategory of action, and in need of evaluation like all action?
And that is the great contradiction of free speech "absolutism". The problem for "absolutists" like White is that the waveform is finally collapsing for many people, outing their argument as incoherent and contradictory.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:18 PM on March 20, 2023 [3 favorites]
And that is the great contradiction of free speech "absolutism". The problem for "absolutists" like White is that the waveform is finally collapsing for many people, outing their argument as incoherent and contradictory.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:18 PM on March 20, 2023 [3 favorites]
Yeah, like, Popehat is who he is so it's not really shocking that he's approaching this from a lawyerly perspective about law students and first amendment rights and what he thinks is legally wise or legally true and how various parties fail his expectations there, but christ if it ever doesn't come back to an argument like "but you can't do that, it would set a bad precedent and lead to bad outcomes" and like my motherfucking dude HAVE YOU NOTICED THE PRECEDENTS AND OUTCOMES WE'RE GETTING AS IS.
He's right that everybody involved is kind of an asshole here and that the handling is a mess. But it's because being professionally racist and homophobic is profitable and praxis right-win playbook shit, every time, partly because when people actually push back and say "no this is in fact so fucked that you should shut up and leave" people like Popehat start wringing their fucking hands. Those students were being reactive amateur assholes to proactive professional assholes. Maybe use that big ol' brain of yours to step outside of the high-minded legal rectitude beat and actually well and truly develop an opinion about which is worse like a whole-ass human being.
posted by cortex at 1:30 PM on March 20, 2023 [35 favorites]
He's right that everybody involved is kind of an asshole here and that the handling is a mess. But it's because being professionally racist and homophobic is profitable and praxis right-win playbook shit, every time, partly because when people actually push back and say "no this is in fact so fucked that you should shut up and leave" people like Popehat start wringing their fucking hands. Those students were being reactive amateur assholes to proactive professional assholes. Maybe use that big ol' brain of yours to step outside of the high-minded legal rectitude beat and actually well and truly develop an opinion about which is worse like a whole-ass human being.
posted by cortex at 1:30 PM on March 20, 2023 [35 favorites]
He's not defending bigotry and hate. He's defending the rights of bigots. I also don't read this as arguing that Duncan's speech is not harmful, but that an allegation that "words and actions have been harmful" is not sufficient to ban that speech, because we know who is going to start judging whether something is harmful.
As the reference to Skokie indicates, this is not a new debate, and his arguments are standard: "one is the recognition that we can’t be trusted to decide who should or shouldn’t get rights, and that arrogating such power to ourselves will inevitably favor the powerful and popular over the powerless and unpopular." (And yes, I understand the difference between Stanford banning speech and the government banning it, but I think academic institutions should err on the side of freedom.)
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 1:40 PM on March 20, 2023 [25 favorites]
As the reference to Skokie indicates, this is not a new debate, and his arguments are standard: "one is the recognition that we can’t be trusted to decide who should or shouldn’t get rights, and that arrogating such power to ourselves will inevitably favor the powerful and popular over the powerless and unpopular." (And yes, I understand the difference between Stanford banning speech and the government banning it, but I think academic institutions should err on the side of freedom.)
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 1:40 PM on March 20, 2023 [25 favorites]
I'm going to argue that "going to start" is doing a hell of a lot of counterfactual work here, which goes right back to my problem with the kind of argument Popehat is making. Oh no, what if the racist rightwing block started using the law to oppress people, we mustn't cause that to happen. Ron DeSantis never gave the least shit about the first amendment to begin with; don't mistake assholes switching grifts midstream for some kind of consequence of Too Much Pushing Back On Hatred. Reason about the world as if the right wing victimization circuit actually does, in fact, exist, rather than being a thing that might suddenly finally come into being if we're insufficiently bloodlessly Both Sides about hate speech.
posted by cortex at 1:48 PM on March 20, 2023 [31 favorites]
posted by cortex at 1:48 PM on March 20, 2023 [31 favorites]
beans. a good part of every balanced protest.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 2:01 PM on March 20, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 2:01 PM on March 20, 2023 [3 favorites]
As the reference to Skokie indicates, this is not a new debate, and his arguments are standard: "one is the recognition that we can’t be trusted to decide who should or shouldn’t get rights, and that arrogating such power to ourselves will inevitably favor the powerful and popular over the powerless and unpopular."
And the response is standard: binding our hands will never bind theirs. As Sartre famously pointed out, people like DeSantis don't give a fuck about the First Amendment, but they know that you do, and they exploit that fully to get you to stop holding them accountable. It's also worth pointing out the paradox of tolerance, which points out that allowing intolerance destroys tolerance - which is why I'm a big believer in tolerance as peace treaty.
I'm also on record here as pointing out how shitty Skokie was as a ruling - an argument that the government was obligated to turn a blind eye to Nazis terrorizing Holocaust survivors out of an obligation to Free Speech. It's a weak point the ACLU has - when NYAG Tish James filed suit to dissolve the NRA for fiduciary misconduct, the NRA punked them into arguing that her lawsuit was an attack on an ideological foe - only for the ACLU to get embarrassed when James publicly showed the vast wealth of receipts she had.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:12 PM on March 20, 2023 [25 favorites]
And the response is standard: binding our hands will never bind theirs. As Sartre famously pointed out, people like DeSantis don't give a fuck about the First Amendment, but they know that you do, and they exploit that fully to get you to stop holding them accountable. It's also worth pointing out the paradox of tolerance, which points out that allowing intolerance destroys tolerance - which is why I'm a big believer in tolerance as peace treaty.
I'm also on record here as pointing out how shitty Skokie was as a ruling - an argument that the government was obligated to turn a blind eye to Nazis terrorizing Holocaust survivors out of an obligation to Free Speech. It's a weak point the ACLU has - when NYAG Tish James filed suit to dissolve the NRA for fiduciary misconduct, the NRA punked them into arguing that her lawsuit was an attack on an ideological foe - only for the ACLU to get embarrassed when James publicly showed the vast wealth of receipts she had.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:12 PM on March 20, 2023 [25 favorites]
I'd suggest people here revisit recent MeFi threads about libraries to remind themselves of the value of defending strong free speech norms.
posted by kickingtheground at 2:27 PM on March 20, 2023 [20 favorites]
posted by kickingtheground at 2:27 PM on March 20, 2023 [20 favorites]
but christ if it ever doesn't come back to an argument like "but you can't do that, it would set a bad precedent and lead to bad outcomes"
When President Trump makes it a Federal crime to even write out the words "I don't care for Trump" on a piece a paper inside your own home during his second term, I have ironclad faith that everyone on MeFi will just accept it because we all made our bed when we decided that free speech only applied to "good" speech, and now that someone we don't like gets to decide what "good" means, we all just have to sleep in that bed.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 2:58 PM on March 20, 2023 [3 favorites]
When President Trump makes it a Federal crime to even write out the words "I don't care for Trump" on a piece a paper inside your own home during his second term, I have ironclad faith that everyone on MeFi will just accept it because we all made our bed when we decided that free speech only applied to "good" speech, and now that someone we don't like gets to decide what "good" means, we all just have to sleep in that bed.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 2:58 PM on March 20, 2023 [3 favorites]
When President Trump makes it a Federal crime to even write out the words "I don't care for Trump" on a piece a paper inside your own home during his second term
Is there any indication that this hypothetical would happen any differently if we all united in the other direction?
"I'm sure glad we agreed they have the right to call for all Democrats to be labeled groomers & rounded up; I'd sure hate to be *inconsistent*"
posted by CrystalDave at 3:02 PM on March 20, 2023 [4 favorites]
Is there any indication that this hypothetical would happen any differently if we all united in the other direction?
"I'm sure glad we agreed they have the right to call for all Democrats to be labeled groomers & rounded up; I'd sure hate to be *inconsistent*"
posted by CrystalDave at 3:02 PM on March 20, 2023 [4 favorites]
National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977),
Main Argument on each side-
National Socialist Party of America-
They believed they had the right to march.
Majority Opinion-
"Illinois must provide strict procedural safeguards, including appellate review, to deny a stay for an injunction depriving the Nazi Party of Protected First Amendment rights"
Dissenting Opinion-
“ I simply do not see how the refusal of the supreme court of Illinois to stay an injunction granted for an inferior court within the state state system can be described as a ‘final judgement or decree rendered by the highest court og the stsate in which a decision could be had’.. Here all the supreme court has done is.. Deny a stay of a lower court ruling pending appeal. No illuinois appellate court has heard or decided the merits of applicants’ federal claim” (Rehnquist)
William J. Brennan, Jr.- Voted with majority
Thurgood Marshall- Voted with majority
Harry A. Blackburn- Voted with majority
Lewis F. Powell, Jr.- Voted with majority
John Paul Stevens- Voted with majority
Warren E. Burger- Voted with minority
Potter Stewart- Voted with minority
Byron R. White- Voted with minority
William H. Rehnquist- Wrote a dissent
5 votes for National Socialist Party, 4 votes against.
So, a museum was put up in Skokie, the Nazis marched in Chicago, which sorta defies the immuttable law of common sense, but this: "According to Nadine Strossen, the case was part of a gradual process in the 20th century where the Court strengthened First Amendment protections and narrowed down the application of earlier decisions which upheld restrictions of free speech, in part due to the realisation that the Illinois restrictions on Nazi "hate speech" were so broad they could have been equally used to prohibit Martin Luther King Jr. demonstrations in Skokie."
This wasn't merly about marching, more about state and local laws defining what speech means as applicable by law to regulation.
posted by clavdivs at 3:06 PM on March 20, 2023 [4 favorites]
Main Argument on each side-
National Socialist Party of America-
They believed they had the right to march.
Majority Opinion-
"Illinois must provide strict procedural safeguards, including appellate review, to deny a stay for an injunction depriving the Nazi Party of Protected First Amendment rights"
Dissenting Opinion-
“ I simply do not see how the refusal of the supreme court of Illinois to stay an injunction granted for an inferior court within the state state system can be described as a ‘final judgement or decree rendered by the highest court og the stsate in which a decision could be had’.. Here all the supreme court has done is.. Deny a stay of a lower court ruling pending appeal. No illuinois appellate court has heard or decided the merits of applicants’ federal claim” (Rehnquist)
William J. Brennan, Jr.- Voted with majority
Thurgood Marshall- Voted with majority
Harry A. Blackburn- Voted with majority
Lewis F. Powell, Jr.- Voted with majority
John Paul Stevens- Voted with majority
Warren E. Burger- Voted with minority
Potter Stewart- Voted with minority
Byron R. White- Voted with minority
William H. Rehnquist- Wrote a dissent
5 votes for National Socialist Party, 4 votes against.
So, a museum was put up in Skokie, the Nazis marched in Chicago, which sorta defies the immuttable law of common sense, but this: "According to Nadine Strossen, the case was part of a gradual process in the 20th century where the Court strengthened First Amendment protections and narrowed down the application of earlier decisions which upheld restrictions of free speech, in part due to the realisation that the Illinois restrictions on Nazi "hate speech" were so broad they could have been equally used to prohibit Martin Luther King Jr. demonstrations in Skokie."
This wasn't merly about marching, more about state and local laws defining what speech means as applicable by law to regulation.
posted by clavdivs at 3:06 PM on March 20, 2023 [4 favorites]
binding our hands will never bind theirs
So we should steal elections?
posted by Galvanic at 3:07 PM on March 20, 2023
So we should steal elections?
posted by Galvanic at 3:07 PM on March 20, 2023
Count me 100% on Team Popehat here.
Kyle Duncan and the Federalist Society are terrible, and their strategy, which is by now well-known and widely practiced across the country, is to troll left-wing student groups with outrageous speech.
The students took the bait and let themselves become pawns in the FedSoc's game. And of course, they're (probably, mostly) well-meaning young people whose frontal cortexes haven't even fully developed yet, and whose primary paradigm of political activity is confrontational protest against The Man, which is probably partly a product of their politics, but at least equally as much a product of their still being adolescents.
Of course they're going to be outmaneuvered by a well-endowed right-wing think tank. But one would hope they'd learn from this experience that shouting Duncan down in this scenario was just walking into a setup... just like the many other lefty student groups that have been baited into shouting down other right-wing provocateurs.
And then there's the spineless campus bureaucracy trying to figure out how to cater to its consumer base, er, to students and their mostly well-heeled parents, without taking an inconveniently principled stand on anything.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:14 PM on March 20, 2023 [27 favorites]
Kyle Duncan and the Federalist Society are terrible, and their strategy, which is by now well-known and widely practiced across the country, is to troll left-wing student groups with outrageous speech.
The students took the bait and let themselves become pawns in the FedSoc's game. And of course, they're (probably, mostly) well-meaning young people whose frontal cortexes haven't even fully developed yet, and whose primary paradigm of political activity is confrontational protest against The Man, which is probably partly a product of their politics, but at least equally as much a product of their still being adolescents.
Of course they're going to be outmaneuvered by a well-endowed right-wing think tank. But one would hope they'd learn from this experience that shouting Duncan down in this scenario was just walking into a setup... just like the many other lefty student groups that have been baited into shouting down other right-wing provocateurs.
And then there's the spineless campus bureaucracy trying to figure out how to cater to its consumer base, er, to students and their mostly well-heeled parents, without taking an inconveniently principled stand on anything.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:14 PM on March 20, 2023 [27 favorites]
When President Trump makes it a Federal crime to even write out the words "I don't care for Trump" on a piece a paper inside your own home during his second term, I have ironclad faith that everyone on MeFi will just accept it because we all made our bed when we decided that free speech only applied to "good" speech, and now that someone we don't like gets to decide what "good" means, we all just have to sleep in that bed.
Binding our hands will never bind theirs. The idea that allowing bigots and fascists a seat at the table out of respect for Free Speech will somehow protect us has always fell apart under even the most rudimentary examination - hence the paradox of tolerance.
According to Nadine Strossen, the case was part of a gradual process in the 20th century where the Court strengthened First Amendment protections and narrowed down the application of earlier decisions which upheld restrictions of free speech
And the fact that the genesis of this "gradual process" as seen with Brandenburg and Skokie was the application of these laws to bigots and fascists quietly gets elided over.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:17 PM on March 20, 2023 [17 favorites]
Binding our hands will never bind theirs. The idea that allowing bigots and fascists a seat at the table out of respect for Free Speech will somehow protect us has always fell apart under even the most rudimentary examination - hence the paradox of tolerance.
According to Nadine Strossen, the case was part of a gradual process in the 20th century where the Court strengthened First Amendment protections and narrowed down the application of earlier decisions which upheld restrictions of free speech
And the fact that the genesis of this "gradual process" as seen with Brandenburg and Skokie was the application of these laws to bigots and fascists quietly gets elided over.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:17 PM on March 20, 2023 [17 favorites]
Binding our hands will never bind theirs
I think the issue is that binding "their" hands could bind "ours".
I'm not a total free speech maximalist. But I'm very much aware of how government mechanisms intended to police the speech of, e.g., right wing extremists can be and have been used against the left.
History demonstrates that once a tool like that is created, it will most likely eventually be used in ways not intended by those who created it.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:22 PM on March 20, 2023 [7 favorites]
I think the issue is that binding "their" hands could bind "ours".
I'm not a total free speech maximalist. But I'm very much aware of how government mechanisms intended to police the speech of, e.g., right wing extremists can be and have been used against the left.
History demonstrates that once a tool like that is created, it will most likely eventually be used in ways not intended by those who created it.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:22 PM on March 20, 2023 [7 favorites]
according to this Slate article, dude deliberately started the video while students were shouting at him en masse to explain that yes, the Black woman who showed up after he asked for an administrator was in fact an administrator
she told them she agreed with them but they had to let him deliver his prepared remarks, then a student leader of the protests asked everybody to shut up so dude could talk
they did, at which point he dropped his prepared remarks & went into a Q&A, during which he refused to engage with their questions & called one of them "an appalling idiot"
article goes on to suggest that this is the kind of performative crybully fight-picking you need to engage in these days to distinguish yourself from judges who will merely vote along straight fascist party lines but aren't willing to adopt "being the shittiest possible human in public" as a lifestyle
please let's not have a discussion about free speech without including the context that this particular guy came there picking a fight, got heckled, was in fact allowed to speak, & is now deliberately shaping the narrative to claim he was denied free speech entirely
posted by taquito sunrise at 3:23 PM on March 20, 2023 [44 favorites]
she told them she agreed with them but they had to let him deliver his prepared remarks, then a student leader of the protests asked everybody to shut up so dude could talk
they did, at which point he dropped his prepared remarks & went into a Q&A, during which he refused to engage with their questions & called one of them "an appalling idiot"
article goes on to suggest that this is the kind of performative crybully fight-picking you need to engage in these days to distinguish yourself from judges who will merely vote along straight fascist party lines but aren't willing to adopt "being the shittiest possible human in public" as a lifestyle
please let's not have a discussion about free speech without including the context that this particular guy came there picking a fight, got heckled, was in fact allowed to speak, & is now deliberately shaping the narrative to claim he was denied free speech entirely
posted by taquito sunrise at 3:23 PM on March 20, 2023 [44 favorites]
Of course they're going to be outmaneuvered by a well-endowed right-wing think tank. But one would hope they'd learn from this experience that shouting Duncan down in this scenario was just walking into a setup... just like the many other lefty student groups that have been baited into shouting down other right-wing provocateurs.
And what about the people Duncan's targeting? They just get left out in the cold, with nobody to protect them? This is the the whole point of the Innuendo Studios video I linked earlier - the game the Federalist Society is playing relies on people like Ken White coming in to play the "voice of reason". Which is why the proper response when he says "speech you don't like" is "and why exactly don't they like it, Ken?" - to make him actually acknowledge the context and what he's actually defending.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:28 PM on March 20, 2023 [16 favorites]
And what about the people Duncan's targeting? They just get left out in the cold, with nobody to protect them? This is the the whole point of the Innuendo Studios video I linked earlier - the game the Federalist Society is playing relies on people like Ken White coming in to play the "voice of reason". Which is why the proper response when he says "speech you don't like" is "and why exactly don't they like it, Ken?" - to make him actually acknowledge the context and what he's actually defending.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:28 PM on March 20, 2023 [16 favorites]
And what about the people Duncan's targeting? They just get left out in the cold, with nobody to protect them?
No, of course not. Lots of people are advocating for the people Duncan's targeting. The question is whether getting into a shouting match with someone like Duncan is "protecting" anyone.
This is the the whole point of the Innuendo Studios video I linked earlier - the game the Federalist Society is playing relies on people like Ken White coming in to play the "voice of reason".
I'd say the game they're playing relies on people like the students coming in to shout them down.
An expert on constitutional law advocating for the Constitution is just doing what he does.
Which is why the proper response when he says "speech you don't like" is "and why exactly don't they like it, Ken?" - to make him actually acknowledge the context and what he's actually defending.
Maybe reread his post, because he explains quite clearly exactly what he's defending... and it ain't Duncan or the FedSoc.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:34 PM on March 20, 2023 [5 favorites]
No, of course not. Lots of people are advocating for the people Duncan's targeting. The question is whether getting into a shouting match with someone like Duncan is "protecting" anyone.
This is the the whole point of the Innuendo Studios video I linked earlier - the game the Federalist Society is playing relies on people like Ken White coming in to play the "voice of reason".
I'd say the game they're playing relies on people like the students coming in to shout them down.
An expert on constitutional law advocating for the Constitution is just doing what he does.
Which is why the proper response when he says "speech you don't like" is "and why exactly don't they like it, Ken?" - to make him actually acknowledge the context and what he's actually defending.
Maybe reread his post, because he explains quite clearly exactly what he's defending... and it ain't Duncan or the FedSoc.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:34 PM on March 20, 2023 [5 favorites]
gradual like Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952) or
Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949)?
posted by clavdivs at 3:37 PM on March 20, 2023
Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949)?
posted by clavdivs at 3:37 PM on March 20, 2023
Is there any indication that this hypothetical would happen any differently if we all united in the other direction?
Then I hope you and your buddies have a bunch of rifles and a list of Republican voters who live in your town, because I'm not sure what else you expect to do about a regime that's free to imprison anyone they want at will in violation of our most fundamental law besides mounting a campaign of violence against those who would be doing the imprisonment.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 3:43 PM on March 20, 2023
Then I hope you and your buddies have a bunch of rifles and a list of Republican voters who live in your town, because I'm not sure what else you expect to do about a regime that's free to imprison anyone they want at will in violation of our most fundamental law besides mounting a campaign of violence against those who would be doing the imprisonment.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 3:43 PM on March 20, 2023
Man I do not have the spoons to participate in a thread that gets its ideas of what free speech means in practice from a dusty old 1977 supreme court decision that went 5-4 instead of Black Lives Matter current events.
posted by traveler_ at 3:45 PM on March 20, 2023 [9 favorites]
posted by traveler_ at 3:45 PM on March 20, 2023 [9 favorites]
he students took the bait and let themselves become pawns in the FedSoc's game. And of course, they're (probably, mostly) well-meaning young people whose frontal cortexes haven't even fully developed yet, and whose primary paradigm of political activity is confrontational protest against The Man, which is probably partly a product of their politics, but at least equally as much a product of their still being adolescents.
Holy shit. This is one of the most condescending things I’ve read on this site.
20 years ago the US invaded Iraq and one of the largest group demonstrating against that imminent crime were these types of “adolescents”. Where were you?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:58 PM on March 20, 2023 [14 favorites]
Holy shit. This is one of the most condescending things I’ve read on this site.
20 years ago the US invaded Iraq and one of the largest group demonstrating against that imminent crime were these types of “adolescents”. Where were you?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:58 PM on March 20, 2023 [14 favorites]
The students took the bait and let themselves become pawns in the FedSoc's game
I mean what exactly is wrong with students yelling at FedSoc. These guys are always talking about 'snowflakes'. Can't they take being yelled at?
posted by corb at 4:00 PM on March 20, 2023 [20 favorites]
I mean what exactly is wrong with students yelling at FedSoc. These guys are always talking about 'snowflakes'. Can't they take being yelled at?
posted by corb at 4:00 PM on March 20, 2023 [20 favorites]
And what about the people Duncan's targeting? They just get left out in the cold, with nobody to protect them
Well, they could shoot him. That way, they're not letting him bind their hands.
Man I do not have the spoons to participate in a thread that gets its ideas of what free speech means in practice from a dusty old 1977 supreme court decision that went 5-4 instead of Black Lives Matter current events.
(Whispers) wait until I tell you how old the Constitution is.
posted by Galvanic at 4:01 PM on March 20, 2023 [5 favorites]
Well, they could shoot him. That way, they're not letting him bind their hands.
Man I do not have the spoons to participate in a thread that gets its ideas of what free speech means in practice from a dusty old 1977 supreme court decision that went 5-4 instead of Black Lives Matter current events.
(Whispers) wait until I tell you how old the Constitution is.
posted by Galvanic at 4:01 PM on March 20, 2023 [5 favorites]
20 years ago the US invaded Iraq and one of the largest group demonstrating against that imminent crime were these types of “adolescents”. Where were you?
I'm glad you asked! I was marching in the streets of New York City with hundreds of thousands of other people (of all ages).
Don't try to misconstrue what I said about the Stanford students as a condemnation of all public protect, because it wasn't.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:04 PM on March 20, 2023 [7 favorites]
I'm glad you asked! I was marching in the streets of New York City with hundreds of thousands of other people (of all ages).
Don't try to misconstrue what I said about the Stanford students as a condemnation of all public protect, because it wasn't.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:04 PM on March 20, 2023 [7 favorites]
History demonstrates that once a tool like that is created, it will most likely eventually be used in ways not intended by those who created it
The right is already using the tool and centrist liberals are shouting into the void: “I’m principled!!”, doing nothing.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:04 PM on March 20, 2023 [14 favorites]
The right is already using the tool and centrist liberals are shouting into the void: “I’m principled!!”, doing nothing.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:04 PM on March 20, 2023 [14 favorites]
The right is already using the tool and centrist liberals are shouting into the void: “I’m principled!!”, doing nothing.
Can you be more specific?
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:06 PM on March 20, 2023
Can you be more specific?
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:06 PM on March 20, 2023
Off the top of my head, right wing restrictions on speech at universities.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:08 PM on March 20, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:08 PM on March 20, 2023 [3 favorites]
centrist liberals are shouting into the void: “I’m principled!!”, doing nothing
Centrist liberals have been winning elections and passing bills that do actual things, but sure.
posted by Galvanic at 4:09 PM on March 20, 2023 [7 favorites]
Centrist liberals have been winning elections and passing bills that do actual things, but sure.
posted by Galvanic at 4:09 PM on March 20, 2023 [7 favorites]
Off the top of my head, right wing restrictions on speech at universities.
Such as?
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:12 PM on March 20, 2023 [1 favorite]
Such as?
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:12 PM on March 20, 2023 [1 favorite]
Look at speech re: Israel/Palestine on campus’. The right has no problem harassing academics who speak out against Israel’s human rights abuses, but centrist liberals will defend any right wing asshole’s right to spew shit and complain about rescinding university invites. Just browse the pages of NY mag or the nytimes or yglesias’ substack. This shit is pervasive
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:16 PM on March 20, 2023 [12 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:16 PM on March 20, 2023 [12 favorites]
Well, Bari Weiss has certainly played that game... after herself being involved in going after Palestinian academics at Columbia, IIRC. It didn't ultimately work out so well for her at the NY Times.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:19 PM on March 20, 2023
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:19 PM on March 20, 2023
An expert on constitutional law advocating for the Constitution is just doing what he does.
So, here's the thing - law, by its very nature, is a very institutionalist field, since it's about arguing the nature of those institutions. And of all the various fields of law, Constitutional law is one of the most institutionalist, again for unsurprising reasons. And while the reasons for this is well understood, it also means the practitioners wind up with an institutionalist view of the world - which winds up being a problem when the institution is being weaponized. This winds up being the problem with White's argument - he's so concerned about the institution that he dismisses the harm occurring. And this is sort of a thread with him - another example is that he's responded with "judges yell" when people point out that abuse from the bench is a serious problem with our legal system. As lawyer and legal commentator Elie Mystal points out in regard to this incident, institutionalists struggle with authoritarianism, because they seek to protect the institution.
(Whispers) wait until I tell you how old the Constitution is.
Allow me to blow your mind - the age of our Constitution is a massive problem as the US has the oldest formal Constitution, and it's not even close. And beyond that, we haven't updated it in decades - the last amendment was in 1992, and given it was proposed two centuries prior that doesn't really count, which means that the last time it was actually updated in a modern context was 1971, when the voting age was lowered to 18 during the Vietnam War. The argument of relevance to people today is a serious question, and pointing out the age of the Constitution is just an institutional appeal to authority.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:19 PM on March 20, 2023 [23 favorites]
So, here's the thing - law, by its very nature, is a very institutionalist field, since it's about arguing the nature of those institutions. And of all the various fields of law, Constitutional law is one of the most institutionalist, again for unsurprising reasons. And while the reasons for this is well understood, it also means the practitioners wind up with an institutionalist view of the world - which winds up being a problem when the institution is being weaponized. This winds up being the problem with White's argument - he's so concerned about the institution that he dismisses the harm occurring. And this is sort of a thread with him - another example is that he's responded with "judges yell" when people point out that abuse from the bench is a serious problem with our legal system. As lawyer and legal commentator Elie Mystal points out in regard to this incident, institutionalists struggle with authoritarianism, because they seek to protect the institution.
(Whispers) wait until I tell you how old the Constitution is.
Allow me to blow your mind - the age of our Constitution is a massive problem as the US has the oldest formal Constitution, and it's not even close. And beyond that, we haven't updated it in decades - the last amendment was in 1992, and given it was proposed two centuries prior that doesn't really count, which means that the last time it was actually updated in a modern context was 1971, when the voting age was lowered to 18 during the Vietnam War. The argument of relevance to people today is a serious question, and pointing out the age of the Constitution is just an institutional appeal to authority.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:19 PM on March 20, 2023 [23 favorites]
I think it's useful to remember that the ultimate goal of fascists is to replace civil society with a kind of violent circus, in which groups constantly battle each other in no-holds-barred pro-wrestling-style spectacle.
Creating a spectacle of continuous conflict is not just the favorite method of fascists, it's the beating heart of fascism itself. It's Trumpism, and Hitlerism, at its purest.
Participating in that spectacle is never going to weaken them, because it's simply consenting to be an acrobat in their circus. This is why I find a lot of the "punch Nazis" rhetoric to be misguided.
Think of the clashes between communists and fascists in the streets of Weimar Germany. The KPD comrades who were getting into brawls with brownshirts no doubt thought they were defending all that was true and good and right, but actually they were just helping the Nazis -- pouring more gas on the flames consuming society -- accelerating the chaos, alienating the majority, and making the Nazi promise of "law and order" seem like a relief to many normies.
The antidote to fascism isn't anti-fascist mob action, because you can't fight fire with fire.
The antidote is strengthening the democratic process, the rule of law, and civil society. That can and should include peaceful demonstrations. It doesn't include screaming confrontations in which nobody's voice can ultimately be heard.
I note that a lot of left-wing groups in this country started to get smart about this after Charlottesville. That's why they mostly stayed away from D.C. on January 6 -- it was a strategic refusal to give the Trumpists the street fights they were looking for. That was a very wise decision, IMO.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:21 PM on March 20, 2023 [14 favorites]
Creating a spectacle of continuous conflict is not just the favorite method of fascists, it's the beating heart of fascism itself. It's Trumpism, and Hitlerism, at its purest.
Participating in that spectacle is never going to weaken them, because it's simply consenting to be an acrobat in their circus. This is why I find a lot of the "punch Nazis" rhetoric to be misguided.
Think of the clashes between communists and fascists in the streets of Weimar Germany. The KPD comrades who were getting into brawls with brownshirts no doubt thought they were defending all that was true and good and right, but actually they were just helping the Nazis -- pouring more gas on the flames consuming society -- accelerating the chaos, alienating the majority, and making the Nazi promise of "law and order" seem like a relief to many normies.
The antidote to fascism isn't anti-fascist mob action, because you can't fight fire with fire.
The antidote is strengthening the democratic process, the rule of law, and civil society. That can and should include peaceful demonstrations. It doesn't include screaming confrontations in which nobody's voice can ultimately be heard.
I note that a lot of left-wing groups in this country started to get smart about this after Charlottesville. That's why they mostly stayed away from D.C. on January 6 -- it was a strategic refusal to give the Trumpists the street fights they were looking for. That was a very wise decision, IMO.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:21 PM on March 20, 2023 [14 favorites]
Man I do not have the spoons to participate in a thread that gets its ideas of what free speech means in practice from a dusty old 1977 supreme court decision that went 5-4 instead of Black Lives Matter current events.
and that's ok. 'Thurgood Marshall- Voted with majority'. "Today’s America again calls to mind Martin Luther King Jr. and Thurgood Marshall, two epochal figures who stood in the doorway of an earlier Black Lives Matter movement, both together and apart."
posted by clavdivs at 4:22 PM on March 20, 2023 [2 favorites]
and that's ok. 'Thurgood Marshall- Voted with majority'. "Today’s America again calls to mind Martin Luther King Jr. and Thurgood Marshall, two epochal figures who stood in the doorway of an earlier Black Lives Matter movement, both together and apart."
posted by clavdivs at 4:22 PM on March 20, 2023 [2 favorites]
I note that a lot of left-wing groups in this country started to get smart about this after Charlottesville.
It's worth remembering that one of the first things that left wing groups did after Charlottesville was to get the ACLU out of the Nazi defending business.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:32 PM on March 20, 2023 [14 favorites]
It's worth remembering that one of the first things that left wing groups did after Charlottesville was to get the ACLU out of the Nazi defending business.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:32 PM on March 20, 2023 [14 favorites]
HATE. LET ME TELL YOU HOW MUCH I'VE COME TO HATE YOU SINCE I BEGAN TO LIVE.
Nice Harlan Ellison nod.
posted by doctornemo at 4:32 PM on March 20, 2023 [5 favorites]
Nice Harlan Ellison nod.
posted by doctornemo at 4:32 PM on March 20, 2023 [5 favorites]
@nox well, San Marino would argue with you about oldest, but you still haven’t answered my question: do we steal elections because they will?
posted by Galvanic at 4:34 PM on March 20, 2023
posted by Galvanic at 4:34 PM on March 20, 2023
Aren’t there countries with freedom of speech laws bounded by “nazi/extremist speech is not protected” or did they all collapse into authoritarian hellscapes already?
posted by delicious-luncheon at 4:46 PM on March 20, 2023 [11 favorites]
posted by delicious-luncheon at 4:46 PM on March 20, 2023 [11 favorites]
who openly argues that hate speech is the price of free speech, even after a decade or so of demonstration why that position not only doesn't work
Last I saw, and IANAL, US courts have repeatedly upheld that the First Amendment protects hate speech, unless said hate speech crosses a line into direct incitement.
posted by doctornemo at 4:51 PM on March 20, 2023
Last I saw, and IANAL, US courts have repeatedly upheld that the First Amendment protects hate speech, unless said hate speech crosses a line into direct incitement.
posted by doctornemo at 4:51 PM on March 20, 2023
I haven't answered because it's not a question, but an attempt to play "gotcha!" based on a misunderstanding of the point of the statement. It doesn't matter to them if we choose not to steal elections, because they will (and have) create their own justification for doing so. Your choice to not steal elections has no impact on theirs - thus you binding your hands will never bind theirs.
Now, does that mean that we should steal elections? No, it does not! What it means, however, is that you cannot use that as a reason or defense for making the decision to not steal elections - but of course there are plenty of others to choose from. The problem here, though is that "binding their hands by binding ours" is such a longstanding defense of free speech "absolutism" that losing it makes the fundamental contradiction at its heart even more visible.
Aren’t there countries with freedom of speech laws bounded by “nazi/extremist speech is not protected” or did they all collapse into authoritarian hellscapes already?
It's always worth remembering with these sorts of articles about how much American exceptionalism they're dripping with.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:51 PM on March 20, 2023 [8 favorites]
Now, does that mean that we should steal elections? No, it does not! What it means, however, is that you cannot use that as a reason or defense for making the decision to not steal elections - but of course there are plenty of others to choose from. The problem here, though is that "binding their hands by binding ours" is such a longstanding defense of free speech "absolutism" that losing it makes the fundamental contradiction at its heart even more visible.
Aren’t there countries with freedom of speech laws bounded by “nazi/extremist speech is not protected” or did they all collapse into authoritarian hellscapes already?
It's always worth remembering with these sorts of articles about how much American exceptionalism they're dripping with.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:51 PM on March 20, 2023 [8 favorites]
I’ve got a suggestion: how about we worry about the serious institutionally-mandated restrictions on free speech currently being enacted in eg. Florida and Texas before we worry about a group of college students who don’t have institution power trying to yell down a shit-stirring bigot. Pretty sure “a group of Stanford students” is not the governmental restriction on freedom of speech that the First Amendment prohibits.
posted by eviemath at 4:53 PM on March 20, 2023 [13 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 4:53 PM on March 20, 2023 [13 favorites]
I’ve got a suggestion: how about we worry about the serious institutionally-mandated restrictions on free speech currently being enacted in eg. Florida and Texas before we worry about a group of college students who don’t have institution power trying to yell down a shit-stirring bigot.
Fortunately, we can worry about more than one thing at the same time.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:56 PM on March 20, 2023 [7 favorites]
Fortunately, we can worry about more than one thing at the same time.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:56 PM on March 20, 2023 [7 favorites]
Now, does that mean that we should steal elections? No, it does not! What it means, however, is that you cannot use that as a reason or defense for making the decision to not steal elections
Good! So you put the line there. Others put it at free speech.
posted by Galvanic at 4:57 PM on March 20, 2023
Good! So you put the line there. Others put it at free speech.
posted by Galvanic at 4:57 PM on March 20, 2023
Fortunately, we can worry about more than one thing at the same time.
Indeed.
I was struck by Popehat's notes about the university side of things, the admin part specifically.
This bit reminded me of debates over those two Minneapolis art and Islam academic stories:
Associate Dean Steinbach and her ilk are campaigning to undermine free speech legal and social norms, striving to make someone’s subjective reaction to speech an unquestionable justification for suppressing it.
Steinbach's comments about protecting students from alleged harms expressed by speech... I hear this more and more frequently in colleges and universities. The macro decline in enrollments and other crises seem to drive a desire to increase care for students. Which is a fine thing! and overdue!
posted by doctornemo at 5:04 PM on March 20, 2023 [1 favorite]
Indeed.
I was struck by Popehat's notes about the university side of things, the admin part specifically.
This bit reminded me of debates over those two Minneapolis art and Islam academic stories:
Associate Dean Steinbach and her ilk are campaigning to undermine free speech legal and social norms, striving to make someone’s subjective reaction to speech an unquestionable justification for suppressing it.
Steinbach's comments about protecting students from alleged harms expressed by speech... I hear this more and more frequently in colleges and universities. The macro decline in enrollments and other crises seem to drive a desire to increase care for students. Which is a fine thing! and overdue!
posted by doctornemo at 5:04 PM on March 20, 2023 [1 favorite]
This is a really bizarre thread and I feel like I'm getting a whiff of AstroTurf.
posted by seanmpuckett at 5:07 PM on March 20, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 5:07 PM on March 20, 2023 [7 favorites]
It is extremely frustrating for me to see several comments in this thread that fundamentally misunderstand and misrepresent Ken White’s work, values, and published writing. I fear that NoxAeternum is the chief offender here. It is amazingly wrong to suggest, as NA does, that White is a defender of institutionalism who ignores the harm that institutions do. Yeah, maybe White has written that “judges yell.” I’d sure like to see the context, though: what this 2-word quote overlooks is that White regularly criticizes and ridicules such bad behavior on the bench. Read this jaw-dropping account —
https://popehat.substack.com/p/who-judges-the-judges
— of how he tried one thing after another, as a law clerk to a judge, to get his alcoholic boss to face the implications of being drunk while sitting on the bench — including begging all the other judges on the circuit to do something about it. I promise: many lawyers would not jeopardize their own career prospects in this way. Indeed, I imagine that the majority of MeFites have never done anything as self-sacrificing as that.
Ken White, institutionalist! The mind reels.
posted by PaulVario at 5:08 PM on March 20, 2023 [19 favorites]
https://popehat.substack.com/p/who-judges-the-judges
— of how he tried one thing after another, as a law clerk to a judge, to get his alcoholic boss to face the implications of being drunk while sitting on the bench — including begging all the other judges on the circuit to do something about it. I promise: many lawyers would not jeopardize their own career prospects in this way. Indeed, I imagine that the majority of MeFites have never done anything as self-sacrificing as that.
Ken White, institutionalist! The mind reels.
posted by PaulVario at 5:08 PM on March 20, 2023 [19 favorites]
I was a kid in the 80s. As far back as I can remember, I’ve watched the ACLU and others use the 1st Amendment to fight the right wing’s attempt to control the people by censoring art, sex education, science, etc etc etc.
I am frequently wrong about many things. But I think free speech is a bulwark supporting liberal values and that abandoning free speech as a core principle will have unintended and likely tragic consequences.
posted by lumpy at 5:27 PM on March 20, 2023 [10 favorites]
I am frequently wrong about many things. But I think free speech is a bulwark supporting liberal values and that abandoning free speech as a core principle will have unintended and likely tragic consequences.
posted by lumpy at 5:27 PM on March 20, 2023 [10 favorites]
https://popehat.substack.com/p/who-judges-the-judges
So let me get this straight - this account of White's, which he states he never recounted until all the principals were dead and buried, in which as a law clerk for an alcoholic judge he saught help for the judge purely through the informal corridors of power in the judiciary, and refused to tell practicing lawyers in the area because they would then be obliged to report the judge - this is meant to demonstrate White's anti-institutionalism?
Dude, this is what institutionalism looks like.
His actions were perfectly in line with institutionalism - he saught help for the judge through internal channels to keep up appearances (and because to go against the judge would have negative professional repercussions for him), rejected taking a tack that would have lead to official hearings, and held onto the story until all of the judges involved were in the ground. And while he notes that all this had a material cost for the people with cases on this judge's docket, that is only given the briefest of notes, the focus being the internal informal paths of judicial power. Nothing about that shows any signs of being anti-institutionalist.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:55 PM on March 20, 2023 [23 favorites]
So let me get this straight - this account of White's, which he states he never recounted until all the principals were dead and buried, in which as a law clerk for an alcoholic judge he saught help for the judge purely through the informal corridors of power in the judiciary, and refused to tell practicing lawyers in the area because they would then be obliged to report the judge - this is meant to demonstrate White's anti-institutionalism?
Dude, this is what institutionalism looks like.
His actions were perfectly in line with institutionalism - he saught help for the judge through internal channels to keep up appearances (and because to go against the judge would have negative professional repercussions for him), rejected taking a tack that would have lead to official hearings, and held onto the story until all of the judges involved were in the ground. And while he notes that all this had a material cost for the people with cases on this judge's docket, that is only given the briefest of notes, the focus being the internal informal paths of judicial power. Nothing about that shows any signs of being anti-institutionalist.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:55 PM on March 20, 2023 [23 favorites]
US courts have repeatedly upheld that the First Amendment protects hate speech, unless said hate speech crosses a line into direct incitement.
I am also not a lawyer (IAANAL?) but my understanding is that the definition of "direct incitement" is extremely -- some might say ridiculously -- narrow. Like, you pretty much have to say, "I want you to go kill that person over there." Political ads with an image of your opponent with a target over them? That's fine, it's just a "metaphor." Telling your supporters to "take back America from Un-American traitors!" No problem there! Saying you want to "eradicate transgenderism from the public discourse" -- you're just being "controversial."
posted by Saxon Kane at 6:00 PM on March 20, 2023 [6 favorites]
I am also not a lawyer (IAANAL?) but my understanding is that the definition of "direct incitement" is extremely -- some might say ridiculously -- narrow. Like, you pretty much have to say, "I want you to go kill that person over there." Political ads with an image of your opponent with a target over them? That's fine, it's just a "metaphor." Telling your supporters to "take back America from Un-American traitors!" No problem there! Saying you want to "eradicate transgenderism from the public discourse" -- you're just being "controversial."
posted by Saxon Kane at 6:00 PM on March 20, 2023 [6 favorites]
Although it's famous, Paradox of Tolerance just doesn't feel...paradoxy enough to deserve the being called a paradox. To strawman it:
"We keep being nice to everybody in exactly the same way we always do,
but it always breaks down in exactly the same way it always does
when mean people exploit it in exactly same way they always do"
The following quote points toward what seems like a more flexible strategy.
"Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. [And] the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms.
It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others."
~Yonatan Zunger
posted by ApplAuD at 6:07 PM on March 20, 2023 [16 favorites]
"We keep being nice to everybody in exactly the same way we always do,
but it always breaks down in exactly the same way it always does
when mean people exploit it in exactly same way they always do"
The following quote points toward what seems like a more flexible strategy.
"Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. [And] the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms.
It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others."
~Yonatan Zunger
posted by ApplAuD at 6:07 PM on March 20, 2023 [16 favorites]
my understanding is that the definition of "direct incitement" is extremely -- some might say ridiculously -- narrow.
I've heard that from some lawyers as well, but it remains law, as far as I can tell.
Which is one reason hate speech arguments lose - in US law.
posted by doctornemo at 6:24 PM on March 20, 2023 [1 favorite]
I've heard that from some lawyers as well, but it remains law, as far as I can tell.
Which is one reason hate speech arguments lose - in US law.
posted by doctornemo at 6:24 PM on March 20, 2023 [1 favorite]
Pretty much hence why hate crime laws augment charges. A direct action like burning a cross is not hate speech, words didn't light that wood It's arson, possible murder, endangerment, and a hate crime.
there's no speech in that, it's a crime.
posted by clavdivs at 6:39 PM on March 20, 2023
there's no speech in that, it's a crime.
posted by clavdivs at 6:39 PM on March 20, 2023
Interesting that both Hamline and Stanford are brought up and only one person notes that they’re both private universities. Colleges that are less prestigious (and well-endowed) than Stanford are looking at college enrollment numbers and are shitting bricks. For what college costs nowadays (and private ones, doubly so) administrators are well advised to listen to their students customers.
If I were spending a quarter mill to attend Stanford, you can damn well be sure I would be raising hell when fascist asshats get invited to speak.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 6:48 PM on March 20, 2023 [1 favorite]
If I were spending a quarter mill to attend Stanford, you can damn well be sure I would be raising hell when fascist asshats get invited to speak.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 6:48 PM on March 20, 2023 [1 favorite]
This is a really bizarre thread and I feel like I'm getting a whiff of AstroTurf.
Instead of being obscure, why not say which commentor(s) you think are doing this? Dropping this claim with no support isn't really making the thread any better.
posted by arcolz at 6:48 PM on March 20, 2023 [5 favorites]
Instead of being obscure, why not say which commentor(s) you think are doing this? Dropping this claim with no support isn't really making the thread any better.
posted by arcolz at 6:48 PM on March 20, 2023 [5 favorites]
@NA: After White complained about his own boss’s alcoholism to other judges, he then told his boss that he would quit immediately if his boss didn’t take leave and seek treatment, and ultimately forced his boss off the bench. This behavior to you demonstrates that White defends institutions and dismisses the harm those institutions cause. That’s … very interesting. Also kind of crazy, but very interesting.
Your suggestion that White must be an institutionalist because he didn’t go public about the problem is even more out of touch with the real world and the deference that established judges understand to be their due from young attorneys. There is a huge web of formal rules and informal expectations clerks are saddled with about keeping chambers business private. Your argument is that, because White never carried out a course of action that likely would have nuked his law license and career (as opposed to the course of action he took, which merely demonstrated to a couple of local judges that he was unwilling to protect one of their brethren), he was an institutionalist. Uh huh. That point of view is … I’ll just say it’s even more interesting.
posted by PaulVario at 6:54 PM on March 20, 2023 [3 favorites]
Your suggestion that White must be an institutionalist because he didn’t go public about the problem is even more out of touch with the real world and the deference that established judges understand to be their due from young attorneys. There is a huge web of formal rules and informal expectations clerks are saddled with about keeping chambers business private. Your argument is that, because White never carried out a course of action that likely would have nuked his law license and career (as opposed to the course of action he took, which merely demonstrated to a couple of local judges that he was unwilling to protect one of their brethren), he was an institutionalist. Uh huh. That point of view is … I’ll just say it’s even more interesting.
posted by PaulVario at 6:54 PM on March 20, 2023 [3 favorites]
Maybe I'm being short-sighted, but I honestly just don't have big free speech concerns about government officials backed by extremely wealthy advocacy groups getting heckled at public events on college campuses. The judge's words, ideas, and decisions are published and available on demand, 24/7/365, to everyone in that room. They are all educated adults in an era when universities don't censor students' media access or restrict what they do when they're not in class.
And I think sometimes when we think about campus speech issues in the abstract we end up thinking about them in the context of an idealized bygone era when in-person speeches were more important to sharing and debating ideas, and things like YouTube and podcasts and social media didn't exist, and where law school organizations weren't arms of powerful political factions trying to stir up national controversy. And I worry that by doing so, in judging what's going in universities where most students don't remember a time before Wi-Fi or the Iraq War, we're acting like the stereotypical out-of-touch parents telling their kids to print out some resumes, put on a nice ironed shirt, and go find a nice summer job that'll pay their tuition.
Like, if Duncan's concerned about heckling, he can hold a Zoom session where he gives an uninterrupted speech and takes screened questions. Or he can hold a private event just for members of the Federalist Society and their guests. Or he can speak in person to Federalist Society members and broadcast the video on Zoom and into an overflow seating room. It might be enough to just give audience members headphones hooked to the judge's mic, like a silent disco. And if they're not satisfied with how Stanford handles hecklers, the Federalist Society can rent out a private venue and impose its own rules.
The judge is not subject to official censorship. The Postal Service won't seize his writings, the police won't bust in while he's giving a lecture a la Lenny Bruce or 2 Live Crew, and he doesn't have to worry about prosecution for discussing issues like gender and sexuality as librarians and teachers do right this minute in places in the US. He's a judge with lifetime tenure, backed by the campus branch of a wealthy and powerful conservative group, and if he has to slightly change how he delivers his lecture to effectively outshout hecklers, I just don't see that's a tremendous loss to public discourse or even a slippery slope.
The Federalist Society deliberately invited Judge Duncan as a statement, to be provocative, and the society and the judge made choices that made the talk vulnerable to disruptive heckling, which they knew was a very strong possibility. Part of the content of the talk is that statement itself, and they successfully organized the talk in a way that amplified that statement at the cost of the jurisprudence-related content.
And they made that decision, and the hecklers made the decision to disrupt the talk (to a certain extent), and the associate dean made the decision to critique Duncan, and the university to distance itself from her statement (but not forcibly eject the hecklers), etc. all in the context of Stanford Law School in California in the US in 2023.
posted by smelendez at 7:09 PM on March 20, 2023 [23 favorites]
And I think sometimes when we think about campus speech issues in the abstract we end up thinking about them in the context of an idealized bygone era when in-person speeches were more important to sharing and debating ideas, and things like YouTube and podcasts and social media didn't exist, and where law school organizations weren't arms of powerful political factions trying to stir up national controversy. And I worry that by doing so, in judging what's going in universities where most students don't remember a time before Wi-Fi or the Iraq War, we're acting like the stereotypical out-of-touch parents telling their kids to print out some resumes, put on a nice ironed shirt, and go find a nice summer job that'll pay their tuition.
Like, if Duncan's concerned about heckling, he can hold a Zoom session where he gives an uninterrupted speech and takes screened questions. Or he can hold a private event just for members of the Federalist Society and their guests. Or he can speak in person to Federalist Society members and broadcast the video on Zoom and into an overflow seating room. It might be enough to just give audience members headphones hooked to the judge's mic, like a silent disco. And if they're not satisfied with how Stanford handles hecklers, the Federalist Society can rent out a private venue and impose its own rules.
The judge is not subject to official censorship. The Postal Service won't seize his writings, the police won't bust in while he's giving a lecture a la Lenny Bruce or 2 Live Crew, and he doesn't have to worry about prosecution for discussing issues like gender and sexuality as librarians and teachers do right this minute in places in the US. He's a judge with lifetime tenure, backed by the campus branch of a wealthy and powerful conservative group, and if he has to slightly change how he delivers his lecture to effectively outshout hecklers, I just don't see that's a tremendous loss to public discourse or even a slippery slope.
The Federalist Society deliberately invited Judge Duncan as a statement, to be provocative, and the society and the judge made choices that made the talk vulnerable to disruptive heckling, which they knew was a very strong possibility. Part of the content of the talk is that statement itself, and they successfully organized the talk in a way that amplified that statement at the cost of the jurisprudence-related content.
And they made that decision, and the hecklers made the decision to disrupt the talk (to a certain extent), and the associate dean made the decision to critique Duncan, and the university to distance itself from her statement (but not forcibly eject the hecklers), etc. all in the context of Stanford Law School in California in the US in 2023.
posted by smelendez at 7:09 PM on March 20, 2023 [23 favorites]
I find most "free speech" absolutists to be like "free market" absolutists: naive about the details and the harms. There's a massive renegotiation going on (ahh the dialectic) WRT what "free speech" should mean and holding tight to the bright line of "people should get to say things that are bad no matter what" means closing your eyes to the the harm – or, possibly, making an agreement with yourself that the harm is "worth it".
It's rarely the targeted people that get to make this decision, about whether it's "worth it". It's all very sober analysis, though, as was Madeline Albright saying 500,000 dead Iraqi's was "worth it".
We're in the middle of a great realignment, and the struggle around it, so I understand the position, though (the free speech one, not Albright …). For a long time the idea of a neutral law, applicable equally to everyone, has been sacrosanct – this idea that basically Good Rules are Enough. And I get it, it's given us a chance to get out from under the yoke of a lot of other bad systems; it's been great in a lot of ways!
But our ability to understand harm keeps growing as we've broadened our acceptance of more people, just as the ability to find new ways to inflict harm has been growing. And our bright lines around free speech are no longer holding back the tide of shit.
--
Only related, but I found this link originally from Gruber at Daring Fireball, and I find him wrong again today when he writes, "If you refuse to listen to people you disagree with, let alone try to prevent them from even speaking, how do you even know you disagree with them?" It's a classic naive move – everybody knows what this speaker's views are! The "best" you could get from him would have been some watered down version of it with slippery logic that sounds kind of not bad; he'd then go back to spewing his real thoughts to the faithful. (This is of course not even accounting for the facts which seem to suggest that the students did settle down and were ready to let him talk)
posted by wemayfreeze at 7:45 PM on March 20, 2023 [15 favorites]
It's rarely the targeted people that get to make this decision, about whether it's "worth it". It's all very sober analysis, though, as was Madeline Albright saying 500,000 dead Iraqi's was "worth it".
We're in the middle of a great realignment, and the struggle around it, so I understand the position, though (the free speech one, not Albright …). For a long time the idea of a neutral law, applicable equally to everyone, has been sacrosanct – this idea that basically Good Rules are Enough. And I get it, it's given us a chance to get out from under the yoke of a lot of other bad systems; it's been great in a lot of ways!
But our ability to understand harm keeps growing as we've broadened our acceptance of more people, just as the ability to find new ways to inflict harm has been growing. And our bright lines around free speech are no longer holding back the tide of shit.
--
Only related, but I found this link originally from Gruber at Daring Fireball, and I find him wrong again today when he writes, "If you refuse to listen to people you disagree with, let alone try to prevent them from even speaking, how do you even know you disagree with them?" It's a classic naive move – everybody knows what this speaker's views are! The "best" you could get from him would have been some watered down version of it with slippery logic that sounds kind of not bad; he'd then go back to spewing his real thoughts to the faithful. (This is of course not even accounting for the facts which seem to suggest that the students did settle down and were ready to let him talk)
posted by wemayfreeze at 7:45 PM on March 20, 2023 [15 favorites]
Your suggestion that White must be an institutionalist because he didn’t go public about the problem is even more out of touch with the real world and the deference that established judges understand to be their due from young attorneys. There is a huge web of formal rules and informal expectations clerks are saddled with about keeping chambers business private.
Why yes, that would be the fucking problem, and it was absolutely steeped in institutionalism. Your argument is that White - a man who is in a profession literally built on institutionalism, who spent years as a federal prosecutor, and who practices in one of the more institutionalist branches of law - is not institutionalist because when he was a clerk he dealt with an alcoholic judge whose conduct was harming the people whose cases were before him...by reporting through informal channels in order to protect the judge's reputation, and only threatening to indirectly expose the judge through resignation at the very end.
That's how institutionalism works - it convinces you to put the institution (in this case, the judge and more widely, the bench) ahead of people, and even yourself. And yes, White was a victim of institutionalism himself - like many forms of abuse, it perpetuates through being inflicted on people, which is what makes it hard to break. This is why I have a problem with his "judges yell" comment - it's an argument that abusive behavior by judges is expected and acceptable, which in turn undermines judicial reform.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:49 PM on March 20, 2023 [18 favorites]
Why yes, that would be the fucking problem, and it was absolutely steeped in institutionalism. Your argument is that White - a man who is in a profession literally built on institutionalism, who spent years as a federal prosecutor, and who practices in one of the more institutionalist branches of law - is not institutionalist because when he was a clerk he dealt with an alcoholic judge whose conduct was harming the people whose cases were before him...by reporting through informal channels in order to protect the judge's reputation, and only threatening to indirectly expose the judge through resignation at the very end.
That's how institutionalism works - it convinces you to put the institution (in this case, the judge and more widely, the bench) ahead of people, and even yourself. And yes, White was a victim of institutionalism himself - like many forms of abuse, it perpetuates through being inflicted on people, which is what makes it hard to break. This is why I have a problem with his "judges yell" comment - it's an argument that abusive behavior by judges is expected and acceptable, which in turn undermines judicial reform.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:49 PM on March 20, 2023 [18 favorites]
For a long time the idea of a neutral law, applicable equally to everyone, has been sacrosanct – this idea that basically Good Rules are Enough.
Presumably the alternative to a neutral law applicable equally to everyone is... a non-neutral law that is not applicable equally to everyone? Yeah, I'll take the former over the latter, every time.
However, believing in the importance of equal justice under law is not the same thing as believing "Good Rules Are Enough."
Something can be necessary but not sufficient.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:58 PM on March 20, 2023 [1 favorite]
Presumably the alternative to a neutral law applicable equally to everyone is... a non-neutral law that is not applicable equally to everyone? Yeah, I'll take the former over the latter, every time.
However, believing in the importance of equal justice under law is not the same thing as believing "Good Rules Are Enough."
Something can be necessary but not sufficient.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:58 PM on March 20, 2023 [1 favorite]
To amplify smelendez’ excellent comment and reiterate a key part of my own previous comment that got overlooked in replies:
1. The students in question here are not the ones wielding institutional power.
2. The US First Amendment protects against unreasonable infringement on freedom of speech by government institutions. Not private entities.
3. Perhaps you disagree with the rulings, but US law has carved out all sort of seeming exceptions on mode, time, and location of speech - eg. “free speech zones” around protests - to prevent potential conflict. How would a private organization setting similar restrictions on a speaker who seems to be specifically planning activities in order to promote conflict be any different, aside from (a) the fact that didn’t happen in the case being discussed, and (b) the fact that, as a private organization, it is not a governmental organization to which the First Amendment more clearly and directly applies? To put it another way: why does this bigot get an exception from the sort of rules around mode, time, and location of speech that are applied to more leftist groups? (Which is also where my previous point about abrogations of speech rights by governments in Florida and Texas comes in.)
posted by eviemath at 8:04 PM on March 20, 2023 [14 favorites]
1. The students in question here are not the ones wielding institutional power.
2. The US First Amendment protects against unreasonable infringement on freedom of speech by government institutions. Not private entities.
3. Perhaps you disagree with the rulings, but US law has carved out all sort of seeming exceptions on mode, time, and location of speech - eg. “free speech zones” around protests - to prevent potential conflict. How would a private organization setting similar restrictions on a speaker who seems to be specifically planning activities in order to promote conflict be any different, aside from (a) the fact that didn’t happen in the case being discussed, and (b) the fact that, as a private organization, it is not a governmental organization to which the First Amendment more clearly and directly applies? To put it another way: why does this bigot get an exception from the sort of rules around mode, time, and location of speech that are applied to more leftist groups? (Which is also where my previous point about abrogations of speech rights by governments in Florida and Texas comes in.)
posted by eviemath at 8:04 PM on March 20, 2023 [14 favorites]
We're in the middle of a great realignment, and the struggle around it, so I understand the position, though (the free speech one, not Albright …). For a long time the idea of a neutral law, applicable equally to everyone, has been sacrosanct – this idea that basically Good Rules are Enough.
Free speech "absolutism" is built on a fundamental contradiction that I've called in other threads "this machine kills fascists" vs. "sticks and stones". Namely, the argument is that speech is a powerful force that can change the world...while being ephemeral and easily ignored by a person, no matter how hateful. It's an argument that doesn't stand up, especially since we have the research showing "sticks and stones" is a contemptable lie. Like this has been studied pretty thoroughly - words can cause physiological harm, let alone mental harm. And so, as the people who have historically been the ones paying the price of free speech have gained more of a voice, this fundamental contradiction has been more and more visible.
Only related, but I found this link originally from Gruber at Daring Fireball, and I find him wrong again today when he writes, "If you refuse to listen to people you disagree with, let alone try to prevent them from even speaking, how do you even know you disagree with them?"
The bigger problem is the dishonest bad faith use of "disagree" by Gruber there. I think the point was best laid out by an RPG.Net mod when they banned overt Trump support:
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:11 PM on March 20, 2023 [17 favorites]
Free speech "absolutism" is built on a fundamental contradiction that I've called in other threads "this machine kills fascists" vs. "sticks and stones". Namely, the argument is that speech is a powerful force that can change the world...while being ephemeral and easily ignored by a person, no matter how hateful. It's an argument that doesn't stand up, especially since we have the research showing "sticks and stones" is a contemptable lie. Like this has been studied pretty thoroughly - words can cause physiological harm, let alone mental harm. And so, as the people who have historically been the ones paying the price of free speech have gained more of a voice, this fundamental contradiction has been more and more visible.
Only related, but I found this link originally from Gruber at Daring Fireball, and I find him wrong again today when he writes, "If you refuse to listen to people you disagree with, let alone try to prevent them from even speaking, how do you even know you disagree with them?"
The bigger problem is the dishonest bad faith use of "disagree" by Gruber there. I think the point was best laid out by an RPG.Net mod when they banned overt Trump support:
No. You know what? Fuck that noise. Ethnic cleansing is not "different views." Racism is not "different views." White nationalism is not "different views." Dogwhistling that attacks against your political enemies will continue if the media doesn't stop saying things you don't like is not "different views." Putting children in cages is not "different views."This is also why White's "speech you don't like" line is dishonest and in bad faith - it's an attempt to vilify the protestors while ignoring their actual arguments, and why the proper response is to toss it back into his teeth and demand he point out what the "disagreement" is actually about.
This is not an argument over tax rates or the proper role of government in education. This is an argument about who will be allowed to exist in America.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:11 PM on March 20, 2023 [17 favorites]
Teachers are prohibited from teaching factually correct history in a number of states. Doctors in a number of states and anyone in Texas are prohibited from discussing how to obtain certain necessary medical care that is fully legal in other states. Teachers and others who work with kids are prohibited from discussing gender or many other lgbtq issues with kids. Books are being pulled from libraries and programs of study cut from universities on ideological grounds. This slippery slope end result we’re supposed to be worried about? Is already here and seems to be aided by the not just legally allowed but legally privileged (relative to opposing progressive or leftist views) but factually inaccurate (engaging in group/collective libel, except that’s not a recognized category in US law) and incendiary and promotion-of-violence-adjacent speech of folks like this Federalist Society guy. So maybe your arguments in favour of “free speech” should start with acknowledging the current facts on the ground instead of painting a fantasy picture of our current situation and relying on predictions of a fall from that fantasy state of grace. Otherwise they’re just a case of garbage-in-garbage-out, as logically reasoned arguments go.
posted by eviemath at 8:22 PM on March 20, 2023 [33 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 8:22 PM on March 20, 2023 [33 favorites]
Also, Federalist Society judges are often the ones upholding these other more direct violations of free speech rights by governments. Why doesn’t the “you shouldn’t try to prohibit the speech of people you disagree with lest similar restrictions get applied to you” not apply to them? It’s not really a threat - nor any sort of slope, slippery or sticky - if they never have to worry about even so much as having to adjust the mode, timing, or location of their exercise of speech. A non-governmental/non-institutional activist group of concerned folks shouting them down at an in-person event designed and planned to be confrontational seems to me to be an entirely appropriate response to their trampling all over the free speech rights of others - it clearly points out the hypocrisy without either completely preventing their ability to make their speech in other formats, times, or venues, nor entailing any First Amendment violations by governments.
posted by eviemath at 8:35 PM on March 20, 2023 [13 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 8:35 PM on March 20, 2023 [13 favorites]
The US First Amendment protects against unreasonable infringement on freedom of speech by government institutions. Not private entities.
"The Leonard Law is a California law passed in 1992 and amended in 2006 that applies the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to private and public colleges, high schools, and universities."
"What binds us doesn't bind them" is an adequate analysis only in the instance where you have a world split cleanly into parties A and B, with free choice of weaponry. We, on the other hand, live in a world where there is a large semi- or uncommitted audience to appeal to. Therefore, when considering whether to respect informal norms (i.e., ones that are not backed up by some formal legal mechanism), we need to take that into account. Which does not mean accepting every bad-faith right-wing spin on any controversial event, but does mean keeping in mind whether people will choose our values, and our visible commitment to our values, over the side's "values" and hypocrisy. (I don't think, for example, forcing Al Franken's resignation was a mistake.) Is that always going to be the overriding concern? No. But it's something to take in account much more than whether or not the right is ever going to adhere to those informal norms.
Now...my feeling is that deplatforming should be applied carefully and relatively sparingly, and a federal judge is not a great choice of target. But, in choosing whom to be most upset at--and I think it's clear who Popehat is most upset at, the group that gets the climax of his denunciation--I also think we should not lose sight of two things. First, that, in that room, the person with the actual power is the federal judge. And, second, that only one person in that room had a professional responsibility so strong as to verge on the sacred to appear judicious, restrained, and impartial at all times in public, and it was the goddamned federal judge, not the 23-year-olds. The willingness of a number of Trump judges to take the august institution of the judiciary, whose power in the end rests to a considerable degree on the public recognition of its legitimacy, wisdom, and relative impartiality, and just openly take a dump on that, genuinely breaks my heart.
posted by praemunire at 9:39 PM on March 20, 2023 [7 favorites]
"The Leonard Law is a California law passed in 1992 and amended in 2006 that applies the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to private and public colleges, high schools, and universities."
"What binds us doesn't bind them" is an adequate analysis only in the instance where you have a world split cleanly into parties A and B, with free choice of weaponry. We, on the other hand, live in a world where there is a large semi- or uncommitted audience to appeal to. Therefore, when considering whether to respect informal norms (i.e., ones that are not backed up by some formal legal mechanism), we need to take that into account. Which does not mean accepting every bad-faith right-wing spin on any controversial event, but does mean keeping in mind whether people will choose our values, and our visible commitment to our values, over the side's "values" and hypocrisy. (I don't think, for example, forcing Al Franken's resignation was a mistake.) Is that always going to be the overriding concern? No. But it's something to take in account much more than whether or not the right is ever going to adhere to those informal norms.
Now...my feeling is that deplatforming should be applied carefully and relatively sparingly, and a federal judge is not a great choice of target. But, in choosing whom to be most upset at--and I think it's clear who Popehat is most upset at, the group that gets the climax of his denunciation--I also think we should not lose sight of two things. First, that, in that room, the person with the actual power is the federal judge. And, second, that only one person in that room had a professional responsibility so strong as to verge on the sacred to appear judicious, restrained, and impartial at all times in public, and it was the goddamned federal judge, not the 23-year-olds. The willingness of a number of Trump judges to take the august institution of the judiciary, whose power in the end rests to a considerable degree on the public recognition of its legitimacy, wisdom, and relative impartiality, and just openly take a dump on that, genuinely breaks my heart.
posted by praemunire at 9:39 PM on March 20, 2023 [7 favorites]
So … shouldn’t judges be soberly addressing the facts and the laws in cases that come before them, and lay sort of low on their personal beliefs? I’m not sure he should be traveling the land getting paid to make super - controversial speeches. I realize I’m preaching to the choir , but that’s the real problem, not some students yelling.
Look at the code of conduct for federal judges. It’s laughably honored more in the breach.
posted by caviar2d2 at 10:47 PM on March 20, 2023 [5 favorites]
Look at the code of conduct for federal judges. It’s laughably honored more in the breach.
posted by caviar2d2 at 10:47 PM on March 20, 2023 [5 favorites]
Oh look, a Ken White piece. Let me guess, he gives another terminal lawyer-brain take where he says he's the only person who understands free speech and both the left and right are wrong, yet reserves his harsher condemnation/condescension for left-wing students.
*reading the piece*
Yep. At least he didn't talk about people sticking their dicks in beehives, which was the bizarre comparison he tweeted at me when I made a post that criticized him. It wasn't even @ing him; either someone forwarded it to him or he searches his own name. Then he blocked me.
posted by AlSweigart at 11:00 PM on March 20, 2023 [11 favorites]
*reading the piece*
Yep. At least he didn't talk about people sticking their dicks in beehives, which was the bizarre comparison he tweeted at me when I made a post that criticized him. It wasn't even @ing him; either someone forwarded it to him or he searches his own name. Then he blocked me.
posted by AlSweigart at 11:00 PM on March 20, 2023 [11 favorites]
Mod note: As a quick reminder since the word was used earlier, please make an effort to avoid using "crazy" as a catch-all term for weird, strange, illogical, etc. (more info; Mefi microagressions page). Thanks.
posted by taz (staff) at 12:09 AM on March 21, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 12:09 AM on March 21, 2023 [4 favorites]
It’s just pearl-clutchers all the way down.
posted by Bella Donna at 1:04 AM on March 21, 2023
posted by Bella Donna at 1:04 AM on March 21, 2023
So, ummm.... what are we supposed to do when judge duncan comes to town? The thread has people getting far angrier at each other than at the right wing stooge and the protestors who started the whole thing.
posted by humuhumu at 1:28 AM on March 21, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by humuhumu at 1:28 AM on March 21, 2023 [3 favorites]
Well, Bari Weiss has certainly played that game... after herself being involved in going after Palestinian academics at Columbia, IIRC. It didn't ultimately work out so well for her at the NY Times.
What happens to Bari Weiss isn't what matters though. Academics who support Palestinians are routinely blocked & suppressed in American academia for their beliefs. The strategy of the Bari Weisses is effective at it's goal even if a particular Bari Weiss is not able to parlay it into a career.
posted by srboisvert at 1:46 AM on March 21, 2023 [2 favorites]
What happens to Bari Weiss isn't what matters though. Academics who support Palestinians are routinely blocked & suppressed in American academia for their beliefs. The strategy of the Bari Weisses is effective at it's goal even if a particular Bari Weiss is not able to parlay it into a career.
posted by srboisvert at 1:46 AM on March 21, 2023 [2 favorites]
So, ummm.... what are we supposed to do when judge duncan comes to town?
Invite someone to speak on the same date who triggers the Federalist society so they have to choose between listening to Duncan and coming out to protest our speaker. Throw a party, schedule a concert, put on a drag show. Anything but giving Duncan the shouting match that he came to town looking for.
posted by straight at 2:50 AM on March 21, 2023 [6 favorites]
Invite someone to speak on the same date who triggers the Federalist society so they have to choose between listening to Duncan and coming out to protest our speaker. Throw a party, schedule a concert, put on a drag show. Anything but giving Duncan the shouting match that he came to town looking for.
posted by straight at 2:50 AM on March 21, 2023 [6 favorites]
Anything but giving Duncan the shouting match that he came to town looking for.
So basically anything other than actually debating him in the public square?
I understand the desire to not feed the trolls, but when has that strategy ever actually worked? Provocateurs gonna provoke. It's not like he's going to take being ignored (or even trolled in retaliation) as a sign that the marketplace of ideas isn't buying what he's selling and retreat into the wilderness. He's just going to stage something even more provocative until he gets the reaction he wants to send home to his supporters.
People often say that funerals aren't for the dead but rather for the living. He's not speaking at Stanford to make his case and promote his ideas, he's there to burnish his image as a culture warrior and legitimize the beliefs of his supporters. And because of that, the whole point of the students directly confronting him and shouting him off the stage is to demonstrate that a there's a large group of people who won't stand for the kind of shit he represents. It may not be a "debate" in the classical sense and we might chafe at the idea of it all boiling down to which side can shout the loudest, but that's where we are. If the students stay quiet, he's just going to claim victory and declare the support of the silent majority.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:24 AM on March 21, 2023 [5 favorites]
So basically anything other than actually debating him in the public square?
I understand the desire to not feed the trolls, but when has that strategy ever actually worked? Provocateurs gonna provoke. It's not like he's going to take being ignored (or even trolled in retaliation) as a sign that the marketplace of ideas isn't buying what he's selling and retreat into the wilderness. He's just going to stage something even more provocative until he gets the reaction he wants to send home to his supporters.
People often say that funerals aren't for the dead but rather for the living. He's not speaking at Stanford to make his case and promote his ideas, he's there to burnish his image as a culture warrior and legitimize the beliefs of his supporters. And because of that, the whole point of the students directly confronting him and shouting him off the stage is to demonstrate that a there's a large group of people who won't stand for the kind of shit he represents. It may not be a "debate" in the classical sense and we might chafe at the idea of it all boiling down to which side can shout the loudest, but that's where we are. If the students stay quiet, he's just going to claim victory and declare the support of the silent majority.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:24 AM on March 21, 2023 [5 favorites]
Leftist groups are ALREADY GETTING THEIR HANDS BOUND. WTO protestors got their faces smashed. Iraq war protestors were kettled and gassed. Occupy was all of the above AND a private-public partnership to surveil. BLM was when we saw parts of the state let right wing militias join police repression of lefties. And loooong before this, cops were setting dogs (or lynching!) civil rights protestors. The hell MLK wouldn't have done well under Skokie, that movement went out under actual physical repression.
I don't want the nazis to get special treatment, I want the cops to be as suddenly amnesiac to black bloc kicking them in the teeth as they are with the Proud Boys drawing blood from people defending (NOT counter protesting, DEFENDING) LGBT events like drag story hour.
The speech absolutists infuriate me from a "guess lefties don't count then, asshole?" position in addition to the institutionalist, outcome agnostic, and willfully blind ones.
posted by Slackermagee at 5:31 AM on March 21, 2023 [15 favorites]
I don't want the nazis to get special treatment, I want the cops to be as suddenly amnesiac to black bloc kicking them in the teeth as they are with the Proud Boys drawing blood from people defending (NOT counter protesting, DEFENDING) LGBT events like drag story hour.
The speech absolutists infuriate me from a "guess lefties don't count then, asshole?" position in addition to the institutionalist, outcome agnostic, and willfully blind ones.
posted by Slackermagee at 5:31 AM on March 21, 2023 [15 favorites]
I get it. I get why Ken White has his blog and gets his writing posted to .Metafilter. He sounds smart and oh so reasonable at first. Then he goes all dicks-in-beehives and I realized he's just some guy with a website.
If you want to know the reason Ken White is so willing (so willing) to go into the abstract technicalities of legal precedent and constitutional law in these cases, you just have to ask yourself this: what do the KKK, literal Nazis, and far-right Trump Republican appointees all have in common?
It's that nothing bad will happen to Ken White if they seize power. That's why he can be so blasé and frame it all as, "speech you don't like."
The KKK is a terrorist group with a hundred year history of violence. The Nazis wanted to eradicate Jews and several other people, and when we were done bombing, shelling, and shooting them, we sent the rest to trials for their crimes against humanity. We don't have to wonder what the goals of these groups are. We know they don't seek to win hearts and minds in the "marketplace of ideas."
And if you object to me putting Trump and co in this same category, even after Jan 6, then I hope you have the same level of privilege as Ken White to afford such apathy. Cause it's going to be hard to exercise our free speech when you're handcuffed and hooded next to the rest of us.
posted by AlSweigart at 5:31 AM on March 21, 2023 [16 favorites]
If you want to know the reason Ken White is so willing (so willing) to go into the abstract technicalities of legal precedent and constitutional law in these cases, you just have to ask yourself this: what do the KKK, literal Nazis, and far-right Trump Republican appointees all have in common?
It's that nothing bad will happen to Ken White if they seize power. That's why he can be so blasé and frame it all as, "speech you don't like."
The KKK is a terrorist group with a hundred year history of violence. The Nazis wanted to eradicate Jews and several other people, and when we were done bombing, shelling, and shooting them, we sent the rest to trials for their crimes against humanity. We don't have to wonder what the goals of these groups are. We know they don't seek to win hearts and minds in the "marketplace of ideas."
And if you object to me putting Trump and co in this same category, even after Jan 6, then I hope you have the same level of privilege as Ken White to afford such apathy. Cause it's going to be hard to exercise our free speech when you're handcuffed and hooded next to the rest of us.
posted by AlSweigart at 5:31 AM on March 21, 2023 [16 favorites]
and if the students don't stay quiet, he's also going to claim victory and thus receive the support of the "silent majority".
beans is what threads this needle best I say; let them get a whiff of the real silent majority.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 6:05 AM on March 21, 2023
beans is what threads this needle best I say; let them get a whiff of the real silent majority.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 6:05 AM on March 21, 2023
So, ummm.... what are we supposed to do when judge duncan comes to town?
Either counter-programming, as straight suggested, or attending and pointing out his assholery, as white implicitly suggested when he wrote, "Judge Duncan engaged in a 'dialogue' with students characterized by petulance and unseriousness, both exchanging insults with protestors and treating even legitimate (if pointed) questions as insults." "Pointed questions" aren't going to help when faced with, for example, the very fine people in Charlottesville, but they can when a federal judge is pretending to be an intellectual on a college campus.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 6:12 AM on March 21, 2023 [1 favorite]
Either counter-programming, as straight suggested, or attending and pointing out his assholery, as white implicitly suggested when he wrote, "Judge Duncan engaged in a 'dialogue' with students characterized by petulance and unseriousness, both exchanging insults with protestors and treating even legitimate (if pointed) questions as insults." "Pointed questions" aren't going to help when faced with, for example, the very fine people in Charlottesville, but they can when a federal judge is pretending to be an intellectual on a college campus.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 6:12 AM on March 21, 2023 [1 favorite]
Stanford, institutionally, made it much worse, sending an associate dean to do a grown-up’s job
Love it. After 5 years as a university support staffer, I learned that nobody ever sat down in a 7th grade class and daydreamed about being an associate dean, and it shows.
posted by ocschwar at 6:28 AM on March 21, 2023 [2 favorites]
Love it. After 5 years as a university support staffer, I learned that nobody ever sat down in a 7th grade class and daydreamed about being an associate dean, and it shows.
posted by ocschwar at 6:28 AM on March 21, 2023 [2 favorites]
Well, Bari Weiss has certainly played that game... after herself being involved in going after Palestinian academics at Columbia, IIRC. It didn't ultimately work out so well for her at the NY Times.
Weiss spent a couple of years actively antagonizing people at the NYT and ultimately quit in frustration that the NYT wouldn't obligingly fire her and let her play the martyr, then started up a Substack and pretended she was a martyr who'd been fired for her beliefs to attract right-wing subscriber dollars. I'd say her stint at the NYT worked out very well for her and went almost exactly as she intended.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:13 AM on March 21, 2023 [5 favorites]
Weiss spent a couple of years actively antagonizing people at the NYT and ultimately quit in frustration that the NYT wouldn't obligingly fire her and let her play the martyr, then started up a Substack and pretended she was a martyr who'd been fired for her beliefs to attract right-wing subscriber dollars. I'd say her stint at the NYT worked out very well for her and went almost exactly as she intended.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:13 AM on March 21, 2023 [5 favorites]
/Well, Bari Weiss has certainly played that game... after herself being involved in going after Palestinian academics at Columbia, IIRC. It didn't ultimately work out so well for her at The NY Times
She was like 27 years old, completely talentless, and landed a job as an op ed writer for the times. You can’t possibly be spinning this as a cancellation.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:44 AM on March 21, 2023 [3 favorites]
She was like 27 years old, completely talentless, and landed a job as an op ed writer for the times. You can’t possibly be spinning this as a cancellation.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:44 AM on March 21, 2023 [3 favorites]
If you want to know the reason Ken White is so willing (so willing) to go into the abstract technicalities of legal precedent and constitutional law in these cases, you just have to
Um, you just have to recall that the dude's a lawyer.
posted by ocschwar at 8:18 AM on March 21, 2023 [4 favorites]
Ken White keeps saying that Kyle Duncan isn't dumb, and is smart, but I'm not sure he's made a particularly convincing case for either proposition.
posted by running order squabble fest at 8:24 AM on March 21, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by running order squabble fest at 8:24 AM on March 21, 2023 [2 favorites]
Either counter-programming, as straight suggested, or attending and pointing out his assholery
This is not quite a response, but a relevant anecdote: in this very century, a law journal at a leading law school invited a Supreme Court justice known for his position that anti-sodomy laws (obviously, laws intended to criminalize gay sex) were not unconstitutional to an event that included a Q&A. One of the questioners calmly asked him whether he ever sodomized his wife. The resulting uproar was historic. However, among the many criticisms hurled at the student, I don't believe one was that he was attacking free speech.
posted by praemunire at 8:26 AM on March 21, 2023 [6 favorites]
This is not quite a response, but a relevant anecdote: in this very century, a law journal at a leading law school invited a Supreme Court justice known for his position that anti-sodomy laws (obviously, laws intended to criminalize gay sex) were not unconstitutional to an event that included a Q&A. One of the questioners calmly asked him whether he ever sodomized his wife. The resulting uproar was historic. However, among the many criticisms hurled at the student, I don't believe one was that he was attacking free speech.
posted by praemunire at 8:26 AM on March 21, 2023 [6 favorites]
Ken White keeps saying that Kyle Duncan isn't dumb, and is smart, but I'm not sure he's made a particularly convincing case for either proposition.
Performative childishness has become a huge part of right wing politics. But underestimate the intelligence of the performers at your peril.
posted by ocschwar at 8:42 AM on March 21, 2023 [3 favorites]
Performative childishness has become a huge part of right wing politics. But underestimate the intelligence of the performers at your peril.
posted by ocschwar at 8:42 AM on March 21, 2023 [3 favorites]
I note that a lot of left-wing groups in this country started to get smart about this after Charlottesville. That's why they mostly stayed away from D.C. on January 6 -- it was a strategic refusal to give the Trumpists the street fights they were looking for. That was a very wise decision, IMO.
I mean, they attacked Congress and got off with minor slaps on the wrist. I think they found a fight and won.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:47 AM on March 21, 2023 [1 favorite]
I mean, they attacked Congress and got off with minor slaps on the wrist. I think they found a fight and won.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:47 AM on March 21, 2023 [1 favorite]
Performative childishness has become a huge part of right wing politics.
As several commentors have pointed out, the whole purpose of Duncan's move here was to increase his visibility for a SCOTUS seat opening under a Republican administration.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:52 AM on March 21, 2023 [2 favorites]
As several commentors have pointed out, the whole purpose of Duncan's move here was to increase his visibility for a SCOTUS seat opening under a Republican administration.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:52 AM on March 21, 2023 [2 favorites]
You can ban hate speech without the country being a tyranny. This is known and proven and tested in the real world. Which means, if your defence of hate speech in the USA is that you want to avoid tyranny, then you are either ignorant or lying or wrong.
Hate speech -- support of the KKK, NAZI party or Racial Purity movements -- are a kind of death threat. In the USA, death threats that are against a broad category of people is protected speech. In much of the world, that ridiculous exception isn't true, and death threats - hate speech - is illegal. And the places where this has been banned have not fallen into tyranny at a particularly fast rate.
The USA isn't "magically" different than every other place on Earth that has banned NAZI rallies.
posted by NotAYakk at 9:13 AM on March 21, 2023 [7 favorites]
Hate speech -- support of the KKK, NAZI party or Racial Purity movements -- are a kind of death threat. In the USA, death threats that are against a broad category of people is protected speech. In much of the world, that ridiculous exception isn't true, and death threats - hate speech - is illegal. And the places where this has been banned have not fallen into tyranny at a particularly fast rate.
The USA isn't "magically" different than every other place on Earth that has banned NAZI rallies.
posted by NotAYakk at 9:13 AM on March 21, 2023 [7 favorites]
The USA isn't "magically" different than every other place on Earth that has banned NAZI rallies.
It kind of is, though, because the Nazis make up half the government and more than half of the Supreme Court.
I’m not a free speech absolutist and I’m in favor of hate speech legislation but I don’t see how it gets passed in our current environment without being simultaneously defanged and weaponized against trans people, racial minorities, etc.
posted by joannemerriam at 9:23 AM on March 21, 2023 [4 favorites]
It kind of is, though, because the Nazis make up half the government and more than half of the Supreme Court.
I’m not a free speech absolutist and I’m in favor of hate speech legislation but I don’t see how it gets passed in our current environment without being simultaneously defanged and weaponized against trans people, racial minorities, etc.
posted by joannemerriam at 9:23 AM on March 21, 2023 [4 favorites]
Anything but giving Duncan the shouting match that he came to town looking for.
So basically anything other than actually debating him in the public square? I understand the desire to not feed the trolls, but when has that strategy ever actually worked?
I'm not sure how anyone could mistake a screaming match, in which protesters are trying to stop a speech, for a "debate in the public square".
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:43 AM on March 21, 2023
So basically anything other than actually debating him in the public square? I understand the desire to not feed the trolls, but when has that strategy ever actually worked?
I'm not sure how anyone could mistake a screaming match, in which protesters are trying to stop a speech, for a "debate in the public square".
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:43 AM on March 21, 2023
She was like 27 years old, completely talentless, and landed a job as an op ed writer for the times. You can’t possibly be spinning this as a cancellation.
You are correct, I wasn't spinning it as a cancellation!
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:44 AM on March 21, 2023 [1 favorite]
You are correct, I wasn't spinning it as a cancellation!
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:44 AM on March 21, 2023 [1 favorite]
Performative childishness has become a huge part of right wing politics.
A huge part of politics, period.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:45 AM on March 21, 2023 [1 favorite]
A huge part of politics, period.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:45 AM on March 21, 2023 [1 favorite]
I’m not a free speech absolutist and I’m in favor of hate speech legislation but I don’t see how it gets passed in our current environment without being simultaneously defanged and weaponized against trans people, racial minorities, etc.
Which is why we need to change the environment and get people to realize the actual harm and damage hate speech causes, and that hate speech is not the price of free speech - and this has been happening, especially as the groups targeted by hate speech gain stronger voices. Again, this has been outing the fundamental contradiction of free speech "absolutism", and its adherents have struggled to deal with this.
A huge part of politics, period.
Nah, that both sides argument can kindly go fuck off. Only one side of the aisle has made performative assholery and cruelty part of their brand.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:52 AM on March 21, 2023 [5 favorites]
Which is why we need to change the environment and get people to realize the actual harm and damage hate speech causes, and that hate speech is not the price of free speech - and this has been happening, especially as the groups targeted by hate speech gain stronger voices. Again, this has been outing the fundamental contradiction of free speech "absolutism", and its adherents have struggled to deal with this.
A huge part of politics, period.
Nah, that both sides argument can kindly go fuck off. Only one side of the aisle has made performative assholery and cruelty part of their brand.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:52 AM on March 21, 2023 [5 favorites]
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." — Voltaire Evelyn Beatrice Hall
posted by kirkaracha at 10:53 AM on March 21, 2023
posted by kirkaracha at 10:53 AM on March 21, 2023
This was not the film criticism I thought it would be.
Honest Trailers | Everything Everywhere All At Once
posted by kirkaracha at 10:54 AM on March 21, 2023
Honest Trailers | Everything Everywhere All At Once
posted by kirkaracha at 10:54 AM on March 21, 2023
Performative childishness has become a huge part of right wing politics.
A huge part of politics, period.
Nah, that both sides argument can kindly go fuck off. Only one side of the aisle has made performative assholery and cruelty part of their brand.
You just moved the goalposts several miles, from "childishness" to "performative assholery and cruelty", which are completely different things.
"Both sides" are by no means the same in all respects, but there's plenty of childishness in all quarters. This story features a group of literal children, acting their age. I stand on my previous statement.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:16 PM on March 21, 2023 [3 favorites]
A huge part of politics, period.
Nah, that both sides argument can kindly go fuck off. Only one side of the aisle has made performative assholery and cruelty part of their brand.
You just moved the goalposts several miles, from "childishness" to "performative assholery and cruelty", which are completely different things.
"Both sides" are by no means the same in all respects, but there's plenty of childishness in all quarters. This story features a group of literal children, acting their age. I stand on my previous statement.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:16 PM on March 21, 2023 [3 favorites]
I'm not sure how anyone could mistake a screaming match, in which protesters are trying to stop a speech, for a "debate in the public square".
Respectfully, what do you imagine a debate in the public square looked like in 1791?
The founders were quite familiar with the ideal of decorum, yet they declined to mention it in the first amendment. They declined to mention universities. They declined to carve out heckling as unprotected speech. I’m pretty sure they knew what heckling was!
I struggle to see how anyone could read the constitution to elevate decorum above speech. I understand why people want it to do that. There is a near-universal desire for a world in which it is illegal for anyone to be mad at you as long as you fill out the right forms. Constitutionally-protected decorum is a step in that direction. Many long for the constitution to protect universities from their students, or speakers from their venues. But that’s not what the constitution says.
I also want to call out the FIRE essay Popehat linked. It misconstrues the narrow authority of the government to enforce time, manner, and place restrictions on hecklers by implying (but not quite saying) that hecklers are affirmatively violating the first amendment rights of speakers in the absence of time, manner, and place restrictions. It also misrepresents the legal meaning of a heckler’s veto. Boo! You lie!
I’m going to end with a joke. I don’t mean to trivialize the distressing trend of people twisting the right to free speech to justify the tyrannical suppression of speech. But I think it’s important to remember that the only way to stop a bad guy yelling “dogfucker!” is a good guy yelling “dogfucker!”
posted by Ptrin at 12:25 PM on March 21, 2023 [3 favorites]
Respectfully, what do you imagine a debate in the public square looked like in 1791?
The founders were quite familiar with the ideal of decorum, yet they declined to mention it in the first amendment. They declined to mention universities. They declined to carve out heckling as unprotected speech. I’m pretty sure they knew what heckling was!
I struggle to see how anyone could read the constitution to elevate decorum above speech. I understand why people want it to do that. There is a near-universal desire for a world in which it is illegal for anyone to be mad at you as long as you fill out the right forms. Constitutionally-protected decorum is a step in that direction. Many long for the constitution to protect universities from their students, or speakers from their venues. But that’s not what the constitution says.
I also want to call out the FIRE essay Popehat linked. It misconstrues the narrow authority of the government to enforce time, manner, and place restrictions on hecklers by implying (but not quite saying) that hecklers are affirmatively violating the first amendment rights of speakers in the absence of time, manner, and place restrictions. It also misrepresents the legal meaning of a heckler’s veto. Boo! You lie!
I’m going to end with a joke. I don’t mean to trivialize the distressing trend of people twisting the right to free speech to justify the tyrannical suppression of speech. But I think it’s important to remember that the only way to stop a bad guy yelling “dogfucker!” is a good guy yelling “dogfucker!”
posted by Ptrin at 12:25 PM on March 21, 2023 [3 favorites]
I also want to call out the FIRE essay Popehat linked. It misconstrues the narrow authority of the government to enforce time, manner, and place restrictions on hecklers by implying (but not quite saying) that hecklers are affirmatively violating the first amendment rights of speakers in the absence of time, manner, and place restrictions.
The preferred first speaker fallacy is something that is endemic in free speech "absolutism". People tend to forget that nobody owes you a soapbox, and "fuck you" is a perfectly acceptable response to hate.
"Both sides" are by no means the same in all respects, but there's plenty of childishness in all quarters.
Your argument is still bullshit, because at the end of the day, the reality is that one side was there to advocate for hate and one side was there to support those targeted by hate, and calling them all "childish" just serves to dismiss that context. Also...
Think of the clashes between communists and fascists in the streets of Weimar Germany. The KPD comrades who were getting into brawls with brownshirts no doubt thought they were defending all that was true and good and right, but actually they were just helping the Nazis -- pouring more gas on the flames consuming society -- accelerating the chaos, alienating the majority, and making the Nazi promise of "law and order" seem like a relief to many normies.
Here's the thing - history doesn't bear this out, and we know this because the NDSAP never got a majority of seats in the Reichstag. So the idea that the "normies" - that is, regular German citizens - were flocking to their banner for safety doesn't really track. No, the people who were terrified by the rise of the German communists were the German elite - Hindenberg and his faction - who chose to sell out to the Nazis because they thought they could control them as a counter to the growing support for left wing groups in the public. Needless to say, they thought wrong.
If this sounds familiar, it's because history likes to rhyme.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:05 PM on March 21, 2023 [7 favorites]
The preferred first speaker fallacy is something that is endemic in free speech "absolutism". People tend to forget that nobody owes you a soapbox, and "fuck you" is a perfectly acceptable response to hate.
"Both sides" are by no means the same in all respects, but there's plenty of childishness in all quarters.
Your argument is still bullshit, because at the end of the day, the reality is that one side was there to advocate for hate and one side was there to support those targeted by hate, and calling them all "childish" just serves to dismiss that context. Also...
Think of the clashes between communists and fascists in the streets of Weimar Germany. The KPD comrades who were getting into brawls with brownshirts no doubt thought they were defending all that was true and good and right, but actually they were just helping the Nazis -- pouring more gas on the flames consuming society -- accelerating the chaos, alienating the majority, and making the Nazi promise of "law and order" seem like a relief to many normies.
Here's the thing - history doesn't bear this out, and we know this because the NDSAP never got a majority of seats in the Reichstag. So the idea that the "normies" - that is, regular German citizens - were flocking to their banner for safety doesn't really track. No, the people who were terrified by the rise of the German communists were the German elite - Hindenberg and his faction - who chose to sell out to the Nazis because they thought they could control them as a counter to the growing support for left wing groups in the public. Needless to say, they thought wrong.
If this sounds familiar, it's because history likes to rhyme.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:05 PM on March 21, 2023 [7 favorites]
This story features a group of literal children, acting their age.
College students are not children. Neither are adults, no matter how immature and childish they may act.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:47 PM on March 21, 2023 [4 favorites]
College students are not children. Neither are adults, no matter how immature and childish they may act.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:47 PM on March 21, 2023 [4 favorites]
We did recently have an exercise in political theater that featured literal children and which did force discourse to improve on part of politicians who did not want the children to be seen as the adults in the room.
Honestly, I think we need to step that sort of thing up. Get high schoolers from the DC area to be present at every congressional hearing and get them to offer comments at regular intervals. It did work nicely for a while.
posted by ocschwar at 1:58 PM on March 21, 2023
Honestly, I think we need to step that sort of thing up. Get high schoolers from the DC area to be present at every congressional hearing and get them to offer comments at regular intervals. It did work nicely for a while.
posted by ocschwar at 1:58 PM on March 21, 2023
"Both sides" are by no means the same in all respects, but there's plenty of childishness in all quarters.
Your argument is still bullshit, because at the end of the day, the reality is that one side was there to advocate for hate and one side was there to support those targeted by hate, and calling them all "childish" just serves to dismiss that context.
Another attempt to shift goalposts.
I was talking about the actions of the parties, not the causes being advocated for.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 2:59 PM on March 21, 2023
Your argument is still bullshit, because at the end of the day, the reality is that one side was there to advocate for hate and one side was there to support those targeted by hate, and calling them all "childish" just serves to dismiss that context.
Another attempt to shift goalposts.
I was talking about the actions of the parties, not the causes being advocated for.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 2:59 PM on March 21, 2023
Here's the thing - history doesn't bear this out, and we know this because the NDSAP never got a majority of seats in the Reichstag.
I didn't say they did. Nonetheless, I stand by my description of the method of fascism as the instigation of public conflict and chaos to justify imposition of rigid order. Speaking of the Reichstag: Ever hear of a certain famous fire?
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:02 PM on March 21, 2023
I didn't say they did. Nonetheless, I stand by my description of the method of fascism as the instigation of public conflict and chaos to justify imposition of rigid order. Speaking of the Reichstag: Ever hear of a certain famous fire?
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:02 PM on March 21, 2023
they were just helping the Nazis -- pouring more gas on the flames consuming...
Here's the thing - ...
If this sounds familiar, it's because history likes to rhyme.
I tend to agree with the general history. But another thing the last free election saw more people vote for Nazis the any other of then 51 parties running, 51. The call for more drastic measures to curtail the communist/socialist was well in place before 1932 were out of 44 million registered voters, 35 million voted. The Nazis got 11.7 million, %33 of the vote. What important, after the Hindenburg Fire©, The Enabling acts ended all that was merry including free speech. Germany, as a whole country did not have another free election until 1990.
posted by clavdivs at 3:02 PM on March 21, 2023 [3 favorites]
Here's the thing - ...
If this sounds familiar, it's because history likes to rhyme.
I tend to agree with the general history. But another thing the last free election saw more people vote for Nazis the any other of then 51 parties running, 51. The call for more drastic measures to curtail the communist/socialist was well in place before 1932 were out of 44 million registered voters, 35 million voted. The Nazis got 11.7 million, %33 of the vote. What important, after the Hindenburg Fire©, The Enabling acts ended all that was merry including free speech. Germany, as a whole country did not have another free election until 1990.
posted by clavdivs at 3:02 PM on March 21, 2023 [3 favorites]
College students are not children.
Some of them are. And as I mentioned before, prefrontal cortical development doesn't wrap up until people are well into their twenties.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:03 PM on March 21, 2023 [1 favorite]
Some of them are. And as I mentioned before, prefrontal cortical development doesn't wrap up until people are well into their twenties.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:03 PM on March 21, 2023 [1 favorite]
Ok so you’re using your own pet definition of children to mean “anyone whose prefrontal cortex is not fully developed” which is neither a technical or a colloquial definition.
Speaking of definitions:
Nonetheless, I stand by my description of the method of fascism as the instigation of public conflict and chaos to justify imposition of rigid order. Speaking of the Reichstag: Ever hear of a certain famous fire?
Some of us have done more than read a Wikipedia page! This is big standard politics.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:14 PM on March 21, 2023 [3 favorites]
Speaking of definitions:
Nonetheless, I stand by my description of the method of fascism as the instigation of public conflict and chaos to justify imposition of rigid order. Speaking of the Reichstag: Ever hear of a certain famous fire?
Some of us have done more than read a Wikipedia page! This is big standard politics.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:14 PM on March 21, 2023 [3 favorites]
But another thing the last free election saw more people vote for Nazis the any other of then 51 parties running, 51.
And the SPD (the main left wing German party) and the KPD combined took 36% of the vote in that election. Furthermore, while the Nazis may have had the highest vote totals, they actually saw their vote share fall by four percentage points, while the KPD saw theirs rise by two and 1/2. Hence why Hindenberg tosses in with the NSDAP and why the Nazis ultimately seize power - because they could see the German left growing in power, and Nazi support was stalling out.
So, why the historical analysis? Well:
I didn't say they did. Nonetheless, I stand by my description of the method of fascism as the instigation of public conflict and chaos to justify imposition of rigid order. Speaking of the Reichstag: Ever hear of a certain famous fire?
You are arguing for a position that the historical record contradicts. The Nazis were never able to secure anything more than a small plurality and were seeing their support shrinking - which was why the Reichstag fire happens, because the Nazis realized they could never take power legitimately. Again, they weren't handed power by the German people, but by the German elite terrified of the left wing coming to power, followed by a naked power grab.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:48 PM on March 21, 2023 [3 favorites]
And the SPD (the main left wing German party) and the KPD combined took 36% of the vote in that election. Furthermore, while the Nazis may have had the highest vote totals, they actually saw their vote share fall by four percentage points, while the KPD saw theirs rise by two and 1/2. Hence why Hindenberg tosses in with the NSDAP and why the Nazis ultimately seize power - because they could see the German left growing in power, and Nazi support was stalling out.
So, why the historical analysis? Well:
I didn't say they did. Nonetheless, I stand by my description of the method of fascism as the instigation of public conflict and chaos to justify imposition of rigid order. Speaking of the Reichstag: Ever hear of a certain famous fire?
You are arguing for a position that the historical record contradicts. The Nazis were never able to secure anything more than a small plurality and were seeing their support shrinking - which was why the Reichstag fire happens, because the Nazis realized they could never take power legitimately. Again, they weren't handed power by the German people, but by the German elite terrified of the left wing coming to power, followed by a naked power grab.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:48 PM on March 21, 2023 [3 favorites]
Another attempt to shift goalposts.
I was talking about the actions of the parties, not the causes being advocated for.
This is the same sort of bad faith argumentation that "speech you don't like" is built on. You are wanting to sever the actions from the positions because it's the only way even make a "both sides" argument look even remotely credible. But the reality is that you can't sever the two because doing so removes context in what often times winds up being a form of tone policing because as it turns out, having one's personhood attacked tends to make people act more intemperately, for obvious reasons - and people like Duncan are relying on people like you taking this position to undercut the people opposing him.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:00 PM on March 21, 2023 [4 favorites]
I was talking about the actions of the parties, not the causes being advocated for.
This is the same sort of bad faith argumentation that "speech you don't like" is built on. You are wanting to sever the actions from the positions because it's the only way even make a "both sides" argument look even remotely credible. But the reality is that you can't sever the two because doing so removes context in what often times winds up being a form of tone policing because as it turns out, having one's personhood attacked tends to make people act more intemperately, for obvious reasons - and people like Duncan are relying on people like you taking this position to undercut the people opposing him.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:00 PM on March 21, 2023 [4 favorites]
because the Nazis realized they could never take power legitimately.
Facts, how ever ugly are important.
"There are some misconceptions about how Hitler came to power. It is important to understand that:
"Hitler did not seize power in a coup;
and Hitler was not directly elected to power.
Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power through Germany’s legal political processes."
If you cannot grasp that horrid little fact your rebuttal sounds like, well, I don't know what since you cannot get one basic fact correct: how a madman used law to kill millions.
"This is the same sort of bad faith argumentation that "speech you don't like" is built on"
posted by clavdivs at 6:31 PM on March 21, 2023 [1 favorite]
Facts, how ever ugly are important.
"There are some misconceptions about how Hitler came to power. It is important to understand that:
"Hitler did not seize power in a coup;
and Hitler was not directly elected to power.
Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power through Germany’s legal political processes."
If you cannot grasp that horrid little fact your rebuttal sounds like, well, I don't know what since you cannot get one basic fact correct: how a madman used law to kill millions.
"This is the same sort of bad faith argumentation that "speech you don't like" is built on"
posted by clavdivs at 6:31 PM on March 21, 2023 [1 favorite]
the whole "prefrontal cortex is not fully developed" comes up a bunch in anti-trans propaganda and is really a way to dismiss people who can have valid and reasoned opinions as well as self-awareness and clear understandings of what's going on
i mean, given the number of "adults in the room" who supposedly do have developed prefrontal cortexes and yet are completely shit human beings, I'm not sure that point carries the weight people seem to think it does
posted by kokaku at 7:25 PM on March 21, 2023 [4 favorites]
i mean, given the number of "adults in the room" who supposedly do have developed prefrontal cortexes and yet are completely shit human beings, I'm not sure that point carries the weight people seem to think it does
posted by kokaku at 7:25 PM on March 21, 2023 [4 favorites]
Ok so you’re using your own pet definition of children to mean “anyone whose prefrontal cortex is not fully developed” which is neither a technical or a colloquial definition.
No, please read more carefully.
I'm using "children" as in "people who have not yet reached the age of majority".
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:27 PM on March 21, 2023
No, please read more carefully.
I'm using "children" as in "people who have not yet reached the age of majority".
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:27 PM on March 21, 2023
This is the same sort of bad faith argumentation that "speech you don't like" is built on.
Accusing me of bad faith argumentation, when you've repeatedly misrepresented my comments and arguments, is the ultimate in bad faith argumentation. I'm done with you in this thread.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:29 PM on March 21, 2023
Accusing me of bad faith argumentation, when you've repeatedly misrepresented my comments and arguments, is the ultimate in bad faith argumentation. I'm done with you in this thread.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:29 PM on March 21, 2023
Um, aren't most law students in their 20s?
posted by Saxon Kane at 7:40 PM on March 21, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by Saxon Kane at 7:40 PM on March 21, 2023 [4 favorites]
Hitler did not seize power in a coup;
Hitler absolutely came to power in a coup.
In fact, we have a term for the type of coup he and the Nazis executed - autogolpe, or "self-coup", with the Reichstag Fire Decree used to strip the people of civil liberties after the Reichstag fire (which is regarded these days to have been a false flag operation) to take power. Furthermore, while the Nazis did have a plurality in that they were the single largest party, the two parties on the German left - the SPD and KVD - formed a larger bloc (36% vs. 33%). So the argument that Hindenberg somehow had no choice but to work with the Nazis doesn't actually hold up - he chose to because as a monarchist he was opposed to the positions of the left wing parties, and as such was more closely aligned with the NDSAP and thought he could control them.
It's also worth pointing out that the Nazis never managed a majority in the Reichstag prior to making every other party illegal. Even with the Decree enabling extreme voter suppression, they only managed 43.9% of the vote, with the SPD/KVD holding on to 30% - resulting in the Nazis engaging in coercion and bribery to pass the Enabling Act and complete their autogolpe.
So no, just because the Nazis used the law doesn't mean that they didn't execute a coup.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:06 PM on March 21, 2023 [2 favorites]
Hitler absolutely came to power in a coup.
In fact, we have a term for the type of coup he and the Nazis executed - autogolpe, or "self-coup", with the Reichstag Fire Decree used to strip the people of civil liberties after the Reichstag fire (which is regarded these days to have been a false flag operation) to take power. Furthermore, while the Nazis did have a plurality in that they were the single largest party, the two parties on the German left - the SPD and KVD - formed a larger bloc (36% vs. 33%). So the argument that Hindenberg somehow had no choice but to work with the Nazis doesn't actually hold up - he chose to because as a monarchist he was opposed to the positions of the left wing parties, and as such was more closely aligned with the NDSAP and thought he could control them.
It's also worth pointing out that the Nazis never managed a majority in the Reichstag prior to making every other party illegal. Even with the Decree enabling extreme voter suppression, they only managed 43.9% of the vote, with the SPD/KVD holding on to 30% - resulting in the Nazis engaging in coercion and bribery to pass the Enabling Act and complete their autogolpe.
So no, just because the Nazis used the law doesn't mean that they didn't execute a coup.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:06 PM on March 21, 2023 [2 favorites]
The retreat to arguing that the protests are "children" always gets a laugh from me. It's operationalized whenever you want to take someone down, and ignored otherwise. Free speech movement? Anti Vietnam war movement? SNCC, SDS, Freedom Riders? Were these childish movements and organizations? And Greta Thunberg, of course, whose activities clearly should be ignored until she is mature enough to know what she's doing!!
posted by wemayfreeze at 8:52 PM on March 21, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by wemayfreeze at 8:52 PM on March 21, 2023 [2 favorites]
This story features a group of literal children, acting their age. I stand on my previous statement.
[...]
Some of them [college students] are [children]. And as I mentioned before, prefrontal cortical development doesn't wrap up until people are well into their twenties.
[...]
No, please read more carefully. I'm using "children" as in "people who have not yet reached the age of majority".
How many Stanford Law students are under 18? Just looking a demographic data, there is no reason to assume that the protestors were predominantly or even significantly composed of minors unless you have specific evidence of that. Do you?
...and it doesn't matter how many times I go back, how carefully I read - the only times you define what you mean by children or adolescents, you go back to prefrontal cortex bullshit and the early 20s, like people younger than that don't matter, deserve respect, or can have meaningful opinions. And before you object, no you didn't literally type those things in those words, because you didn't have to. It was plain between the lines of your ageist dismissals.
posted by Dysk at 12:15 AM on March 22, 2023 [5 favorites]
[...]
Some of them [college students] are [children]. And as I mentioned before, prefrontal cortical development doesn't wrap up until people are well into their twenties.
[...]
No, please read more carefully. I'm using "children" as in "people who have not yet reached the age of majority".
How many Stanford Law students are under 18? Just looking a demographic data, there is no reason to assume that the protestors were predominantly or even significantly composed of minors unless you have specific evidence of that. Do you?
...and it doesn't matter how many times I go back, how carefully I read - the only times you define what you mean by children or adolescents, you go back to prefrontal cortex bullshit and the early 20s, like people younger than that don't matter, deserve respect, or can have meaningful opinions. And before you object, no you didn't literally type those things in those words, because you didn't have to. It was plain between the lines of your ageist dismissals.
posted by Dysk at 12:15 AM on March 22, 2023 [5 favorites]
The average age of entering [Stanford Law] students is 24; age range is 21 to 35.
Assuming the reporting isn't lying about the protestors being college students, there were no literal children involved. There are no literal children at Stanford Law.
posted by Dysk at 12:25 AM on March 22, 2023 [7 favorites]
Assuming the reporting isn't lying about the protestors being college students, there were no literal children involved. There are no literal children at Stanford Law.
posted by Dysk at 12:25 AM on March 22, 2023 [7 favorites]
Really cool that we had this huge derail because someone, blessed with complete ignorance on the subject, decided to keep asserting that there’s a bunch of 17 year old Stanford Law students. A fact that, if it were true, would mean nothing. .
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:30 AM on March 22, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:30 AM on March 22, 2023 [3 favorites]
So no, just because the Nazis used the law doesn't mean that they didn't execute a coup
Sterling, know go convince the folks at the Holocaust encyclopedia. This new found fact of yours should be debated but not here. good day.
posted by clavdivs at 6:58 AM on March 22, 2023 [1 favorite]
Sterling, know go convince the folks at the Holocaust encyclopedia. This new found fact of yours should be debated but not here. good day.
posted by clavdivs at 6:58 AM on March 22, 2023 [1 favorite]
you go back to prefrontal cortex bullshit and the early 20s
the rest of the stuff aside, according to the experts ...
the development and maturation of the prefrontal cortex occurs primarily during adolescence and is fully accomplished at the age of 25 years.
in my experience, this feels pretty damned accurate. Certainly not bullshit.
posted by philip-random at 8:49 AM on March 22, 2023 [2 favorites]
the rest of the stuff aside, according to the experts ...
the development and maturation of the prefrontal cortex occurs primarily during adolescence and is fully accomplished at the age of 25 years.
in my experience, this feels pretty damned accurate. Certainly not bullshit.
posted by philip-random at 8:49 AM on March 22, 2023 [2 favorites]
Why the hell is this relevant?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:05 AM on March 22, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:05 AM on March 22, 2023 [6 favorites]
Even if the protestors at Stanford were "children", it is still a fact that the "free speech" at issue is theirs and not that of the flunky on the podium.
If the administrators choose to invite a Federalist Society stooge to yammer platitudes, the people who are paying to attend the school, i.e. the admininstrators' bosses/customers, have a right to veto that arrangement by whatever means they choose. It is their university, not his, not the administrators' and not ours.
T
The fact that they chose to drown out his speech with speech of their own makes this not an issue where anyone's "right" to free speech is infringed. It's a legitimate case of one party pitting their speech against that of another.
If this makes you personally turn against the students or find them unserious: the problem is with you and not them. Their behavior isn't going to make some massive pool of people who think just like you suddenly turn against them instead of supporting them. That pool probably does not exist, and if it does it consists of dishonest burghers who are, frankly, just looking for an excuse to dun someone younger, more energetic or with more skin in the game as "disruptive" or "disrespectful".
Peace police, kindly stand down. Who are you trying to help?
posted by Rev. Irreverent Revenant at 12:24 PM on March 22, 2023 [4 favorites]
If the administrators choose to invite a Federalist Society stooge to yammer platitudes, the people who are paying to attend the school, i.e. the admininstrators' bosses/customers, have a right to veto that arrangement by whatever means they choose. It is their university, not his, not the administrators' and not ours.
T
The fact that they chose to drown out his speech with speech of their own makes this not an issue where anyone's "right" to free speech is infringed. It's a legitimate case of one party pitting their speech against that of another.
If this makes you personally turn against the students or find them unserious: the problem is with you and not them. Their behavior isn't going to make some massive pool of people who think just like you suddenly turn against them instead of supporting them. That pool probably does not exist, and if it does it consists of dishonest burghers who are, frankly, just looking for an excuse to dun someone younger, more energetic or with more skin in the game as "disruptive" or "disrespectful".
Peace police, kindly stand down. Who are you trying to help?
posted by Rev. Irreverent Revenant at 12:24 PM on March 22, 2023 [4 favorites]
First, it was students who invited Duncan, not administrators.
Second, students are not the "bosses," and I think it's harmful to think of them as "customers," rather than students, even if they are to some extent customers. Officially, the trustees run private schools, but it should be a collaboration between them, administrators, faculty, and students.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 12:31 PM on March 22, 2023 [2 favorites]
Second, students are not the "bosses," and I think it's harmful to think of them as "customers," rather than students, even if they are to some extent customers. Officially, the trustees run private schools, but it should be a collaboration between them, administrators, faculty, and students.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 12:31 PM on March 22, 2023 [2 favorites]
That’s it then. Maybe we shouldn’t have infants with underdeveloped pre frontal cortexes inviting people to campus.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:15 PM on March 22, 2023
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:15 PM on March 22, 2023
If the administrators choose to invite a Federalist Society stooge to yammer platitudes, the people who are paying to attend the school, i.e. the admininstrators' bosses/customers, have a right to veto that arrangement by whatever means they choose. It is their university, not his, not the administrators' and not ours.
Yikes. That is not the understanding on which most universities have ever functioned. And a significant part of the current dysfunction of U.S. higher education can be traced to this sort of Karen-esque mindset. Universities are not meant to be retail establishments, they're meant to be places where education and character formation take place. It is presumed that university students don't already know everything they need to know -- that's why they're receiving an education.
And this entails being exposed to and sometimes challenged by a wide variety of ideas and viewpoints. Whether or not you think this FedSoc event was an example of that -- and it can be argued that it was, but I am also sympathetic to the argument that it was a deliberate act of trolling -- the grounds for objecting to it should not be "the customer is always right."
If you really think universities should be run on that basis, well, be very careful what you wish for. What if the majority of the students at a school decide they hate trans kids, or don't want any black professors, or want to eliminate womens' studies?
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 1:49 PM on March 22, 2023 [2 favorites]
Yikes. That is not the understanding on which most universities have ever functioned. And a significant part of the current dysfunction of U.S. higher education can be traced to this sort of Karen-esque mindset. Universities are not meant to be retail establishments, they're meant to be places where education and character formation take place. It is presumed that university students don't already know everything they need to know -- that's why they're receiving an education.
And this entails being exposed to and sometimes challenged by a wide variety of ideas and viewpoints. Whether or not you think this FedSoc event was an example of that -- and it can be argued that it was, but I am also sympathetic to the argument that it was a deliberate act of trolling -- the grounds for objecting to it should not be "the customer is always right."
If you really think universities should be run on that basis, well, be very careful what you wish for. What if the majority of the students at a school decide they hate trans kids, or don't want any black professors, or want to eliminate womens' studies?
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 1:49 PM on March 22, 2023 [2 favorites]
First, it was students who invited Duncan, not administrators.
No, it was the Federalist Society, of which Duncan is a member, who invited him. And to head off the expected response, said student who wrote that op-ed is the current president of the Stanford FedSoc chapter - an organization that famously tried to ruin a law student's career out of the gate over some biting 1/6 satire poking fun at them.
And this entails being exposed to and sometimes challenged by a wide variety of ideas and viewpoints.
Ah, the classic "mental vegetable eating" argument. "Hey kids, you're obliged to have a guest invited by the local chapter of an organization that is gutting our legal system in order to further the plans of the theocrat in charge of it to hurl hate at you, but in a genteel, socially acceptable way."
And then people wonder why free speech "absolutism" has lost a lot of support as of late.
the grounds for objecting to it should not be "the customer is always right."
The grounds are actually "Hate has no place here."
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:07 PM on March 22, 2023 [6 favorites]
No, it was the Federalist Society, of which Duncan is a member, who invited him. And to head off the expected response, said student who wrote that op-ed is the current president of the Stanford FedSoc chapter - an organization that famously tried to ruin a law student's career out of the gate over some biting 1/6 satire poking fun at them.
And this entails being exposed to and sometimes challenged by a wide variety of ideas and viewpoints.
Ah, the classic "mental vegetable eating" argument. "Hey kids, you're obliged to have a guest invited by the local chapter of an organization that is gutting our legal system in order to further the plans of the theocrat in charge of it to hurl hate at you, but in a genteel, socially acceptable way."
And then people wonder why free speech "absolutism" has lost a lot of support as of late.
the grounds for objecting to it should not be "the customer is always right."
The grounds are actually "Hate has no place here."
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:07 PM on March 22, 2023 [6 favorites]
No, it was the Federalist Society, of which Duncan is a member, who invited him.
I don't understand. The Federalist Society, by itself, can't just randomly commandeer space on campus for guests to give speeches. The local student chapter of the Federalist Society, with its exceptionally inglorious recent history, invited him. That means that, yes, (some) students invited him. Let's not invent a dream of the general will of the student body. I wouldn't have invited the loathsome guest invited to a colloquium by my own student journal back in the day--in fact, I refused to attend--but he was, indeed, invited by my fellow-students.
(This nastiness about brain development also baffles me. Everyone knows that the chief use of this actual science is in anticarceral activism, right? It's not anyone's fault if transphobes choose to misuse and misrepresent this science, which is, after all, one of their calling cards generally.)
posted by praemunire at 3:31 PM on March 22, 2023 [4 favorites]
I don't understand. The Federalist Society, by itself, can't just randomly commandeer space on campus for guests to give speeches. The local student chapter of the Federalist Society, with its exceptionally inglorious recent history, invited him. That means that, yes, (some) students invited him. Let's not invent a dream of the general will of the student body. I wouldn't have invited the loathsome guest invited to a colloquium by my own student journal back in the day--in fact, I refused to attend--but he was, indeed, invited by my fellow-students.
(This nastiness about brain development also baffles me. Everyone knows that the chief use of this actual science is in anticarceral activism, right? It's not anyone's fault if transphobes choose to misuse and misrepresent this science, which is, after all, one of their calling cards generally.)
posted by praemunire at 3:31 PM on March 22, 2023 [4 favorites]
but he was, indeed, invited by my fellow-students.
Who are card carrying members of the Federalist Society and have willingly chosen to sign on to the organization's odious agenda. The invitation was extended as part of their operations to further the goals of the organization, as we saw with the clearly planned framing of Duncan's visit.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:46 PM on March 22, 2023 [2 favorites]
Who are card carrying members of the Federalist Society and have willingly chosen to sign on to the organization's odious agenda. The invitation was extended as part of their operations to further the goals of the organization, as we saw with the clearly planned framing of Duncan's visit.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:46 PM on March 22, 2023 [2 favorites]
Who are card carrying members of the Federalist Society and have willingly chosen to sign on to the organization's odious agenda.
As you like (I prefer to avoid the unnecessary McCarthyite phrasing), but they are still students inviting a speaker to the school. Not the administration, not an outside group.
posted by praemunire at 3:59 PM on March 22, 2023 [2 favorites]
As you like (I prefer to avoid the unnecessary McCarthyite phrasing), but they are still students inviting a speaker to the school. Not the administration, not an outside group.
posted by praemunire at 3:59 PM on March 22, 2023 [2 favorites]
As you like (I prefer to avoid the unnecessary McCarthyite phrasing), but they are still students inviting a speaker to the school. Not the administration, not an outside group.
But they are part of an outside group, as the Stanford Federalist Society chapter does not exist outside of the context of the Federalist Society as a whole. And again, when another student pointed out the sorts of talks the Stanford chapter hosted with a satirical "flier" announcing a pro-1/6 talk headlined by Josh Hawley hosted by the chapter - their response was to try to kill the student's career out of the gate by making false honor code claims against him to the administration.
We should not pretend that the student Federalist Society chapters aren't catspaws.
(Also it's worth noting that it was that particular incident that got White and a few other free speech "absolutists" to finally break ties with the Federalist Society, after turning a blind eye to the organization's agenda for years.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:12 PM on March 22, 2023 [2 favorites]
But they are part of an outside group, as the Stanford Federalist Society chapter does not exist outside of the context of the Federalist Society as a whole. And again, when another student pointed out the sorts of talks the Stanford chapter hosted with a satirical "flier" announcing a pro-1/6 talk headlined by Josh Hawley hosted by the chapter - their response was to try to kill the student's career out of the gate by making false honor code claims against him to the administration.
We should not pretend that the student Federalist Society chapters aren't catspaws.
(Also it's worth noting that it was that particular incident that got White and a few other free speech "absolutists" to finally break ties with the Federalist Society, after turning a blind eye to the organization's agenda for years.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:12 PM on March 22, 2023 [2 favorites]
But they are part of an outside group,
So. What. I haven't checked, but based on my experience with other law schools of this kind, a significant number of student groups are chapters of national organizations: e.g., the ACLU, the ACS. That doesn't mean the members are somehow illegitimate as students.
their response was to try to kill the student's career out of the gate by making false honor code claims against him to the administration.
You don't need to teach your grandma to chew cheese here, you know. I've been talking shit about the Federalist Society for nearly two decades now. They suck. But it's weird to cast this visit as some sort of imposition by the administration on an unwilling student body who is being unfairly deprived of a veto on the school's academic policies.
posted by praemunire at 4:22 PM on March 22, 2023 [5 favorites]
So. What. I haven't checked, but based on my experience with other law schools of this kind, a significant number of student groups are chapters of national organizations: e.g., the ACLU, the ACS. That doesn't mean the members are somehow illegitimate as students.
their response was to try to kill the student's career out of the gate by making false honor code claims against him to the administration.
You don't need to teach your grandma to chew cheese here, you know. I've been talking shit about the Federalist Society for nearly two decades now. They suck. But it's weird to cast this visit as some sort of imposition by the administration on an unwilling student body who is being unfairly deprived of a veto on the school's academic policies.
posted by praemunire at 4:22 PM on March 22, 2023 [5 favorites]
This nastiness about brain development also baffles me.
It's bullshit not because of any comment on the underlying science, but because raising it in this context is bullshit. All it does, so it serves here, is to undermine the students as whole human beings, with valid ideas, insights, preferences, etc. I'm not saying the developmental science is bullshit. I was saying that bringing it up here is a bullshit thing to do.
posted by Dysk at 4:41 PM on March 22, 2023 [2 favorites]
It's bullshit not because of any comment on the underlying science, but because raising it in this context is bullshit. All it does, so it serves here, is to undermine the students as whole human beings, with valid ideas, insights, preferences, etc. I'm not saying the developmental science is bullshit. I was saying that bringing it up here is a bullshit thing to do.
posted by Dysk at 4:41 PM on March 22, 2023 [2 favorites]
That doesn't mean the members are somehow illegitimate as students.
It also doesn't mean that they're not members of that organization and working to further its agenda. Your argument seems to be that because these members are students, we're somehow obliged to turn a blind eye to their ties and actions.
Let me ask you this - if the Federalist Society invited a representative of a hate group to speak, how should students and the school respond? And before you say that's a ridiculous hypothetical, let me point out that it's not a hypothetical - it's what the Yale Federalist Society did a year or so ago when they invited a representative of the Alliance Defending Freedom to speak.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:45 PM on March 22, 2023 [3 favorites]
It also doesn't mean that they're not members of that organization and working to further its agenda. Your argument seems to be that because these members are students, we're somehow obliged to turn a blind eye to their ties and actions.
Let me ask you this - if the Federalist Society invited a representative of a hate group to speak, how should students and the school respond? And before you say that's a ridiculous hypothetical, let me point out that it's not a hypothetical - it's what the Yale Federalist Society did a year or so ago when they invited a representative of the Alliance Defending Freedom to speak.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:45 PM on March 22, 2023 [3 favorites]
I was saying that bringing it up here is a bullshit thing to do.
I expect more in terms of professional decorum, judgment, and self-control from a grown-up Article III judge than I do from 23-year-old students. I wouldn't call them children, but actually most of us aren't fully baked at that age. Were you?
Your argument seems to be that because these members are students, we're somehow obliged to turn a blind eye to their ties and actions.
I don't understand why people keep making up weird strawmen to torch here. My argument is simply this: that to say (as was literally said in an actual post only a few posts back), "If the administrators choose to invite a Federalist Society stooge to yammer platitudes, the people who are paying to attend the school, i.e. the admininstrators' bosses/customers, have a right to veto that arrangement ..." is just wrong factually (and therefore in its implications re: "right to veto"), because students invited them, not administrators.
It seems you think your follow-up hypothetical is some kind of shocking stumper, but, since it arises from this misinterpretation, I won't write more paragraphs.
posted by praemunire at 5:04 PM on March 22, 2023
I expect more in terms of professional decorum, judgment, and self-control from a grown-up Article III judge than I do from 23-year-old students. I wouldn't call them children, but actually most of us aren't fully baked at that age. Were you?
Your argument seems to be that because these members are students, we're somehow obliged to turn a blind eye to their ties and actions.
I don't understand why people keep making up weird strawmen to torch here. My argument is simply this: that to say (as was literally said in an actual post only a few posts back), "If the administrators choose to invite a Federalist Society stooge to yammer platitudes, the people who are paying to attend the school, i.e. the admininstrators' bosses/customers, have a right to veto that arrangement ..." is just wrong factually (and therefore in its implications re: "right to veto"), because students invited them, not administrators.
It seems you think your follow-up hypothetical is some kind of shocking stumper, but, since it arises from this misinterpretation, I won't write more paragraphs.
posted by praemunire at 5:04 PM on March 22, 2023
Universities are not meant to be retail establishments, they're meant to be places where education and character formation take place.
I mean... maybe? Like, historically they're places where wealthy white men were sent to be educated and I guess also to form their characters, before becoming lawyers or returning to manage their estates.
But at this point a) colleges are at least theoretically supposed to be educating a much wider and more varied cross-section of the population and b) some of those students don't even have family estates to fall back on. And then c) a Stanford Law student not eligible for hardship grants or scholarships could be paying $64,000/year or so for their education.
Put all that together and - rightly or wrongly - a student might feel that their quarter of a million dollars, give or take, in tuition fees over four years entitles them to some consideration from the college as a whole, and that consideration may extend to limiting invitations to guest speakers who will do nothing for their education, and may create a hostile environment that will affect their ability to study, to get good grades and to make enough money to pay back their student loans.
Is this right? Is this in the Athenian spirit of education? Eh. No idea. But I can see why someone might expect the institution to be focused on their learning, to the exclusion of stunt speaker invitations.
posted by running order squabble fest at 5:41 PM on March 22, 2023 [1 favorite]
I mean... maybe? Like, historically they're places where wealthy white men were sent to be educated and I guess also to form their characters, before becoming lawyers or returning to manage their estates.
But at this point a) colleges are at least theoretically supposed to be educating a much wider and more varied cross-section of the population and b) some of those students don't even have family estates to fall back on. And then c) a Stanford Law student not eligible for hardship grants or scholarships could be paying $64,000/year or so for their education.
Put all that together and - rightly or wrongly - a student might feel that their quarter of a million dollars, give or take, in tuition fees over four years entitles them to some consideration from the college as a whole, and that consideration may extend to limiting invitations to guest speakers who will do nothing for their education, and may create a hostile environment that will affect their ability to study, to get good grades and to make enough money to pay back their student loans.
Is this right? Is this in the Athenian spirit of education? Eh. No idea. But I can see why someone might expect the institution to be focused on their learning, to the exclusion of stunt speaker invitations.
posted by running order squabble fest at 5:41 PM on March 22, 2023 [1 favorite]
I really didn't expect to see vehement defense of modern-day phrenology on Metafilter. wtf.
posted by Pyrogenesis at 10:55 PM on March 22, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by Pyrogenesis at 10:55 PM on March 22, 2023 [3 favorites]
but actually most of us aren't fully baked at that age. Were you?
I was "fully baked" yes. To suggest that a person isn't "fully baked", is anything less than a complete person, because they haven't reached am arbitrary age is bollocks. Your brain may still be developing, but so what? It isn't relevant here. This isn't a thread about human neurodevelopment, it's about whether students have a right to have their voices heard and opinions respected.
Talking about whether their brains are developed or not is a derail that serves only to undermine. It is irrelevant at best.
posted by Dysk at 11:19 PM on March 22, 2023 [5 favorites]
I was "fully baked" yes. To suggest that a person isn't "fully baked", is anything less than a complete person, because they haven't reached am arbitrary age is bollocks. Your brain may still be developing, but so what? It isn't relevant here. This isn't a thread about human neurodevelopment, it's about whether students have a right to have their voices heard and opinions respected.
Talking about whether their brains are developed or not is a derail that serves only to undermine. It is irrelevant at best.
posted by Dysk at 11:19 PM on March 22, 2023 [5 favorites]
Honestly it was meant as a derail, it worked, and everyone dismissing what human beings want for some made up reason (yea, you don’t understand the science so don’t go pretending you do) should be ashamed of themselves.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:27 AM on March 23, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:27 AM on March 23, 2023 [3 favorites]
And if I were to try and shout down Duncan, I suppose it would be because my middle-aged prefontal cortex is now shrinking again? Or it's because of autism. (That probably would be a factor TBH, but I don't boo just anyone). Ask one of the mooks and they'd probably claim I'm a communist, but what do they know? I think there might possibly be other reasons that the sudents are not providing him the respect due of people "inside the pale".
posted by mscibing at 5:22 AM on March 23, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by mscibing at 5:22 AM on March 23, 2023 [1 favorite]
Sterling, know go convince the folks at the Holocaust encyclopedia. This new found fact of yours should be debated but not here. good day.
I know I'm probably just continuing one of several derails, but 1) I don't think the claim that the Nazis came to power through a "legal coup" is a new found fact (unless you were trying to snark on NoxAeternum with some variation of "oh, did you just look that up?"); 2) the Holocaust Encyclopedia is no doubt a great resource and I'm sure the people behind it are solid scholars, but that doesn't mean that they have the final word on all things related to the Nazis; 3) there are at least some historians who argue that what happened in 1933 in Germany should be considered a self coup, or a legal coup, or a soft coup; 4) moreover, what counts as a "coup" at all (and what various modalities of coups exist) is much debated by experts in the field. I have no idea what the dominant position is in scholarship on Hitler & the Nazis, or more generally on coups, but my point is that citing one authority for ANY position isn't a KO; it's barely a jab. And regardless, I'm not even sure what arguments are trying to be advanced here. Is anyone trying to claim that the Nazis didn't do shady, criminal shit to get into power? I mean, I think even if you want to argue that they didn't come to power through a coup (which is a valid argument, when backed by reasoning and evidence, just like the counterargument), it's pretty clear that the most "generous" interpretation would be that they used extra-legal means to manipulate the legal and political systems to their benefit.
I expect more in terms of professional decorum, judgment, and self-control from a grown-up Article III judge than I do from 23-year-old students.
I see you haven't been paying much attention to Republican politicians and supporters for the last (checks notes) 40+ years.
posted by Saxon Kane at 9:20 AM on March 23, 2023 [3 favorites]
I know I'm probably just continuing one of several derails, but 1) I don't think the claim that the Nazis came to power through a "legal coup" is a new found fact (unless you were trying to snark on NoxAeternum with some variation of "oh, did you just look that up?"); 2) the Holocaust Encyclopedia is no doubt a great resource and I'm sure the people behind it are solid scholars, but that doesn't mean that they have the final word on all things related to the Nazis; 3) there are at least some historians who argue that what happened in 1933 in Germany should be considered a self coup, or a legal coup, or a soft coup; 4) moreover, what counts as a "coup" at all (and what various modalities of coups exist) is much debated by experts in the field. I have no idea what the dominant position is in scholarship on Hitler & the Nazis, or more generally on coups, but my point is that citing one authority for ANY position isn't a KO; it's barely a jab. And regardless, I'm not even sure what arguments are trying to be advanced here. Is anyone trying to claim that the Nazis didn't do shady, criminal shit to get into power? I mean, I think even if you want to argue that they didn't come to power through a coup (which is a valid argument, when backed by reasoning and evidence, just like the counterargument), it's pretty clear that the most "generous" interpretation would be that they used extra-legal means to manipulate the legal and political systems to their benefit.
I expect more in terms of professional decorum, judgment, and self-control from a grown-up Article III judge than I do from 23-year-old students.
I see you haven't been paying much attention to Republican politicians and supporters for the last (checks notes) 40+ years.
posted by Saxon Kane at 9:20 AM on March 23, 2023 [3 favorites]
It's bullshit not because of any comment on the underlying science, but because raising it in this context is bullshit. All it does, so it serves here, is to undermine the students as whole human beings, with valid ideas, insights, preferences, etc. I'm not saying the developmental science is bullshit. I was saying that bringing it up here is a bullshit thing to do.
Those of you still obsessed with this brain development thing: I raised it to offer a partial explanation for why the students were not making good decisions, and frankly to give them a bit of cover for it.
But have it your way, if you like: The students did something dumb. They got played, and unfinished cortical development is no excuse. They acted badly. As "whole human beings", they should have known better. And it's fair to criticize them for it.
Popehats' take on the students' behavior was far less charitable than mine to begin with, BTW.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:24 AM on March 23, 2023
Those of you still obsessed with this brain development thing: I raised it to offer a partial explanation for why the students were not making good decisions, and frankly to give them a bit of cover for it.
But have it your way, if you like: The students did something dumb. They got played, and unfinished cortical development is no excuse. They acted badly. As "whole human beings", they should have known better. And it's fair to criticize them for it.
Popehats' take on the students' behavior was far less charitable than mine to begin with, BTW.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:24 AM on March 23, 2023
that consideration may extend to limiting invitations to guest speakers who will do nothing for their education, and may create a hostile environment that will affect their ability to study, to get good grades and to make enough money to pay back their student loans.
One of the important lessons people are supposed to learn in college is "different strokes for different folks". Not every guest speaker has to benefit you personally, or meet with your approval. As for "creating a hostile environment", that is an almost infinitely elastic and nebulous concept, which has valid applications, but which can also be abused.
A student, or a group of students, should have to meet a pretty high bar to be able to justify barring another group of students from having a speaker of their choice visit the campus. And it needs to be said again: If you really do want to start giving any small group of students that kind of veto power, you'd better be prepared for it to be used extensively against progressive speakers and causes.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:34 AM on March 23, 2023 [2 favorites]
One of the important lessons people are supposed to learn in college is "different strokes for different folks". Not every guest speaker has to benefit you personally, or meet with your approval. As for "creating a hostile environment", that is an almost infinitely elastic and nebulous concept, which has valid applications, but which can also be abused.
A student, or a group of students, should have to meet a pretty high bar to be able to justify barring another group of students from having a speaker of their choice visit the campus. And it needs to be said again: If you really do want to start giving any small group of students that kind of veto power, you'd better be prepared for it to be used extensively against progressive speakers and causes.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:34 AM on March 23, 2023 [2 favorites]
This has been going on for years and it’s almost always left wing students protesting right wing assholes. You’re concern trolling.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:45 AM on March 23, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:45 AM on March 23, 2023 [4 favorites]
I honestly don't think it's concern trolling to posit that tactics get repurposed by the enemy. That's pretty much the history of warfare.
Look no further than a thread from last month where we were discussing how something as simple as a single word (woke -- a damned good word for a while) could get weaponized by right wing assholes to the point that, for many of us, there's no value in using it anymore unless you are one of those assholes.
posted by philip-random at 11:16 AM on March 23, 2023
Look no further than a thread from last month where we were discussing how something as simple as a single word (woke -- a damned good word for a while) could get weaponized by right wing assholes to the point that, for many of us, there's no value in using it anymore unless you are one of those assholes.
posted by philip-random at 11:16 AM on March 23, 2023
This isn’t warfare! Jesus fucking Christ!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:23 AM on March 23, 2023
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:23 AM on March 23, 2023
feels that way to me
“World War III is a guerrilla information war with no division between military and civilian participation.” – Marshall McLuhan (1968)
posted by philip-random at 11:30 AM on March 23, 2023
“World War III is a guerrilla information war with no division between military and civilian participation.” – Marshall McLuhan (1968)
posted by philip-random at 11:30 AM on March 23, 2023
I'm always a little miffed by this argument: "If you really do want to start giving any small group of students that kind of veto power, you'd better be prepared for it to be used extensively against progressive speakers and causes." What are some examples of this, where the left or liberals using a specific tactic enabled the right to use it, whereas they were not using it before?
Actually woke is a great example because … what's the strategic lesson there? Don't use words that mean things?
posted by wemayfreeze at 11:33 AM on March 23, 2023 [2 favorites]
Actually woke is a great example because … what's the strategic lesson there? Don't use words that mean things?
posted by wemayfreeze at 11:33 AM on March 23, 2023 [2 favorites]
This has been going on for years and it’s almost always left wing students protesting right wing assholes.
It's worth remembering that the Stanford Federalist Society's response to "speech they didn't like" was to try to ruin the life of the speaker.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:39 AM on March 23, 2023 [4 favorites]
It's worth remembering that the Stanford Federalist Society's response to "speech they didn't like" was to try to ruin the life of the speaker.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:39 AM on March 23, 2023 [4 favorites]
A war presumably has two sides that are in conflict with one another. This is not a war, it's one side laying the groundwork for genocide.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 11:40 AM on March 23, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 11:40 AM on March 23, 2023 [2 favorites]
Actually woke is a great example because … what's the strategic lesson there? Don't use words that mean things?
Yeah so many times the advice of centrist liberals is, "whatever you do, don't fight back too hard because that will strengthen the right", the right is constrained by precentdent or principle. They're not fighting a fair fight and neither should we.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:28 PM on March 23, 2023 [3 favorites]
Yeah so many times the advice of centrist liberals is, "whatever you do, don't fight back too hard because that will strengthen the right", the right is constrained by precentdent or principle. They're not fighting a fair fight and neither should we.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:28 PM on March 23, 2023 [3 favorites]
One of the important lessons people are supposed to learn in college is "different strokes for different folks". Not every guest speaker has to benefit you personally, or meet with your approval.
See, here's the thing - when the speaker in question is a bigot who has taken away key protections from a gay couple's adopted child, has argued against allowing same sex marriage, has written petty opinions arguing that he has the right to mock transgender litigants by deadnaming them, and whose visit was clearly done to bolster his conservative bona fides via performative cruelty...
Your position is effectively a defense of hate. It is arguing that these students are obliged to have their very humanity attacked in the name of "Free Speech". Because here's the thing - there is no neutrality when it comes to hate and bigotry, only opposition and support.
Popehats' take on the students' behavior was far less charitable than mine to begin with, BTW.
Again, Ken White has routinely argued that hate speech is the price of free speech and that students are obliged to be dehumanized by speakers. It's a shitty position that defends hate and the harm it does when it comes from him as well.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:03 PM on March 23, 2023 [1 favorite]
See, here's the thing - when the speaker in question is a bigot who has taken away key protections from a gay couple's adopted child, has argued against allowing same sex marriage, has written petty opinions arguing that he has the right to mock transgender litigants by deadnaming them, and whose visit was clearly done to bolster his conservative bona fides via performative cruelty...
Your position is effectively a defense of hate. It is arguing that these students are obliged to have their very humanity attacked in the name of "Free Speech". Because here's the thing - there is no neutrality when it comes to hate and bigotry, only opposition and support.
Popehats' take on the students' behavior was far less charitable than mine to begin with, BTW.
Again, Ken White has routinely argued that hate speech is the price of free speech and that students are obliged to be dehumanized by speakers. It's a shitty position that defends hate and the harm it does when it comes from him as well.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:03 PM on March 23, 2023 [1 favorite]
Piggybacking on this:
"One of the important lessons people are supposed to learn in college is "different strokes for different folks"
This is decidedly NOT the point of graduate education. You're supposed to narrow your focus, and be socialized and trained in a specific way of thinking.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:08 PM on March 23, 2023 [2 favorites]
"One of the important lessons people are supposed to learn in college is "different strokes for different folks"
This is decidedly NOT the point of graduate education. You're supposed to narrow your focus, and be socialized and trained in a specific way of thinking.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:08 PM on March 23, 2023 [2 favorites]
don't think the claim that the Nazis came to power through a "legal coup" is a new found fact (unless you were trying to snark on NoxAeternum with some variation of "oh, did you just look that up?"); 2) the Holocaust Encyclopedia is no doubt a great resource and I'm sure the people behind it are solid scholars, but that doesn't mean that they have the final word on all things related to the Nazis
Saxon, I'm out of that discussion because facts bare out, at this point it's a complete derail but make a post or I'll debate this items through memail. There is so much more to the issue, an issue I'm quite versed on. but, here this from auto coup: "A self-coup, also called autocoup (from the Spanish: autogolpe), or coup from the top, is a form of coup d'état in which a nation's head, having come to power."
who was the top leader in Germany after the 32' election, it wasn't Hitler. so there for, if Hitler is not the most powerful, who did the 'coup', Hindenburg, von papen. Night of the long knives was on middle of '34. and it was Hindenberg who enacted the reichstag fire decree.
posted by clavdivs at 1:27 PM on March 23, 2023
Saxon, I'm out of that discussion because facts bare out, at this point it's a complete derail but make a post or I'll debate this items through memail. There is so much more to the issue, an issue I'm quite versed on. but, here this from auto coup: "A self-coup, also called autocoup (from the Spanish: autogolpe), or coup from the top, is a form of coup d'état in which a nation's head, having come to power."
who was the top leader in Germany after the 32' election, it wasn't Hitler. so there for, if Hitler is not the most powerful, who did the 'coup', Hindenburg, von papen. Night of the long knives was on middle of '34. and it was Hindenberg who enacted the reichstag fire decree.
posted by clavdivs at 1:27 PM on March 23, 2023
who was the top leader in Germany after the 32' election, it wasn't Hitler.
The whole point of the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act was to put him on top, which is the point of an autogolpe.
and it was Hindenberg who enacted the reichstag fire decree.
Because that's how the German government was structured. But it was the Nazis who promulgated and pushed for the Decree, and who had likely started the fire in the first place to create the pretext. Furthermore, while Hindenberg held the Presidency in large part because of his public image, his party had lost ground in the Reichstag, falling in vote share below not just the Nazis, but also the German left bloc. Again, Hindenberg chose to throw in with the Nazis because he was more aligned to them politically, and likely feared a left wing coalition taking power if he didn't.
Your argument seems to be that the Nazis couldn't have executed an autogolpe because they didn't hold the most senior position of the German government, even though they had gained control of a number of senior positions including the Chancellorship, and their actions once there were to consolidate power and place the Chancellorship at the lead - which is the point of an autogolpe.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:04 PM on March 23, 2023
The whole point of the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act was to put him on top, which is the point of an autogolpe.
and it was Hindenberg who enacted the reichstag fire decree.
Because that's how the German government was structured. But it was the Nazis who promulgated and pushed for the Decree, and who had likely started the fire in the first place to create the pretext. Furthermore, while Hindenberg held the Presidency in large part because of his public image, his party had lost ground in the Reichstag, falling in vote share below not just the Nazis, but also the German left bloc. Again, Hindenberg chose to throw in with the Nazis because he was more aligned to them politically, and likely feared a left wing coalition taking power if he didn't.
Your argument seems to be that the Nazis couldn't have executed an autogolpe because they didn't hold the most senior position of the German government, even though they had gained control of a number of senior positions including the Chancellorship, and their actions once there were to consolidate power and place the Chancellorship at the lead - which is the point of an autogolpe.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:04 PM on March 23, 2023
Also, coming back to "judges yell", it turns out that when the public sees judges yelling at lawyers, the legitimacy of the courts falls in the eyes of the viewers:
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:16 PM on March 23, 2023
After presenting these clips, we measured respondents’ views of judicial legitimacy. We asked whether courts ought to be made less independent, whether judges who consistently decide cases at odds with public opinion should be removed, and similar questions. The results show that cameras can as easily harm the courts’ legitimacy as help it.It's almost like people seeing abusive behavior by people in power causes them to lose respect.
Respondents who observed the Zoom-like approach were most likely to change their views about judicial legitimacy. Those who watched a contentious exchange between the judge and attorney found the court to be less legitimate than those who listened to the exchange. Watching a justice combatively interrogate a lawyer—as some U.S. Supreme Court justices do—caused immediate and significant harm to the court’s legitimacy. Those who watched a neutral exchange between judge and attorney found the court to be more legitimate than did those who merely listened to that exchange.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:16 PM on March 23, 2023
seeing as we're just talking about who can be most technically right about things like how the Nazis came to power, and jumping into the spirit of things, can I just say this is clearly not a universal fucking truth: It's almost like people seeing abusive behavior by people in power causes them to lose respect.
the past few years have shown that some of our fellow primates are quite happy to follow the lead of the loudest ape throwing their shit the farthest
fuck what are we doing here
posted by elkevelvet at 2:32 PM on March 23, 2023
the past few years have shown that some of our fellow primates are quite happy to follow the lead of the loudest ape throwing their shit the farthest
fuck what are we doing here
posted by elkevelvet at 2:32 PM on March 23, 2023
dunno, it's a derail and when pointed out to take the topic elsewhere, people just double down with the partially of fact, I believe that's the issue not the subject matter itself
posted by clavdivs at 3:04 PM on March 23, 2023
posted by clavdivs at 3:04 PM on March 23, 2023
well sorry for perpetuating a derail, delete as needed
posted by elkevelvet at 3:36 PM on March 23, 2023
posted by elkevelvet at 3:36 PM on March 23, 2023
quite the contrary, your not perpetuating, your addressing it.
posted by clavdivs at 4:21 PM on March 23, 2023
posted by clavdivs at 4:21 PM on March 23, 2023
One of the important lessons people are supposed to learn in college is "different strokes for different folks"
Well, different strokes for different folks, but if that is what you take away from four years and a quarter of a million dollars at an elite law school, you should sue.
But you will not know how to.
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:40 PM on March 23, 2023
Well, different strokes for different folks, but if that is what you take away from four years and a quarter of a million dollars at an elite law school, you should sue.
But you will not know how to.
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:40 PM on March 23, 2023
The “these kids were fools” angle, itself, seems like an artifact from an earlier, more naive, age of politics? Fascist types always try to setup a gambit where you confront them and if you don’t they spin that as a victory and use it to come back later with raised stakes. So you need to stand up to them at the start, preferably in large numbers. So even though they’ll claim victimhood if you show up to tell them they aren’t welcome, the stakes are lower at the start and they’ll see community support is strong and think twice about coming back. And if you’re smart you do things like video and publish a counter to their victim narrative.
The counter to bullies is community support for the victimized, not “just ignore it and they’ll go away.” They won’t go away and your pseudo-smart attempt to avoid bad PR will fail, just like they planned, and you’ll be living you life trying to avoid them as they invade more and more of your space, just like they want.
posted by delicious-luncheon at 5:17 PM on March 23, 2023 [3 favorites]
The counter to bullies is community support for the victimized, not “just ignore it and they’ll go away.” They won’t go away and your pseudo-smart attempt to avoid bad PR will fail, just like they planned, and you’ll be living you life trying to avoid them as they invade more and more of your space, just like they want.
posted by delicious-luncheon at 5:17 PM on March 23, 2023 [3 favorites]
This is a letter that the dean of Stanford Law School wrote to the students yesterday. Here is a key excerpt (with most of the legal citations omitted):
Some students have argued that the disruptive protest of the event was itself constitutionally protected speech. Of course, protests are in some instances protected by the First Amendment, but the First Amendment does not give protestors a “heckler’s veto.”posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:20 PM on March 23, 2023 [1 favorite]
As First Amendment scholar Dean Erwin Chemerinsky has written, “Freedom of speech does not protect a right to shout down others so they cannot be heard.” ...
To the contrary, settled First Amendment law allows many governmental restrictions on heckling to preserve the countervailing interest in free speech. As the California Supreme Court stated in In re Kay, 464 P.2d 142, 149 (Cal. 1970), “the state retains a legitimate concern in ensuring that some individuals’ unruly assertion of their rights of free expression does not imperil other citizens’ rights of free association and discussion.”
Thus, even in public forums such as the public streets, sidewalks, and parks, where free speech rights have greatest latitude, it is well-settled that the First Amendment allows the imposition of reasonable content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions. ...
And while the First Amendment bars regulation of speech on the ground that listeners might find its content disturbing ... the First Amendment permits the regulation of speech that “substantially impairs the effective conduct of a meeting.” ... Thus, while the California Supreme Court in In re Kay protected protestors speaking out against an elected official at “a large, public celebration held outdoors in a public park,” the Court noted that “the nature of a meeting necessarily plays a major role,” and that “customs and usages” are central to the analysis. ...
For these reasons, modern First Amendment law does not treat every setting as a public forum where a speech free-for-all is allowed. To the contrary, First Amendment cases have long recognized that some settings are “limited public forums,” where restrictions on speech are constitutional so long as they are viewpoint-neutral and reasonable in light of the forum’s function and all the surrounding circumstances. ...
As Justice Ginsburg cautioned in a prominent case, such speech restrictions may be especially reasonable “in the educational context,” which requires “appropriate regard for school administrators’ judgment” in preserving a university’s mission and advancing academic values. ... A university classroom setting for a guest speaker invited by a student organization is thus a setting where the First Amendment tolerates greater limitations on speech than it would in a traditional public forum.
The “nature of a meeting” in an indoor university classroom, under settled First Amendment law, does not countenance the same sort of “prolonged, raucous, boisterous demonstrations” that might be acceptable at an outdoor rally. ... Rather, different “customs and usages” apply in a setting like a planned lecture in a reserved room on campus.
In such a setting, limiting audience participation to signs, questions during a planned Q&A, and a non-disruptive level of audience reaction is appropriate to the nature of the forum. Stanford’s event disruption policy gives attendees a right to hold signs and to demonstrate disagreement in other ways as long as the methods used do not “prevent or disrupt the effective carrying out of a University function or approved activity, such as lectures, meetings, interviews, ceremonies. . . and public events.”
Moreover, students are encouraged to hold alternative events where they can share their own views without disrupting the invited speaker. Stanford’s policy is thus fully consistent with the First Amendment and long-settled California constitutional law.
It's interesting that the Stanford administration finds it appropriate to publicly admonish liberal students for protesting a bigot and black-robed bully for his attacks on the marginalized - but never punished the Stanford Federalist Society for trying to ruin the life of a law student who used satire to mock them in a demonstration of free speech.
Almost like there's a double standard.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:20 AM on March 24, 2023 [6 favorites]
Almost like there's a double standard.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:20 AM on March 24, 2023 [6 favorites]
Gotta keep that alumni money flowing.
I can’t believe the dean is out there arguing these people have a right to not be heckled!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:26 AM on March 24, 2023
I can’t believe the dean is out there arguing these people have a right to not be heckled!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:26 AM on March 24, 2023
I love him writing something like that and failing to acknowledge 1) there’s a lot of solid First Amendment scholarship arguing that the limited public forum of college campuses is problematic, and 2) that part of our job as future lawyers will be not merely to follow the law as it is but advocate for the law as we feel it should be.
posted by corb at 6:52 AM on March 24, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 6:52 AM on March 24, 2023 [1 favorite]
Gotta keep that alumni money flowing.
Yeah - the most generous current alumni of Stanford Law are likely to be Boomer and Gen-X lawyers, and are more likely to be tracking conservative, and also to be particularly interested in the treatment of Boomer and Gen-X lawyers.
There's an interesting demographic element, here, which is that Millennials and Gen-Z, at least at the moment, don't seem to be tracking conservative as they age in the way that their forebears have. This may not be the case in the cloistered and relatively wealthy world of Stanford Law, but if it is not the issue may be that the young people there are pre-filtered to be disproportionately conservative, rather than that they are more susceptible to conservatising over time.
(Or, for that matter, the issue may be that it has become clear that it is professionally necessary at least to indulge this kind of performative conservatism in order to advance professionally.)
It's a hypothesis, not a confident assertion. But it does raise an interesting question - is there a point where this flips, demographically, and in order to keep the money coming in a future Dean has to start assigning more weight to the views of progressive/liberal alumni?
This specific situation reminds me a little of the case of Professor Erika Christakis, who got into trouble with the student body of Yale after the Intercultural Affairs Committee sent around a circular asking students, essentially, not to do $colorface at Halloween. Her response, which was both inspired and complicated by her role as a Master of Silliman College, included this rumination:
Baiting the libs by inviting Kyle Duncan is itself part of building a career trajectory - your speaker gets to go on Fox News and talk about how awful it is that the libs tried to silence him, you as president of the College Federalist Society get the credit for creating that media opportunity, and you use that to get a professionally useful clerking position with a Federalist Society-affiliated judge. The baiting is necessary, and beneficial, but it's not the end in itself. This is a show of loyalty.
Ken White doesn't go this far - he stopped at "some assholes want to bait some other assholes by inviting an asshole to speak, and those other assholes acted like assholes by protesting during his speech as well as outside it". That's a surface-level analysis, I think, that portrays Duncan as a cynic looking to create a circus, but the students who invited him as sincerely motivated by (a regressive) ideology.
Conversely, is it obnoxious or provocative to disrupt the speech of a lib-baiting guest speaker? Again, probably, but it's also what that lib-baiting speaker wants. Is it strategically correct to give it to them? I think it's a double bind. Is defying the wishes of the Dean acceptably transgressive? Eh.
White is very upset about Tirien Steinbach, the Associate Dean "sent to do a grown-up's job" - but I think that she is in the very large subset of people whose understanding of what is happening is better than his, because she is showing an understanding that these actions have purpose beyond a kind of reflexively cynical Substack mode where everybody is an asshole and the worst thing you can do is care. But if you actually read what she said, I can see the argument:
She asked the protesting students to let Duncan speak, and she asked them to limit their interruptions and instead to ask questions during the Q&A session. She said that it may be the case that the rules on speakers may need to be revisited, and that there was a proper way for that to be done in which students could be advocates for their views.
But she did ask whether this was a speech worth delivering in this context, because of the negative impact on the student community, and she noted that Duncan would need to get past his hyperpartisan focus to see the harm he was doing - which honestly I would have left out.
That is, she questioned the wisdom and the motives of the student branch of the Federalist Society in extending the invitation, and Duncan in accepting it, and expressed her hope that this session was going to have value that the setup did not suggest it would.
Ken White also implicitly asked that question, and answered it:
Arguably Steinbach was being naive, but we should remember that, unlike White, Steinbach has actual skin in the game - she was trying to persuade Duncan to respect the traditions of collegial debate and avoid needless provocation, and to persuade the protestors either to leave the room or to let him speak.
posted by running order squabble fest at 7:56 AM on March 24, 2023 [2 favorites]
Yeah - the most generous current alumni of Stanford Law are likely to be Boomer and Gen-X lawyers, and are more likely to be tracking conservative, and also to be particularly interested in the treatment of Boomer and Gen-X lawyers.
There's an interesting demographic element, here, which is that Millennials and Gen-Z, at least at the moment, don't seem to be tracking conservative as they age in the way that their forebears have. This may not be the case in the cloistered and relatively wealthy world of Stanford Law, but if it is not the issue may be that the young people there are pre-filtered to be disproportionately conservative, rather than that they are more susceptible to conservatising over time.
(Or, for that matter, the issue may be that it has become clear that it is professionally necessary at least to indulge this kind of performative conservatism in order to advance professionally.)
It's a hypothesis, not a confident assertion. But it does raise an interesting question - is there a point where this flips, demographically, and in order to keep the money coming in a future Dean has to start assigning more weight to the views of progressive/liberal alumni?
This specific situation reminds me a little of the case of Professor Erika Christakis, who got into trouble with the student body of Yale after the Intercultural Affairs Committee sent around a circular asking students, essentially, not to do $colorface at Halloween. Her response, which was both inspired and complicated by her role as a Master of Silliman College, included this rumination:
I wonder, and I am not trying to be provocative: Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious… a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive? American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience; increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition.Which, I think, comes back to a couple of the core questions - is it obnoxious or provocative to invite a lib-baiting speaker to speak? I would say yes, in the sense that a significant part of the goal is to bait the libs. But you could bait the libs by inviting George Zimmerman.
Baiting the libs by inviting Kyle Duncan is itself part of building a career trajectory - your speaker gets to go on Fox News and talk about how awful it is that the libs tried to silence him, you as president of the College Federalist Society get the credit for creating that media opportunity, and you use that to get a professionally useful clerking position with a Federalist Society-affiliated judge. The baiting is necessary, and beneficial, but it's not the end in itself. This is a show of loyalty.
Ken White doesn't go this far - he stopped at "some assholes want to bait some other assholes by inviting an asshole to speak, and those other assholes acted like assholes by protesting during his speech as well as outside it". That's a surface-level analysis, I think, that portrays Duncan as a cynic looking to create a circus, but the students who invited him as sincerely motivated by (a regressive) ideology.
Conversely, is it obnoxious or provocative to disrupt the speech of a lib-baiting guest speaker? Again, probably, but it's also what that lib-baiting speaker wants. Is it strategically correct to give it to them? I think it's a double bind. Is defying the wishes of the Dean acceptably transgressive? Eh.
White is very upset about Tirien Steinbach, the Associate Dean "sent to do a grown-up's job" - but I think that she is in the very large subset of people whose understanding of what is happening is better than his, because she is showing an understanding that these actions have purpose beyond a kind of reflexively cynical Substack mode where everybody is an asshole and the worst thing you can do is care. But if you actually read what she said, I can see the argument:
I mean is it worth the pain that this causes and the division that this causes? Do you have something so incredibly important to say about Twitter and guns and COVID that that is worth this impact on the division of these people who have sat next to each other for years, who are going through what is the battle of law school together, so that they can go out into the world and be advocates.(Realistically, as a Black woman Steinbach belongs to a group that is in fact come for an a regular basis, and indeed the conservative media did come for her the following day.)
And this is the division it's caused.
When I say “Is the juice worth the squeeze?” that's what I'm asking. Is this worth it? And I hope so, and I'll stay for your remarks to see, because I do want to know your perspective. I am not, you know, in the business of wanting to either shut down speech, because I do know that if they come for this group today, they will come for the group that I am part of tomorrow. I do believe that.
And I understand why people feel like the harm is so great that we might need to reconsider those policies. And luckily they're in a school where they can learn the advocacy skills to advocate for those changes.
She asked the protesting students to let Duncan speak, and she asked them to limit their interruptions and instead to ask questions during the Q&A session. She said that it may be the case that the rules on speakers may need to be revisited, and that there was a proper way for that to be done in which students could be advocates for their views.
But she did ask whether this was a speech worth delivering in this context, because of the negative impact on the student community, and she noted that Duncan would need to get past his hyperpartisan focus to see the harm he was doing - which honestly I would have left out.
That is, she questioned the wisdom and the motives of the student branch of the Federalist Society in extending the invitation, and Duncan in accepting it, and expressed her hope that this session was going to have value that the setup did not suggest it would.
Ken White also implicitly asked that question, and answered it:
The FedSoc members didn’t think “Judge Duncan explains Colorado River abstention better than anyone and we need to hear from him.” The FedSoc members thought “Judge Duncan put that pronoun freak in its place and inviting him will own the libs.”Again, I don't know what is upsetting to him about this sentiment when Tirien Steinbach says it, or indeed what distinguishes a "grown-up" from someone who graduated Berkeley Law in 1999. Possibly he means that the Dean should have come herself, which is a position it's possible to express by using one's words. Certainly, if you send the Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion they are going to interpret their task through their role.
Arguably Steinbach was being naive, but we should remember that, unlike White, Steinbach has actual skin in the game - she was trying to persuade Duncan to respect the traditions of collegial debate and avoid needless provocation, and to persuade the protestors either to leave the room or to let him speak.
And I do want to hear your remarks, and I do want to say thank you for protecting the free speech that we value here of our speakers and of our protesters, and I want to remind you all of one thing: I chose to be here today. You all chose to be here today. Many people go before Judge Duncan who do not necessarily choose to be there. And they have to listen to everything he says. Literally thousands of people. You have a choice. You do not need to stay here if this is not where you want to be. You can stay if this is where you want to be right now. But make that choice.It's not wholly sincere - she's appealing to Duncan's vanity to try to get him to behave like an esteemed legislator rather than a culture warrior looking for Fox News soundbites, and to the protestors' self-regard as Stanford Law students to try to get them to give him the space to do so. It's a doomed attempt, but I see why she did it, and I am not sure what a "grown up" might have done differently except for saying "we have campus security here, and we are going to drag out anyone who heckles".
If you do choose to stay here, I do think we should give space to hear what Judge Duncan has to say, and I hope that also you will take the question and answer and comments section to say what you need to say and ask the questions you need to ask. I'm really grateful to be in this institution. I look out and I don't ask, “What is going on here?” I look out and I say, “I'm glad this is going on here.”
posted by running order squabble fest at 7:56 AM on March 24, 2023 [2 favorites]
It is impressive how relentlessly the dean undermines her own arguments. It comes to a head with this paragraph, emphasis added:
Contemptible.
posted by Ptrin at 8:07 AM on March 24, 2023
Moreover, it is important to recall that the First Amendment bars regulation of speech on the ground that listeners might find its content disturbing, see Terminiello, 337 U.S. at 3. Under this standard, students could be sanctioned for interrupting the speaker with loud shouts, for example, but not for holding signs or asking questions (when called upon) that are offensive, vulgar, or provocative. Given this, focusing solely on punishing those who engaged in unprotected disruptions such as noisy shouting during the lecture would leave perversely unaddressed the students whose speech was perhaps constitutionally protected but well outside the norms of civil discourse that we hope to cultivate in a professional school. As a law school, it is within our educational mandate to address with students the norms of the legal profession with regard to, for example, offering substantive criticism of legal arguments and positions rather than vulgar personal insults, and the potential consequences for their professional reputations of such speech.We’ve bored you to tears explaining time, place, and manner restrictions at enormous length, but actually we just don’t like what you have to say and we want to punish you for saying it.
Contemptible.
posted by Ptrin at 8:07 AM on March 24, 2023
The folks over at LGM make this point in response to the op-ed by the Stanford administration:
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:42 AM on March 24, 2023 [6 favorites]
Kyle Duncan is a representative of a political movement — Donald Trump’s Republican party — that does not in fact believe in diversity, equity, and inclusion. That party has become the incarnation of an authoritarian ethno-nationalist theocratic project that believes in the precise opposite: in homogeneity, hierarchy, and exclusion.It's easier to admonish the students than to acknowledge what is actually happening.
That party is so committed to that project that it rejects at the most fundamental level the very concept of democracy, even in the very limited sense that democracy is a value of the formal American constitutional order.
When Donald Trump and his supporters say the 2020 presidential election was rigged, what they’re really saying is that real Americans — that is, the supporters of an authoritarian ethno-nationalist theocratic political order that maintains the true essence of the nation against contamination — cannot have their right to live in such a nation abridged via the ballot box.
Donald Trump is not a democrat, any more than Vladimir Putin or Victor Orban or Xi Jingping or a member of the Taliban or an integralist Catholic or a fundamentalist Protestant or a white supremacist or a neo-Nazi are democrats. Failing to grasp this is a fundamental failure of imagination that actual democrats can’t afford at this moment.
Would you expect, at this particular historical moment, Ukrainians to engage in “respectful dialogue” with Vladimir Putin? Would you expect Afghani women who have been barred from sending their daughters to school to engage in “respectful dialogue” with the Taliban? Would you expect Jewish persons to engage in “respectful dialogue with a neo-Nazis?
You would not expect this. But you expect people who are opposing the political movement that is trying to transform this nation into an authoritarian ethno-nationalist theocratic state, and who will be the precise victims of that transformation should it happen, to engage in “respectful dialogue” with the instruments of that attempt.
Now why is that? I submit it’s because you (we) don’t really believe that what is actually happening in this country is actually happening.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:42 AM on March 24, 2023 [6 favorites]
There are clearly a few here who think that Duncan and the FedSoc are absolutely evil, and can be wholly equated with Putin, Trump, the insurrectionists, etc., and therefore can and should be completely dismissed and deplatformed, presumably never to be allowed to say anything ever again.
The problem you'll run into with that approach, however, is that there are tens of millions of Americans who share at least some of those folks' views. They're not going anywhere.
You can't shut, say, a third of the population up permanently. I mean, you *could*, if gulags and extermination camps were on your agenda, I guess, but you don't have the political power to implement such a thing even if you wanted to.
So: These people you anathematize are still here, and are going to be here. They are going to vote, they are going to go to law school, they are going to hold elective office, they are going to speak and write and publish and broadcast.
Your repeated expostulations about their absolute wrongness aren't going to change their minds. They're going to continue to believe the various things they believe. So what's the end game? You can attempt to assemble mobs to shout them down any time they gather, I suppose. Is that the plan?
What does that have to do with democracy as we know it? Is democracy a primary value for you, or more of a "nice to have, but not if THOSE PEOPLE (again, tens of millions of them!) are part of it" kind of deal?
I anticipate someone will bring up the "paradox of tolerance" again. But if your stance is that these people are intolerable because of their intolerance, what are you going to do about them? They may very well outnumber people of your political persuasion. The kind of people who would shout down a visiting speaker at a law school event, I submit, are likely not representative of the majority of Americans.
If those are your people, you're a minority -- probably no larger than the minority who support people like Duncan, and possibly smaller. So people who think the way you do can try to engage in these stunts in rarefied settings where they currently have the numerical advantage. But unilaterally imposed deplatforming, grounded solely in absolute and self-ascribed moral authority, will not scale well to American society at large.
I'm fairly certain that most Americans believe in a relatively broad guarantee of free speech, covering a wide range of views -- including views they disagree with -- and are not too keen on the type of circus those students instigated at Stanford. You might want to think about that.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:31 AM on March 24, 2023 [1 favorite]
The problem you'll run into with that approach, however, is that there are tens of millions of Americans who share at least some of those folks' views. They're not going anywhere.
You can't shut, say, a third of the population up permanently. I mean, you *could*, if gulags and extermination camps were on your agenda, I guess, but you don't have the political power to implement such a thing even if you wanted to.
So: These people you anathematize are still here, and are going to be here. They are going to vote, they are going to go to law school, they are going to hold elective office, they are going to speak and write and publish and broadcast.
Your repeated expostulations about their absolute wrongness aren't going to change their minds. They're going to continue to believe the various things they believe. So what's the end game? You can attempt to assemble mobs to shout them down any time they gather, I suppose. Is that the plan?
What does that have to do with democracy as we know it? Is democracy a primary value for you, or more of a "nice to have, but not if THOSE PEOPLE (again, tens of millions of them!) are part of it" kind of deal?
I anticipate someone will bring up the "paradox of tolerance" again. But if your stance is that these people are intolerable because of their intolerance, what are you going to do about them? They may very well outnumber people of your political persuasion. The kind of people who would shout down a visiting speaker at a law school event, I submit, are likely not representative of the majority of Americans.
If those are your people, you're a minority -- probably no larger than the minority who support people like Duncan, and possibly smaller. So people who think the way you do can try to engage in these stunts in rarefied settings where they currently have the numerical advantage. But unilaterally imposed deplatforming, grounded solely in absolute and self-ascribed moral authority, will not scale well to American society at large.
I'm fairly certain that most Americans believe in a relatively broad guarantee of free speech, covering a wide range of views -- including views they disagree with -- and are not too keen on the type of circus those students instigated at Stanford. You might want to think about that.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:31 AM on March 24, 2023 [1 favorite]
I mean, you *could*, if gulags and extermination camps were on your agenda
JFC, YELLING AT PEOPLE WHEN THEY GET INVITED TO SPEAK AT STANFORD LAW SCHOOL IS NOT IN THE SAME REALM AS A GULAG!
So what's the end game?
Ugh, not have them have prestigious campus speaking events?
A friendly reminder that we are talking about, CAMPUS SPEAKING EVENTS.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:01 AM on March 24, 2023 [6 favorites]
JFC, YELLING AT PEOPLE WHEN THEY GET INVITED TO SPEAK AT STANFORD LAW SCHOOL IS NOT IN THE SAME REALM AS A GULAG!
So what's the end game?
Ugh, not have them have prestigious campus speaking events?
A friendly reminder that we are talking about, CAMPUS SPEAKING EVENTS.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:01 AM on March 24, 2023 [6 favorites]
What makes it even more fucked up is that the people being defended are the ones currently trying to come up with ways to put people in gulags and extermination camps, and they're not even subtle about it.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 10:11 AM on March 24, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 10:11 AM on March 24, 2023 [6 favorites]
Here’s the thing. There is no “end game”. A-holes will always be with us. Thus, we will be in a forever struggle of maximizing freedom while telling the a-holes they aren’t welcome and they need to cut it out. There will never be a perfect set of context free rules to fix this because the a-holes always probe for weaknesses and change tactics.
posted by delicious-luncheon at 10:14 AM on March 24, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by delicious-luncheon at 10:14 AM on March 24, 2023 [5 favorites]
What does that have to do with democracy as we know it? Is democracy a primary value for you, or more of a "nice to have, but not if THOSE PEOPLE (again, tens of millions of them!) are part of it" kind of deal?
To add, you're fundamentally misunderstanding almost everything about this---this is not about who can participate in democracy (which, for the fuckign record, the right has and is actively removing people from democracy). This is about who gets to have an extremely priviledged position in society, whose speech to we celebrate and fete and elevate. Maybe you missed the part about STANFORD?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:19 AM on March 24, 2023 [4 favorites]
To add, you're fundamentally misunderstanding almost everything about this---this is not about who can participate in democracy (which, for the fuckign record, the right has and is actively removing people from democracy). This is about who gets to have an extremely priviledged position in society, whose speech to we celebrate and fete and elevate. Maybe you missed the part about STANFORD?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:19 AM on March 24, 2023 [4 favorites]
Uh, this is a kink, right?
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:27 AM on March 24, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:27 AM on March 24, 2023 [1 favorite]
JFC, YELLING AT PEOPLE WHEN THEY GET INVITED TO SPEAK AT STANFORD LAW SCHOOL IS NOT IN THE SAME REALM AS A GULAG!
You missed my point.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:28 AM on March 24, 2023 [1 favorite]
You missed my point.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:28 AM on March 24, 2023 [1 favorite]
What makes it even more fucked up is that the people being defended are the ones currently trying to come up with ways to put people in gulags and extermination camps, and they're not even subtle about it.
Kyle Duncan and the Federalist Society are advocating for gulags and extermination camps?
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:29 AM on March 24, 2023
Kyle Duncan and the Federalist Society are advocating for gulags and extermination camps?
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:29 AM on March 24, 2023
I can't believe I'm participating in this, but... Artifice_Eternity, is it your belief that the United States of America has never up to this moment found itself in a situation where some people disagree strongly with each other?
And the fact that this is happening now, for the first time, is a truth bomb that you, the first person to notice, are dropping upon us?
And you are seeking to engineer ab initio a solution to this unprecedented situation, and have so far come up with, and discarded, "gulags and extermination camps", and you are now out of ideas?
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:34 AM on March 24, 2023
And the fact that this is happening now, for the first time, is a truth bomb that you, the first person to notice, are dropping upon us?
And you are seeking to engineer ab initio a solution to this unprecedented situation, and have so far come up with, and discarded, "gulags and extermination camps", and you are now out of ideas?
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:34 AM on March 24, 2023
Kyle Duncan and the Federalist Society are advocating for gulags and extermination camps?
What exactly do you think their endgame is?
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 10:34 AM on March 24, 2023 [6 favorites]
What exactly do you think their endgame is?
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 10:34 AM on March 24, 2023 [6 favorites]
What does that have to do with democracy as we know it? Is democracy a primary value for you, or more of a "nice to have, but not if THOSE PEOPLE (again, tens of millions of them!) are part of it" kind of deal?
I mean, that's been a party plank of the GOP for how many decades now? If you're really going all the way down the line to looking at the whole "one third of the country plans to marginalize-to-kill another third while the remaining third watches" bit, the questions you're asking are what they've been building the project to answer. This subset with the Federalist Society is a big part of that project.
Under GOP policy, the only valid democracy is one where Real Americans vote for them. Any aberrations, either in who's vote counts or which outcome is voted for, is to be corrected. Whether it's proposing abolishing the Democratic party state by state, rejecting college IDs for voting residency in favor of concealed carry permits, stripping prisoners of voting rights but letting their bodies count for purpose of districting, stripping voting rights of trans people, calling for holy militias to kill all male Democrats & take their women to repopulate barren states...
Take your pick. I'm pretty sure you're not surprising anyone telling us there's tens of millions of people who would rather most of us not exist which we're still required to co-exist with. Welcome to America!
So now that we're clear on the stakes, what then? You seem to be advocating that democracy that could vote to enact ethnic cleansing is valid to you, & any proposed counterpressure immediately gets escalated to "gulags & extermination camps".
Now, I'm pretty sure you aren't yourself into that sort of thing. So since you're determining what's valid & invalid responses to our current national situation, what's your solution?
posted by CrystalDave at 10:43 AM on March 24, 2023 [2 favorites]
I mean, that's been a party plank of the GOP for how many decades now? If you're really going all the way down the line to looking at the whole "one third of the country plans to marginalize-to-kill another third while the remaining third watches" bit, the questions you're asking are what they've been building the project to answer. This subset with the Federalist Society is a big part of that project.
Under GOP policy, the only valid democracy is one where Real Americans vote for them. Any aberrations, either in who's vote counts or which outcome is voted for, is to be corrected. Whether it's proposing abolishing the Democratic party state by state, rejecting college IDs for voting residency in favor of concealed carry permits, stripping prisoners of voting rights but letting their bodies count for purpose of districting, stripping voting rights of trans people, calling for holy militias to kill all male Democrats & take their women to repopulate barren states...
Take your pick. I'm pretty sure you're not surprising anyone telling us there's tens of millions of people who would rather most of us not exist which we're still required to co-exist with. Welcome to America!
So now that we're clear on the stakes, what then? You seem to be advocating that democracy that could vote to enact ethnic cleansing is valid to you, & any proposed counterpressure immediately gets escalated to "gulags & extermination camps".
Now, I'm pretty sure you aren't yourself into that sort of thing. So since you're determining what's valid & invalid responses to our current national situation, what's your solution?
posted by CrystalDave at 10:43 AM on March 24, 2023 [2 favorites]
I'm fairly certain that most Americans believe in a relatively broad guarantee of free speech, covering a wide range of views -- including views they disagree with -- and are not too keen on the type of circus those students instigated at Stanford. You might want to think about that.
So, what exactly is this disagreement about? Because one again, arguing that the problem is over a "disagreement" without discussing what that disagreement actually is winds up being bad faith argumentation. These students weren't protesting over a "disagreement" - they were there to defend the right of non-binary people to exist, in face of a judge who has spent his career attacking them.
And yes, part of the problem is that Americans have been taught for decades that hate speech is the price of free speech, that minorities and the dispossessed are obliged to continually argue for their own existence. But the thing is that's begun to change, as the fundamental contradiction of free speech "absolutism" is more and more laid bare. Not to mention that when hate is framed as such, and not a bloodless "difference of views", it tends to have less support.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:41 AM on March 24, 2023
So, what exactly is this disagreement about? Because one again, arguing that the problem is over a "disagreement" without discussing what that disagreement actually is winds up being bad faith argumentation. These students weren't protesting over a "disagreement" - they were there to defend the right of non-binary people to exist, in face of a judge who has spent his career attacking them.
And yes, part of the problem is that Americans have been taught for decades that hate speech is the price of free speech, that minorities and the dispossessed are obliged to continually argue for their own existence. But the thing is that's begun to change, as the fundamental contradiction of free speech "absolutism" is more and more laid bare. Not to mention that when hate is framed as such, and not a bloodless "difference of views", it tends to have less support.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:41 AM on March 24, 2023
I can't believe I'm participating in this, but... Artifice_Eternity, is it your belief that the United States of America has never up to this moment found itself in a situation where some people disagree strongly with each other?
And the fact that this is happening now, for the first time, is a truth bomb that you, the first person to notice, are dropping upon us?
And you are seeking to engineer ab initio a solution to this unprecedented situation, and have so far come up with, and discarded, "gulags and extermination camps", and you are now out of ideas?
Wow, what a wild misreading.
My position, obviously, is just the opposite: Our country has long been full of people who disagree with each other. And we have long had a system for dealing with this. It involves concepts like "freedom of speech" and "the democratic process". They have worked fairly well, if often quite imperfectly. We should keep using them!
The alternative being advocated by some here -- namely, "people who are really sure that their opponents are evil get to shout them down when they attempt to speak in public" -- I'm not so wild about.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:26 PM on March 24, 2023 [1 favorite]
And the fact that this is happening now, for the first time, is a truth bomb that you, the first person to notice, are dropping upon us?
And you are seeking to engineer ab initio a solution to this unprecedented situation, and have so far come up with, and discarded, "gulags and extermination camps", and you are now out of ideas?
Wow, what a wild misreading.
My position, obviously, is just the opposite: Our country has long been full of people who disagree with each other. And we have long had a system for dealing with this. It involves concepts like "freedom of speech" and "the democratic process". They have worked fairly well, if often quite imperfectly. We should keep using them!
The alternative being advocated by some here -- namely, "people who are really sure that their opponents are evil get to shout them down when they attempt to speak in public" -- I'm not so wild about.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:26 PM on March 24, 2023 [1 favorite]
Kyle Duncan and the Federalist Society are advocating for gulags and extermination camps?
What exactly do you think their endgame is?
I get that you think that is their endgame. And you think that is so obvious that you don't even need to argue, much less prove, the case... and apparently so obvious that it's OK to shut them down when they attempt to speak. Because you just know they're that evil. You can feel their vibes! And everyone else just has to take your word for it that they're plotting genocide.
You don't seem to have any idea how far out on a limb you are.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:31 PM on March 24, 2023
What exactly do you think their endgame is?
I get that you think that is their endgame. And you think that is so obvious that you don't even need to argue, much less prove, the case... and apparently so obvious that it's OK to shut them down when they attempt to speak. Because you just know they're that evil. You can feel their vibes! And everyone else just has to take your word for it that they're plotting genocide.
You don't seem to have any idea how far out on a limb you are.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:31 PM on March 24, 2023
You seem to be advocating that democracy that could vote to enact ethnic cleansing is valid to you,
It's absolutely wild that you could read me saying exactly the opposite and then say this.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:32 PM on March 24, 2023
It's absolutely wild that you could read me saying exactly the opposite and then say this.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:32 PM on March 24, 2023
Because you just know they're that evil.
Kyle Duncan's bigotry is literally a matter of legal record.
And everyone else just has to take your word for it that they're plotting genocide.
Uganda just made homosexuality a capital offense, in part thanks to the lobbying of groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom.
You don't seem to have any idea how far out on a limb you are.
No, you're just demonstrating your ignorance of the world around you. People keep showing you the receipts, but they're never enough to persuade you.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:53 PM on March 24, 2023 [3 favorites]
Kyle Duncan's bigotry is literally a matter of legal record.
And everyone else just has to take your word for it that they're plotting genocide.
Uganda just made homosexuality a capital offense, in part thanks to the lobbying of groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom.
You don't seem to have any idea how far out on a limb you are.
No, you're just demonstrating your ignorance of the world around you. People keep showing you the receipts, but they're never enough to persuade you.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:53 PM on March 24, 2023 [3 favorites]
It involves concepts like "freedom of speech" and "the democratic process". They have worked fairly well, if often quite imperfectly. We should keep using them
I am agog at your profound ignorance of politics and US history. You may want to educate yourself on anything from the civil rights movement to ACT UP.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:58 PM on March 24, 2023 [8 favorites]
I am agog at your profound ignorance of politics and US history. You may want to educate yourself on anything from the civil rights movement to ACT UP.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:58 PM on March 24, 2023 [8 favorites]
I get that you think that is their endgame. And you think that is so obvious that you don't even need to argue, much less prove, the case... and apparently so obvious that it's OK to shut them down when they attempt to speak. Because you just know they're that evil. You can feel their vibes! And everyone else just has to take your word for it that they're plotting genocide.
You're right, how could I ever consider that those who want to use the law to write marginalized people out of existence is in any way a precursor to genocide? Obviously they only want to commit some "light" fascism a la Jim Crow, maybe some good old-fashioned lynchings if the drag queens get a bit too fabulous in front of the children. They'll totally stop there, they promise!
You don't seem to have any idea how far out on a limb you are.
Ooooh, threats! I can't wait for your hot take that, when people do get shipped off to the camps, it will really be all their fault.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 1:01 PM on March 24, 2023 [3 favorites]
You're right, how could I ever consider that those who want to use the law to write marginalized people out of existence is in any way a precursor to genocide? Obviously they only want to commit some "light" fascism a la Jim Crow, maybe some good old-fashioned lynchings if the drag queens get a bit too fabulous in front of the children. They'll totally stop there, they promise!
You don't seem to have any idea how far out on a limb you are.
Ooooh, threats! I can't wait for your hot take that, when people do get shipped off to the camps, it will really be all their fault.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 1:01 PM on March 24, 2023 [3 favorites]
I get that you think that is their endgame. And you think that is so obvious that you don't even need to argue, much less prove, the case... and apparently so obvious that it's OK to shut them down when they attempt to speak. Because you just know they're that evil. You can feel their vibes! And everyone else just has to take your word for it that they're plotting genocide.
Hi, it's me, who has not always been a leftist and who still has many conservative friends from the military. I do not think that everyone who has conservative views is a monster. But let me say that until I got to law school I had no idea what a fucking shitshow FedSoc was, and that FedSoc is absolutely not just "the conservatives at law school." Please believe people who are telling you that FedSoc is a uniquely terrible problem. I don't know what it used to be, but.. there are people in my law school's FedSoc who, when nobody is around, advocate for the repeal of women's and minority suffrage. They are not fucking kidding. There are people in my law school's FedSoc who participated in the Jan 6 insurrection.
In part because of how uniquely terrible FedSoc is, it is self sorting - to be a part of FedSoc means that you have to be okay with tolerating monsters.
posted by corb at 1:06 PM on March 24, 2023 [17 favorites]
Hi, it's me, who has not always been a leftist and who still has many conservative friends from the military. I do not think that everyone who has conservative views is a monster. But let me say that until I got to law school I had no idea what a fucking shitshow FedSoc was, and that FedSoc is absolutely not just "the conservatives at law school." Please believe people who are telling you that FedSoc is a uniquely terrible problem. I don't know what it used to be, but.. there are people in my law school's FedSoc who, when nobody is around, advocate for the repeal of women's and minority suffrage. They are not fucking kidding. There are people in my law school's FedSoc who participated in the Jan 6 insurrection.
In part because of how uniquely terrible FedSoc is, it is self sorting - to be a part of FedSoc means that you have to be okay with tolerating monsters.
posted by corb at 1:06 PM on March 24, 2023 [17 favorites]
The legal commentators at LGM weigh in on the dean's letter. Their conclusion is worth considering:
What’s most discouraging in this situation is the number of centrist and liberal commentators who are essentially taking Duncan’s side in this matter (Our right wing commentators are of course by now far past praying for). Duncan and the rest of Donald Trump’s minions are trying very very hard to destroy liberal democracy in this country, but we’re supposed to go into paroxysms of self-flagellation because a group of understandably enraged and frustrated students violated what are essentially rules of social etiquette (A few minutes of heckling did not in fact prevent Duncan from delivering his prepared remarks; after the heckling subsided he simply chose not to do so).posted by NoxAeternum at 3:01 PM on March 24, 2023 [4 favorites]
Again, the reaction from almost everyone to this incident illustrates the extent to which Very Serious People are not, in fact, very serious about Donald Trump’s Republican party and what it represents. Whatever you might say about the Stanford law students’ practical judgment in regard to the protest tactics they chose to employ, they at least are not making that mistake.
The crux of it is that most critics of the students would have no problem if they heckled, say, NAMBLA or Osama bin Laden. But they have a problem with heckling Duncan. Which means they think that Duncan isn’t “that” bad.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:12 PM on March 24, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:12 PM on March 24, 2023 [2 favorites]
But they have a problem with heckling Duncan. Which means they think that Duncan isn’t “that” bad.
As the LGM piece points out, a large part of this is that by being a sitting Federal judge, Duncan is the social superior of the students, and as such there is a degree of deference "due" him given that position. Again, this is legal institutionalism at work - what matters is that Duncan is on the bench, not that he's a bigot who uses his position of authority to abuse litigants before him, because holding judges accountable would "violate judicial independence" (read: set up a precedent that would bite lawyers looking to use the bench as their retirement plan in the ass.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:37 PM on March 24, 2023 [3 favorites]
As the LGM piece points out, a large part of this is that by being a sitting Federal judge, Duncan is the social superior of the students, and as such there is a degree of deference "due" him given that position. Again, this is legal institutionalism at work - what matters is that Duncan is on the bench, not that he's a bigot who uses his position of authority to abuse litigants before him, because holding judges accountable would "violate judicial independence" (read: set up a precedent that would bite lawyers looking to use the bench as their retirement plan in the ass.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:37 PM on March 24, 2023 [3 favorites]
It involves concepts like "freedom of speech" and "the democratic process". They have worked fairly well, if often quite imperfectly. We should keep using them
I'm confused about juxtaposed fairly well and often quite imperfectly. It's history, not an Edsel. What I'm not confused about, if debating and it's a derail and move on. I tend to agree more with those then not, I guess debate is lively, anyone ever think of debate filter.
As to how well that worked (ing) out, I have 23 citations from the anti- Chinese acts to Jim Crow (reconstruction and beyond) to HUAC to civil rights to the French. just saying. but I think it quite proper and with-in the realm of decorum to apologise for the Edsel thing.
Also, in the news, 'Operation Higher Court’: Inside the religious right’s efforts to wine and dine Supreme Court justices'
using the law to achieve ones goal(s)
"Michael Knowles Is Right." I won't link it or finish the qoate but, using a fourmn to promote ignorance, hate, and more, end goal for "eradication" from the Federalist fiend forumn.
and look: “Transgender people is not a real ontological category”
The philosophical argument to justify hate.
so in 7 minutes I found the legal and philosophical arguments for fascist ideology at play.John Adams once thought the Constitution was designed for a moral and religious people...men. I see his wry point in it's protracted test of time qua territorial expansion and slavery. but I'll leave this:
"While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net."
-John Adams, 1798.
posted by clavdivs at 3:48 PM on March 24, 2023 [1 favorite]
I'm confused about juxtaposed fairly well and often quite imperfectly. It's history, not an Edsel. What I'm not confused about, if debating and it's a derail and move on. I tend to agree more with those then not, I guess debate is lively, anyone ever think of debate filter.
As to how well that worked (ing) out, I have 23 citations from the anti- Chinese acts to Jim Crow (reconstruction and beyond) to HUAC to civil rights to the French. just saying. but I think it quite proper and with-in the realm of decorum to apologise for the Edsel thing.
Also, in the news, 'Operation Higher Court’: Inside the religious right’s efforts to wine and dine Supreme Court justices'
using the law to achieve ones goal(s)
"Michael Knowles Is Right." I won't link it or finish the qoate but, using a fourmn to promote ignorance, hate, and more, end goal for "eradication" from the Federalist fiend forumn.
and look: “Transgender people is not a real ontological category”
The philosophical argument to justify hate.
so in 7 minutes I found the legal and philosophical arguments for fascist ideology at play.John Adams once thought the Constitution was designed for a moral and religious people...men. I see his wry point in it's protracted test of time qua territorial expansion and slavery. but I'll leave this:
"While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net."
-John Adams, 1798.
posted by clavdivs at 3:48 PM on March 24, 2023 [1 favorite]
The crux of it is that most critics of the students would have no problem if they heckled, say, NAMBLA or Osama bin Laden. But they have a problem with heckling Duncan. Which means they think that Duncan isn’t “that” bad.
or just ignorant of how how bad Duncan is.
posted by philip-random at 4:22 PM on March 24, 2023
or just ignorant of how how bad Duncan is.
posted by philip-random at 4:22 PM on March 24, 2023
I would just like to say that my comment about students being customers was with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Higher education should be solely about understanding the world around you and generally expanding your intellectual horizons. But in our current incarnation of capitalism, colleges are acutely aware of how they must chase the almighty dollar.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 5:53 PM on March 24, 2023
posted by Big Al 8000 at 5:53 PM on March 24, 2023
« Older Sloth Bites Teen! Ruining Life Long Dream! | Revisiting a favorite from long ago Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by heyitsgogi at 12:53 PM on March 20, 2023 [17 favorites]