Actually, Ben Shapiro, We Had Plenty of Evidence To Go On

One of the aspects of the right I find most depressing, illusions-shattering, and depressing is their eager adoption of every trendily retarded aspect of the left, just five years after the left adopts it. (Conservatism, for many, seems to be "progressivism plus a short period of time to give it some veneer of 'beloved tradition.'")

One of the left's recent inventions was the doctrine of "No Platforming," or #NoPlatforming, as the kids say on Twitter. The idea of it is that people should not merely oppose, contradict, refute, or rubbish statements they do not like, but apply social and economic pressure to block such statements from even being made at a venue they control (or influence). Hence, "No Platforming" -- we will blockade anyone from even providing a platform to people whose speech we don't like.

This is sadly now accepted by many quarters of the right. Perhaps it always was.

Ben Shapiro not only seems to accept the practice, but to endorse it-- despite the fact that he himself has been the target of many #NoPlatforming campaigns.

He begins his piece by sketching out a scenario in which a speaker -- no names yet! That's the trick! -- is disinvited from speaking at a campus by leftist groups. The #NoPlatforming works -- the speaker is disinvited.

Now, Shapiro asks you -- do you support the disinvitation?

He counts on you to say "No," but only because leftists pushed the #NoPlatforming.

He claims you actually don't have enough information yet to make this determination, then, with a flourish, reveals the name of the successfully #NoPlatformed speaker -- David Duke.

This, I guess, is supposed to be a comet impacting the planet of your brain with great velocity. See, you were tricked. You thought the speaker shouldn't be disinvited, but then, when you found out he was a Bad Guy, you then agreed he should be disinvited.

But what if you still don't agree with the #NoPlatforming tactic? What if you still don't agree with the left's -- not the right's, at least not until the right's own cadre of Social Justice Warriors legitimized the tactic in a bipartisan uniparty sort of way -- tactic of denying speakers a platform, even if the speaker in question is odious?

What if you still believe in the classical liberal formulation that the free marketplace of ideas should have as few barriers to entry as possible -- and certainly not huge walls put up by minds fearful of hearing ideas they don't like?

What if you still don't think that Social Justice Warriors of the left or the right should be employing the tactic of shutting down speech, instead of simply confronting it with, get this, more speech?

Ben Shapiro makes the charge that anyone who got okey-doked by his silly rhetorical gambit of not revealing the name is guilty of tribal thinking.

But who's actually doing the tribal thinking here? Who's actually guilty of saying "Let him speak if I consider him respectable or at least acceptable enough to speak, but shut that shit down if I don't?"

Let me quote Shapiro on this point:

If you did not answer that the story provided too little information for you to judge, it's time to check your biases.

Perhaps I ought to check my privileges while I'm down there as well.

What if I felt I did have enough information, Ben? What if I felt before the reveal, and felt after the reveal, that I object the left's (and now the right's) acceptance of #NoPlatforming and pressure groups creating barriers to the marketplace of ideas?

What then?

Did you decide that the speaker was on the right because the protesters were on the left? Did you decide that the speaker had something valuable to say if he ticked off the Left enough, if he melted enough snowflakes?
Unfortunately, many conservatives have embraced this sort of binary thinking: If it angers the Left, it must be virtuous. Undoubtedly, that’s a crude shorthand for political thinking. It means you never have to check the ideas of the speaker, you merely have to check how people respond to him. That's dangerous.

That's dangerous? That's political thinking?

It seems to me that Shapiro is the one guilty of political or tribal thinking here -- he will support, or withhold support for, free speech depending entirely on whether the speech in question is speech he agrees with, or at least agrees is tolerable enough that he'll permit it.

Don't believe me?

Well, let me ask Ben this: Does he support the #NoPlatforming efforts deployed against himself?

He doesn't, of course. Why not? For many leftists, Shapiro's speech is just as bad as David Duke's, or at least they make no distinctions between them. Shapiro seems to be arguing that this tactic is okay so long as You agree that the speech in question offends your political sensitbilities.

But the left genuinely is offended by Shapiro -- they're not lying about that. They lie about many, many things, but they are extremely emotional and they have cultivated a sense of outrage to the point that they really are terribly offended and made to feel "unsafe" by Shapiro. Their claims to be "offended" by Shapiro are real -- they're crazy. They are offended by many, many things.

So by their lights -- they are doing the right thing. They are shutting down speech they really do find offensive.

And Shapiro, by inescapable implication, agrees with them on this on a foundational level. Shapiro may disagree with them as to which speech "should" cause one to become upset, and therefore which speech it is permissible to deploy the #NoPlatforming tactic against, but he clearly supports #NoPlatforming when it's directed against the appropriate targets.

I don't know how on earth he could possibly have this argument with a leftist. Shapiro says "No, only use #NoPlatforming against people who are really bad, like David Duke, or Milo."

The leftist says: "I agree with #NoPlatforming them, but I'm also offended by you, and I will #NoPlatform you as well."

What does he say in return? "No, I'm Good, you see?"

What kind of principle is that to argue over, when the real thing in dispute is not over the procedural concern of a general caution about shutting down speech, but the substantive matter of whether Ben Shapiro is "good" enough to deserve free speech rights?

A principle in favor of free speech is not a principle of free speech if it turns on one's subjective evaluation of whether the speech in question is worthy of protection.

That is elementary -- the ACLU, before they decided to abandon the principle, preached that for years.

It's not the speech we agree with that we have a principle of free speech ot protect. Free speech you agree with needs no protection, for the love of God!

On college campuses, you are of course free to talk about how terrible the Tampon Tax is and how White Privilege can only be eradicated by getting rid of Whiteness (or Whites, period). Because the dominant cultural cohort controlling speech there approves of that speech.

As is often remarked, of course in Nazi Germany you were "free" to say nice things about Hitler, and in the re-sovietified Russia, you are "free" to attack Putin's enemies.

Speech which is approved of by the dominant social order does not need protection, ever, under any circumstances, and is not the sort of speech that we are even speaking about when we speak of free speech at all.

Free speech is about -- has always been about -- must always be about -- the speech we find offensive ourselves.

It is only that speech -- the speech we are sorely tempted to squelch ourselves, or too cavalierly shrug at as our allies or semi-allies squelch it for us -- that is in need of protection from without and especially from within.

A principle, Mr. Shapiro, is not just a weapon one wields against one's enemies, limiting what they may do.

A principle is supposed to be a restraint on ourselves first and foremost, imposing limits on us ourselves before it's ever applied outwardly to restrain other people.

A line which we ourselves will not cross even though we'd really like to do so.

An ethic of procedure -- no thought of the substance of it allowed, and whether we agree with that substance or not -- which binds us even though we might vigorously struggle against those bounds.

If you find a "principle" does not cause you discomfort, or restrain you from doing things you'd like to do, or sometimes compel you to do things you'd rather not do, then it is not a "principle" at all.

It's merely a convenient high-minded-sounding rationalization or justification for whatever action you choose to take in a principle-free, ad hoc manner.

A "principle" which does not impose limits and duties upon the alleged holder of said "principle" is not a principle. It's simply a license for one's own actions, and an attack line against one's enemies actions.

So no, I do not agree that we "didn't have enough information" to judge. Some group at that college used their free speech rights and decided, for whatever reason, to invite David Duke. That for me is plenty enough information to say that I should reject the left's -- the left's, Ben -- faddish embrace of the #NoPlatforming tactic and let Duke's odious speech be met by other speech.

Shapiro concludes that deviating from his notion that #NoPlatforming is wrong for Ben Shapiro, but might be right for people Ben Shapiro agrees are really, objectively bad:

It leads to supporting bad policies and bad men. The enemy of your enemy isn't always your friend. Sometimes he’s your enemy.

Let me respond: abandoning your own solid principles -- in a here-or-there, now-it's-in-operation-and-now-I've-rescinded-it self-serving way according to whether you feel the targets of a tactic deserve it enough is supporting a bad principle in a zealot's quest to hunt down the "bad men."

The enemy of your enemy isn't always your friend, Ben says. True!

But the tactics of your enemy also aren't your friends, even when you get to use them against your enemies.

There is a distinction between procedural matters -- rights, obligations, and principles we extend to all with no regard for the substance under debate -- and substantive matters.

Ben Shapiro is on solid ground opposing Duke, or Milo, for that matter, on substantive grounds.

But he makes the mistake that many motivated-reasoning people do, which is to smuggle substantive conclusions into his thinking about purely procedural matters, which should have no substantive aspect to them at all.

He should do better separating these two elements of analysis in his thinking, so that he doesn't continue asserting that the tactics of my enemy are now the tactics of my tribe.

Either you're fighting for the actual principle, or you're just playing for time until they get 'round to outlawing you.

And they will. They're not even really denying that any longer.

Update: A commenter suggests this comparison:

OUT: "I may not agree with what you're saying, but I'll defend with my life your right to say it!"

IN: "It's complicated"

Posted by: Ace at 04:28 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 attack of the italicans

Posted by: AltonJackson at February 22, 2017 04:29 PM (ZQfW9)

Posted by: AltonJackson at February 22, 2017 04:30 PM (ZQfW9)

3 Yay, slanty words!

Posted by: Iblis at February 22, 2017 04:32 PM (9221z)

4 Oh pooh.

Posted by: Iblis at February 22, 2017 04:32 PM (9221z)

5 See how long it's taking everyone to read this?

Posted by: Evelyn Wood at February 22, 2017 04:33 PM (HgMAr)

6 I thought platforming helps you build up your core strength.

Posted by: wait, what? at February 22, 2017 04:34 PM (+INtM)

7 Who let all the Italicans in? Damn immigrants!

Posted by: Syracuse1989 at February 22, 2017 04:35 PM (kEURK)

8 One the more fascinating aspects of the entire election and early stages of the Trump presidency is just how many masks are slipping.

There are many on the right who want to be tyrants or tyrant-light as well.

It disgusts me.

Posted by: What's a Seawolf? at February 22, 2017 04:35 PM (WuRdh)

9 Isn't putting shelves up platforming?

Posted by: irright at February 22, 2017 04:35 PM (pMGkg)

10 Holy words Batman

Posted by: Timon at February 22, 2017 04:35 PM (27k1O)

11 How about David Duke gets booked and no one shows up?

That would be a bigger signal than some violent protest.

Posted by: Evi L. Bloggerlady at February 22, 2017 04:36 PM (4kTo2)

12 Holy fuck! A review of all 3 Lord of the Rings movies at once!

Posted by: Lord Chancellor johnd01 at February 22, 2017 04:36 PM (ukNFU)

13 Too many italics, did not read.

Posted by: David T at February 22, 2017 04:36 PM (d0HO2)

14 Ben Shapiro is an articulate, well spoken idiot.

And was a NeverTrumper to boot.

Posted by: rd at February 22, 2017 04:36 PM (iT57s)

15 might as well put math in there, make it more difficult to read

Posted by: Rick in SK at February 22, 2017 04:37 PM (FZYNt)

16 And Shapiro wonders how he got the 'cuck' label hung around his neck. What a gutless, pathetic excuse.

Posted by: Toastrider at February 22, 2017 04:37 PM (MbjKe)

17 Man, this article slants to the right.

Posted by: sans_sheriff at February 22, 2017 04:37 PM (SIVRK)

18 Ben Shapiro has been a target of these campus thugs, so you think he would get it. Then again, he hates Milo.

Posted by: Evi L. Bloggerlady at February 22, 2017 04:37 PM (4kTo2)

19 Ben there, dun that.

Posted by: Joe Mama at February 22, 2017 04:38 PM (M5NPS)

20 See Citizen's United.

CPAC also has freedom of speech.

Is CPAC some faceless entity--or is it a group of people--who also have a right to freedom of speech vs. one man's right to speech--Milo?

Also--if you have Milo in a courtroom and a thirteen year old in a court room--which one need's a lawyer more?

Or as the French say--an advocate?

Posted by: Scalia's stenographer at February 22, 2017 04:38 PM (fi5nC)

21 Shapiro broke the after "-- must always be about -- "

Posted by: Rich at February 22, 2017 04:38 PM (smMP5)

22 I was at MSU in the late 60s. We had the student government invite speakers. We had, among others, Timothy Leary and George Lincoln Rockwell III. The only real controversy was over Lawrence Ferlinghetti that the administration wouldn't allow to perform on campus because his poems had profanity in them. He performed across the street from the campus at a movie theater.

Posted by: geoffb5 at February 22, 2017 04:38 PM (d3wbb)

23 This is who Ben is. Same guy suggested "racists" should be found and their careers ruined.

Posted by: RT at February 22, 2017 04:38 PM (lU6sK)

24 yeah, jim doesn't see how the left's line on this starts at their side of mid-field.

Posted by: Joe Inaugurating 45 in DC at February 22, 2017 04:39 PM (eClek)

25 "Shapiro may disagree with them as to which speech "should"
cause one to become upset, and therefore which speech it is permissible
to deploy the #NoPlatforming tactic against, but he clearly supports
#NoPlatforming."

Ben is a contradictory piss ant.

Posted by: Tami at February 22, 2017 04:39 PM (Enq6K)

26 It's funny, I remember in a Sociology class we had a former prisoner come in that had been put away for a long time and talked to a really large group (like 500 people). He disguised himself somewhat, talked about the bad things he did in prison, etc. Just a frank discussion about the prison system, and wasn't really apologetic at all.

Somehow, students were able to hear a truly convicted, bad person talk, yet someone like Ann Coulter or Milo needs to be shut down in order to virtue signal.

Posted by: Maritime at February 22, 2017 04:39 PM (zQPZI)

27 Ben can do magical things with his mouth.

Posted by: Michael Medved at February 22, 2017 04:39 PM (6LwXe)

28 Not enough references to Hitler and Nazis.

Posted by: Chris Matthews at February 22, 2017 04:39 PM (HgMAr)

29 All italics. All the time.

Posted by: m at February 22, 2017 04:39 PM (3jGss)

30 Ben is a tool, and I was coming to that position well before he made it obvious. You could see this Wunderkind with his Harvard credentials but no real world experience positioning to leave Breitbart for the next rung of the establishment punditry ladder months before the eventual dust up. Had started to get some attention, and already was establishing his own media space, had his first book out and then came Trump.

His #nevertrumpism is no surprise as that next step would have likely been the National Review or Weekly Standard gravy train. He had to chose and chose poorly, IMO. He now wants to be the kinder, gentler Milo... Good fricking luck with that boring Ben.

Posted by: Keith at February 22, 2017 04:39 PM (USf3s)

31 You project this "tribalism" debate--possible that it is you that is picking tribe--over taboo.

Posted by: Scalia's stenographer at February 22, 2017 04:39 PM (fi5nC)

32 My God.

It's filled with words!

Posted by: garrett at February 22, 2017 04:39 PM (NXfyF)

33 >>>5 See how long it's taking everyone to read this?
Posted by: Evelyn Wood at February 22, 2017 04:33 PM (HgMAr)

Heh.

Posted by: m at February 22, 2017 04:39 PM (3jGss)

34 There's a reason why certain men have an--

honor code.

Don't cross it.

Posted by: Scalia's stenographer at February 22, 2017 04:40 PM (fi5nC)

35 Shorter Ace: Ben, you ignorant slut.

Posted by: Scalia's Ghost at February 22, 2017 04:40 PM (hA1V+)

36 If you are going to use italics you have to throw in some Mussolini references

Posted by: Rick in SK at February 22, 2017 04:41 PM (FZYNt)

37 >>>10 Holy words Batman
Posted by: Timon at February 22, 2017 04:35 PM (27k1O)

There's a barrelful of commas and periods over there -->

Posted by: m at February 22, 2017 04:41 PM (3jGss)

38 Very nice, Ace.

Shapiro's being semi-intentionally dense here. I don't think he's a dumb guy. I don't think that last year he would have made the argument about Duke not deserving a platform.

It's all about Milo. I guess the personal antagonism is making Shapiro attempt to defend a dumb position.

Posted by: Geronimo Stilton at February 22, 2017 04:41 PM (10LGw)

39 Is Ben Shapiro not bright enough to understand an "ethic of procedure"? Not likely.

I've flipped back and forth on him. But here he is easily guilty of the thing he's describing, and from the liberal side.

Posted by: BourbonChicken at February 22, 2017 04:41 PM (VdICR)

40 This is why the people had to basically ram Trump through - because the GOP is so full of sad squishes and quislings that the only remedy was basically this guy

Posted by: Tradd at February 22, 2017 04:41 PM (GSJcT)

41 If the #nevertrumpers found a hobby other than politics, the dextrosphere would be a much quieter place.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 22, 2017 04:41 PM (4YGWz)

42 This post made me hungry for pasta.

Posted by: Lord Chancellor johnd01 at February 22, 2017 04:42 PM (ukNFU)

43 I can see Ben as the kind of guy that will throw you out of the sled hoping that the wolves will consume you and let him escape.

He doesn't understand that your corpse will only attract more wolves to the sled. And if he runs out of people, he'll starting giving them the horses.

Posted by: rd at February 22, 2017 04:42 PM (iT57s)

44
Ben Shapiro is Steven Crowder.

Posted by: Soothsayer 45 at February 22, 2017 04:42 PM (hdoNb)

45 E.O. Wilson, one of the most eminent American biologists of his era, got in hot water with the identity-politics left for his radical, extreme, and completely scientifically unsupported notion that genetics have an influence upon behavior, including the behavior of _Homo sapiens sapiens_.

There was a huge street-theatre demonstration against Wilson at an academic venue where he proposed to speak, where the assembled bien-pensant lefties loudly chanted "NO FREE SPEECH FOR RACISTS! NO FREE SPEECH FOR RACISTS!"

A local wag observed correctly that they could shorten their slogan, everything after the first three words of it being redundant.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 22, 2017 04:43 PM (noWW6)

46 Lucky for Ben, he looks like a harmless fag.

That's why he has a job.

Posted by: garrett at February 22, 2017 04:43 PM (NXfyF)

47 *nods approvingly*
*golf clap*

Posted by: SMFH at February 22, 2017 04:43 PM (CRotO)

48 >>>20

Is CPAC some faceless entity--or is it a group of people--who also have a right to freedom of speech vs. one man's right to speech--Milo?

I think Milo should go to CPAC as an attendee, in the rank and file, not as a speaker. That would gain him cred and tons of support, I believe.

Posted by: m at February 22, 2017 04:43 PM (3jGss)

49 So what about BLM? They are race identitarians like David Duke, but with more violent rhetoric and there is a good argument to make that people have actually gone out and assassinated cops in response to their rhetoric.

Would Ben Shapiro deny BLM a platform to speak?

Posted by: Scalia's Ghost at February 22, 2017 04:44 PM (hA1V+)

50 This election has exposed so many people. I used to think Shapiro was a pretty smart guy but this is fundamental stuff.

Even more embarrassing when he writes a big piece showing his ass.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 22, 2017 04:44 PM (/tuJf)

51 Somewhere Milo is plotting his return.

Posted by: dananjcon at February 22, 2017 04:44 PM (WLK0w)

52 Marginal, fringe speakers like David Duke don't really get invited to speak on big platforms. No one at UC Berkeley is pining to give Duke a platform because they want to hear the other side of "the question of the Jew." The violent #NoPlatforming of speakers who will command a large audience is the problem. Almost by definition a speaker invited to speak and given a large platform is not fringe.

Posted by: scofflaw_x at February 22, 2017 04:44 PM (y9ZJX)

53 What every happened to the First Amendment and the art of intellectual engagement?

I found myself making the same conclusion, that is, no matter who it is they have a right to speak. Refute it if you like. Question them, or don't engage them at all if you believe they are that intelllectually vile.

In seems to me infantile, foolish, prejudiced and despotic to ban people from speaking, especially by force or shaming

In fact, what are they so afraid of? It makes me think the person they are trying to ban might have something interesting or insightful to say.

These people are autocratic speech police using empty rhetoric and sophism to launch their crusade.

Posted by: Marcus T at February 22, 2017 04:44 PM (F5sg8)

54 Stand for free speech or kneel to fascism.

Posted by: @votermom @vm at February 22, 2017 04:44 PM (Om16U)

55 I was just watching Cavuto and he was showing a "spontaneous" protest at a town hall event in Iowa. You know who these town hall protests will help-at least in Michigan-? They will help Trump. Not democrats and not republicans. But Trump. We had a blue collar, very democratic county vote Trump almost 100%. These protests will just confirm to them that they made the right choice with their vote. They re rebels, after all! So many people in this state have insurance they can't use because of high deductibles and can't afford the premiums. Protesters chanting to keep Obamacare and fascist Trump will seem stupid to them.
Hopefully the democrats will keep this up cause it will open more eyes. Also, black talk radio stations around here are also laughing at the protesters. They have openly moved on from Obama worship, and feel like they will give Trump a chance since Obama did nothing for them.

Posted by: Chilling the most at February 22, 2017 04:44 PM (Cl52v)

56 Free speech is a lot like free trade. Great idea in theory.

The economists have a saying 'bad money drives out the good', meaning that real money, money that has value and is not devalued, is hoarded while the debauched (usually paper currency) is spent as quickly as possible. You want to spend the devalued tokens before they become worthless in your hand.

Same with speech. The shouters with their lies and their angry mobs, shut up reasoned debate. I get tired of all the crap and walk away. That is the same as loosing the argument. The problem is, you have to resort to something other than just words to shut up the shouters and the protest mobs in the street, and that isn't a free speech issue. Implicit in the free speech standard is that everyone is allowed to speak freely. It isn't free speech when you are not allowed to voice your opinion without retribution.

Posted by: Skandia Recluse at February 22, 2017 04:44 PM (DPObg)

57 What if we just got to the byline "Ben Shapiro" and stopped reading right there?

Posted by: blaster at February 22, 2017 04:44 PM (tewYv)

58 >>The enemy of your enemy isn't always your friend, Ben says. True!

>But the tactics of your enemy also aren't your friends, even when you get to use them against your enemies.

Purely by chance, mind you, I read this much.

It's pretty good.

Posted by: garrett at February 22, 2017 04:45 PM (NXfyF)

59 I believe that speech should be as free as society will allow it to be. Banning speakers is the sign of insecurity in your own ideas and ability to argue them, and universities should allow for some controversial and flat out wrong minded speakers to contrast with the ideas that the mainstream thinkers are giving to the students. If they truly believe in the ideal of academic freedom and in challenging people's viewpoints, they should turn those ideals back on themselves and welcome opposing viewpoints. Much like a vaccine, if you allow students to hear the "wrong" thinkers, if you are right, and can prove it, you now arm your students against the arguments of the "enemy." If you do not do this, you set them in a bubble, and they might actually believe those "dangerous" views without being able to argue them properly.

We on the right should especially be careful about banning speakers, as often as that tactic is used on us. Free speech is something we should stand for.

Even if all the free speech is in italics.

Posted by: Average Guy at February 22, 2017 04:45 PM (KqRop)

60 The enema of my enemy is my friend.

Posted by: Cologuard at February 22, 2017 04:45 PM (IqV8l)

61 Have you even looked at the original source material?

The uncut video is even worse.

I can understand why you might be afraid to look.

But--this is possibly the third or fourth post you've done---sans the research.

Posted by: Scalia's stenographer at February 22, 2017 04:45 PM (fi5nC)

62 eager adoption of every trendily retarded aspect of the left, just five years after the left adopts it.

takes them a while to figure out what the Kewl Kids are doing so they can mimic.

Posted by: kallisto at February 22, 2017 04:45 PM (nNdYv)

63 "(Conservatism, for many, seems to be "progressivism plus a short period of time")"
-------------

I've often said that if the Democrats proposed a plan to send America to Hell in three years at a cost of $300 billion, the GOP would counter with a plan to send America halfway to Hell in five years for only $120 billion. And call it a conservative plan.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at February 22, 2017 04:45 PM (xN1DB)

64 https://tinyurl.com/jzvt8we

______________________________

Ben Bernanke spotted at White House

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ruh-Roh Raggy

WILLOWED

Posted by: EVLINC! at February 22, 2017 04:45 PM (y3aQB)

65 Ben Shapiro could not be more square if he were physically a rectangle.

He's also an enormous tool and a perfect example of why conservatism loses.

Posted by: crankytrex at February 22, 2017 04:45 PM (WwN4y)

66 No platforming - Limey proglodytes do it quite a bit. If the only answer to an argument is to deny its existence or participation, then it's no longer about the free exchange of ideas and the democratic process - it's down to power. And here we are.

Posted by: Your Decidedly Devious Uncle Palpatine. Glory to Kekistan! No Longer Accepting Harem Applicants at February 22, 2017 04:46 PM (VaQ4B)

67 I've been reading and enjoying Ben's schtuff since '02-'03 when he was a new conservative wunderkind at UCLA.

He's dead wrong here.

Another thing he probably won't admit is that he is the same campus troll as Milo; just with a 3 piece suit and a Great Clips haircut instead of lipstick and a cop outfit.

(must......not.....make.....yarmulke.....joke.....aaaarrrrggghhh)

Posted by: Mad Joel at February 22, 2017 04:46 PM (Kp7pA)

68 11,
"How about David Duke gets booked and no one shows up?"

At the George Lincoln Rockwell III speech I referenced in #22 most people showed up with black armbands with a yellow Jewish star on them and listened silently with no applause or noise.

Posted by: geoffb5 at February 22, 2017 04:46 PM (d3wbb)

69 You become what you fight. (Especially if you've lost the fight.)

Posted by: moviegique at February 22, 2017 04:46 PM (7zeA4)

70 "...it's time to check your biases."

I let my doctor do that every year, but hoo boy sometimes her hands are cold.

Posted by: wth at February 22, 2017 04:47 PM (HgMAr)

71 A principle is supposed to be a restraint on ourselves first and foremost, a line which we will not cross even though we'd really like to do so. An ethic of procedure -- no thought of the substance of it allowed, and whether we agree with that substance or not -- which binds us even though we might vigorously struggle against those bounds.

Every word of this.

If you won't apply the principle to that which you personally loathe, it's not a principle, it's a stance.

What is truly wearying right now is how obvious it's becoming that many people on both the Right and the Left don't have principles, they have stances and those stances can be switched up faster than a Mortal Kombat pro player.

A personal story: Once upon a time, I did all the research and drafting work on an appellate brief that resulted in the overturning of prior precedent in a manner that benefited the firm's client. How do I know it was my work that was influential? Because there were pages of the decision that were more or less lifted directly from my brief. That client was a person I loathed on a personal level and whose position in the case was one with which I disagreed on a nigh to cellular level. But you know what? I did my fucking job and I did it to the very best of my ability and then I went back and checked to make sure I wasn't subconsciously trying to sabotage what I was doing because my job was to represent that client up to and including a vigorous argument for the changing of the law. Because it's really really really damn easy to live up to that when you like the person and you agree with them. But when it matters is when you don't. When you don't agree and you don't like them and you still do your job because that client deserves it just as much as anyone else. Because the principle matters more than Muh Feelz.*

Also, as a nit picky thing, if a person is never given a platform in which to present his/her views, how will those views ever be known? That's the ultimate end of No Platforming, to remove even the concept that opposing views exist. And that is something which must be opposed at every turn.

*A note. The matter at issue was a fairly wonky one and not a matter of any kind of moral issue and I soothed my conscious by going back to doing volunteer work on my private time to get a legislative fix passed for the problem I created. I was a tiny, tiny cog in that wheel so I can't take credit for that though it's always amused me that I worked on both sides of the issue.

Posted by: alexthechick - all your caps are belong to me at February 22, 2017 04:47 PM (mf5HN)

72
I am kind of surprised Shapiro didn't see his logical fallicy here while he was writing it. Before the 'reveal' I thought he was gonna say Hitler. We actually need these people to be able to speak so that we can use them as examples of wrongness and evil.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 22, 2017 04:47 PM (ODxAs)

73 Is there a link to what Ben wrote?

Posted by: The Political Hat at February 22, 2017 04:47 PM (rUIbB)

74
Interesting how the ACLU defended the Klan and the Nazis to the hilt for their right to march in Skokie, IL way back in 1977 but are completely silent when it comes to people on our side of the political spectrum.

In other words, Ben Shapiro is as close-minded and uninterested in the diversity of ideas as the real fascists and totalitarians on the Left.

As always, the answer to speech you disapprove of is MORE SPEECH. If you cannot refute repugnant ideas or even just things you disagree with as wrong, then you have no right to censor them at all.

You do have the right and indeed the obligation to open your cake-hole and use your words to refute them in a civil, if not passionate manner.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 22, 2017 04:47 PM (mbhDw)

75 BTW have you seem the ads for some movie called "Get Out".Black guy dating a white girl meets her family,they are some sort of evil whites who operate on black mens brains and make them act white or something.He kills lots of white people.

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2017 04:47 PM (r/0kC)

76

So Teh Ewok hated this movie. Good to know.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at February 22, 2017 04:47 PM (XWkhW)

77 "We had, among others, Timothy Leary and George Lincoln Rockwell III."

There was the, not kidding, "Liddy v. Leary" debate tour.

G. Gordon and Tim on the same stage, live. The three-piece suit versus the tie-dyed T-shirt.

There was a film made of it, if memory serves.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 22, 2017 04:48 PM (noWW6)

78 Looks like there was a reason Breitbart fired his ass

Posted by: Iblis at February 22, 2017 04:48 PM (5tsBc)

79 8 One the more fascinating aspects of the entire election and early stages of the Trump presidency is just how many masks are slipping.

There are many on the right who want to be tyrants or tyrant-light as well.

It disgusts me.
Posted by: What's a Seawolf? at February 22, 2017 04:35 PM (

----------------
It hasn't disgusted me. I have found it quite enlightening. I know who all the pretending assholes are now.

Posted by: Soona at February 22, 2017 04:48 PM (Fmupd)

80 There are some very limited situations where something akin to "no platforming" is acceptable. Let's use the David Duke example.

Ace has had guests on his podcast. For the sake of argument, let's say that Duke was interested in appearing on Ace's broadcast, and that Ace thought he might get attention for his broadcast by interviewing Duke, and in the process, countering his arguments. Ace still might decide that in his view, he did not want to give Duke the extra attention. Sure, he could have him on and make him look like a fool, but he, hypothetically, just found Duke so loathsome he preferred to shun him instead. Duke, of course, would be free to appear anywhere else he could get an invite, but per Ace's decision, he would not be appearing on the HQ's podcast.

Ace has every right to deny Duke a platform, including for the reasoning that Ace simply does not want to provide a platform for the guy.

Where I would part company with the "no platformers" is where they seek to drive someone completely out of the public sphere through the use of pressure on those who own the platforms, particularly public platforms like universities.

I will also note that there is a lot of gamesmanship in who gets invited to public universities and for what reason. Years ago, CSUN, a California university, invited Duke to speak at the university during the election season when a proposition to ban affirmative action was on the ballot. They did it through a student group, and Duke was paid for his appearance. Of course, nobody on the side that wanted to ban AA wanted anything to do with Duke. He was invited by those who wanted to smear the AA measure by associating it with Duke. And, they used student funds to pay for the stunt.

Loathsome creatures.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 22, 2017 04:48 PM (R+30W)

81 The treatment for speech we don't like is more speech, not less.

As long as I'm not being forced to listen to someone and as long as they are not getting aggressive towards me (even verbally. That's one of my lines), people should be able to say anything they want.

And I should be able to say whatever I want, back.

Ben Shapiro is a thin-skinned jerk. I like that his online mag is giving John Nolte and Bill Whittle columns. But I don't like his feud with Trump or Milo.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at February 22, 2017 04:48 PM (NdM46)

82 I'm no longer interested in Ben Shapiro enough to read that many words about him. Maybe I'll go back to this evening and get to the point. Thanks Ace, I'm sure its a good one.

Posted by: DanMan at February 22, 2017 04:48 PM (XTiHL)

83 Goodness. I had to re-read that a few times with a strong cu of tea.

Posted by: IC at February 22, 2017 04:49 PM (a0IVu)

84 The woman/dog thing on Drudge...

I have to say, that's a good-looking dog, as opposed to the woman, who's a real dog.

Posted by: Brunette the 'Ette at February 22, 2017 04:49 PM (adsVM)

85 But I don't understand, wack wack wack wack wack! Why wouldn't I be welcome on any college campus? Maybe my speech isnt' that easy to understand wack wack wack wack wack, but just give me a chance!

Hell, I'd even wear pants! wack wack wack wack wack!

It's like they've confused me with somebody else! wack wack wack wack wack!

Posted by: Donald Duck at February 22, 2017 04:49 PM (nd1zx)

86 Ben is actually a little more triangular than ovoid.

Posted by: Chris Cillizza at February 22, 2017 04:49 PM (HgMAr)

87
Curtis Sliwa and Ron Kuby host a radio show together as did fish-face Colmes and Hannity at one time on TV.

It does work, although even a not-so-bright Hannity always took Colmes to the cleaners.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 22, 2017 04:49 PM (mbhDw)

88 >>it's always amused me that I worked on both sides of the issue.

Me, too.

Posted by: garrett at February 22, 2017 04:49 PM (NXfyF)

89 Next time Pussy Ben gets kicked off a campus, I should send him a note that says, Next Time, Bring David Duke.

The left already has its Brownshirts.

Squishes like Ben will bow to them, and never fight back. They will be the Establishment Leaders explaining how the camps have really cool showers, so you should get on the train.

They will believe that they are so useful, and will never see the camps.

Posted by: rd at February 22, 2017 04:50 PM (iT57s)

90 I want to read about Shapiro like I want Explosive Diarrhea

Posted by: EVLINC! at February 22, 2017 04:50 PM (y3aQB)

91 Synopsis: Ace kicks Ben Shapiro in the mish, and he is bleeding badly. Yogurt might help.

OK that may not be completely accurate, but it is a running tally of things I learned here today.

Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at February 22, 2017 04:51 PM (GX63o)

92 >>Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2017 04:47 PM (r/0kC)

That made me want to link a Jackson Browne Tune.

Posted by: garrett at February 22, 2017 04:51 PM (NXfyF)

93 I don't like it when campuses pay to have actual criminals speak.

Posted by: @votermom @vm at February 22, 2017 04:51 PM (Om16U)

94 78
Looks like there was a reason Breitbart fired his ass

Posted by: Iblis at February 22, 2017 04:48 PM (5tsBc)

Didn't he quit because of Michelle 'my arm! my arm!' Fields?

Posted by: Tami at February 22, 2017 04:52 PM (Enq6K)

95 Reading this horrible attack on Ben made me feel like my other arm was ripped out its socket and thrown on the ground like a piece of trash!

Posted by: Michelle Fields at February 22, 2017 04:52 PM (hA1V+)

96 If you don't let the people with whom you disagree speak, how are you ever going to prove them wrong? You cannot refute an argument that you don't hear.

Posted by: huerfano at February 22, 2017 04:52 PM (jkkMG)

97 You become what you fight. (Especially if you've lost the fight.)
Posted by: moviegique at February 22, 2017 04:46 PM (7zeA4)

Nonsense.

No offense intended but we did not become Imperial Japan. The ACLU has not become born-again Christian.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at February 22, 2017 04:52 PM (NdM46)

98 I will often, when the issue comes up, say "I'm a free speech absolutist."

The person I'm talking to will say, "Oh, me too!" Then they will immediately describe certain types of people that are excepted.

I think most people don't actually support free speech because they are intellectual dullards or cowards.

Only someone that fundamentally doesn't understand the concept of free speech could write what Shapiro did.

He's a silly little bitch.

Posted by: Moron Pundit at February 22, 2017 04:53 PM (xeeHA)

99 Didn't he quit because of Michelle 'my arm! my arm!' Fields?
Posted by: Tami at February 22, 2017 04:52 PM (Enq6K)

Technically. But IMO it was his chance to establish his #nevertrum cred. He was "too big" for Brietbart by then.

Posted by: Keith at February 22, 2017 04:53 PM (USf3s)

100 anyway, the idiots have managed to make Milo a martyr. Which will be great for his popularity.

Posted by: @votermom @vm at February 22, 2017 04:53 PM (Om16U)

101 BTW have you seem the ads for some movie called "Get
Out".Black guy dating a white girl meets her family,they are some sort
of evil whites who operate on black mens brains and make them act white
or something.He kills lots of white people.

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2017 04:47 PM (r/0kC)

**
Sounds like the feel good movie of the year!

Posted by: Deray McKesson at February 22, 2017 04:54 PM (WLK0w)

102 Ace ...

... most people, Republicans and Democrats alike, love to compel others to bend to their own will using the power of Government.

That's all there is to it.

Posted by: ScoggDog at February 22, 2017 04:54 PM (RWSlt)

103 Never, and I mean never, inhale your own PR, Ben.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 22, 2017 04:54 PM (4YGWz)

104 Yep. There's only really two kinds of people:
Those who want to tell you what to do and those that don't.

H/T to R.A.H.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at February 22, 2017 04:55 PM (NdM46)

105 Darwin Award nominee for 2017:

"Meanwhile, an Orland, California, woman was killed when she ignored warning signs of flooding and proceeded onto a flooded roadway, officials said. Her car was swept away into a creek before disappearing. She was one of eight people killed in connection with the "atmospheric rivers" that have plagued the state in recent days."

http://tinyurl.com/jp2wdfd

Posted by: SMFH at February 22, 2017 04:55 PM (CRotO)

106
Tucker Carlson (and previously others) does a good job of having people with idiot ideas on his show. Its the exact opposite thinking of Shapiro and the better one.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 22, 2017 04:55 PM (ODxAs)

107 You tell them Ben! Check your biases and your privileged!

Posted by: Lena Dunham at February 22, 2017 04:55 PM (FqgrG)

108 "hungry for pasta"

wonder if Ben likes pizza.

Posted by: Boulder terlit hobo at February 22, 2017 04:56 PM (L/Hik)

109 >>No offense intended but we did not become Imperial Japan. The ACLU has not become born-again Christian.

No, Imperial Japan became us (Western capitalists), and this post demonstrates how the right has become the left.

Posted by: moviegique at February 22, 2017 04:56 PM (7zeA4)

110 98 I will often, when the issue comes up, say "I'm a free speech absolutist."

I have debated the rights of NAMBLA, flag burners and the Westboro Baprist Church to express their ideas. In the case of NAMBLA, get caught acting on those ideas and you have the right to a slow and cruel death, preferably by fire or ants and sugar, in a perfect world.

Posted by: Keith at February 22, 2017 04:56 PM (USf3s)

111 A person gets invited to speak because there exist a significant number of people who believe that speech will offer something valuable, even if it's only to understand his position so they can dismantle it more effectively.

Ben's principle is to say "Fuck those people." Well, fuck you, too, Ben. Fuck you, too.

Posted by: JSchuler at February 22, 2017 04:57 PM (YsGL+)

112 No platforming

When I was a kid, Hillsdale College invited Governor George Wallace to make a speech. Somehow, someone at our church got us (kids) seats for the event. The only thing I remember about that speech was the point where Governor Wallace said, "There is no racial discrimination in Alabama," and the audience laughed at him. A polite laugh as if it was the punchline to a joke. Wallace was visibly stunned by it and it took him several seconds to recover and return to prepared remarks.

This was an audience of white northern liberals listening politely to their political opponent speaking on the issue of civil rights - state's rights.

In modern times we are having this argument about how to shut people up.

Posted by: Skandia Recluse at February 22, 2017 04:57 PM (DPObg)

113

Now, Shapiro asks you -- do you support the disinvitation?

He counts on you to say "Yes," but only because leftists pushed the #NoPlatforming.

I think you meant "No" here ace.

Posted by: GnuBreed at February 22, 2017 04:58 PM (xpfRn)

114 added the link. Sorry, I thought I'd had it in there.

it's here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445122

/identity-politics-left-right-ideas-values-policies-donald-trump-david-duke-campus-speaker

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2017 04:58 PM (8rNrN)

115 "No Platforming" just sounds so much better than "crush them under your bootheel".

Me, I'm a "let them speak and make asses of themselves" kind of guy.

Posted by: pep at February 22, 2017 04:58 PM (LAe3v)

116 gnu -- indeed I did. thanks.

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2017 04:59 PM (8rNrN)

117 As long as you're not inciting violence by direct advocation or slandering people, speech should be unrestricted.

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at February 22, 2017 04:59 PM (0q4vG)

118 No, Imperial Japan became us (Western capitalists), and this post demonstrates how the right has become the left.

Posted by: moviegique at February 22, 2017 04:56 PM (7zeA4)

Almost. Nevertrump has become the left.

Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at February 22, 2017 05:00 PM (GX63o)

119 No, Imperial Japan became us (Western capitalists), and this post demonstrates how the right has become the left.

Posted by: moviegique at February 22, 2017 04:56 PM (7zeA4)

Eh. Japan was already Capitalist (or corporatist with their zaibatsus, etc). What changed was eviserating their militarists and empowering the pacifists already present in their society.

The Japanese are really an odd case in their ability to copy other cultures in a superficial way.

I do agree that you CAN become what you oppose. But I don't think it always happens. It depends on what you oppose and why and how.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at February 22, 2017 05:00 PM (NdM46)

120 Our country once was a lot closer to understanding free speech than it is now.

Posted by: Crusader at February 22, 2017 05:00 PM (ewSN2)

121 that woman wasn't drowned by an atmospheric river, she was blown away by the wind whistling between her ears.

don't drive in flood conditions. duh!

Posted by: Boulder terlit hobo at February 22, 2017 05:00 PM (L/Hik)

122 willow me willya:

Shouldn't Three Strikes laws apply to judges?

Posted by: DaveA at February 22, 2017 05:01 PM (8J/Te)

123 Is Shapiro married?If so, to a woman?

Posted by: Under Fire at February 22, 2017 05:01 PM (6LwXe)

124 117
As long as you're not inciting violence by direct advocation or slandering people, speech should be unrestricted.

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth

In principle, I agree, but if someone says "here, take a look at this, it's really great", and then shows you a picture of a naked Lena Dunham (are there any that aren't?), that person needs to be taken out back and beaten with a sock full of ball bearings.

Posted by: pep at February 22, 2017 05:01 PM (LAe3v)

125 Gonna have to go back and paraphrase the WashPost's new motto and say Democracy thrives in sunlight (I know, we're a republic).

Always sunlight, Ben, that way people have a chance to hear from these people for themselves - and to be horrified if what they're saying is so awful.

Sure, it gets more complicated when you start arguing about who should pay for these speakers/groups to speak (e.g. the government, campus fees, etc.), but barring them from the marketplace of ideas full stop is an emphatic "No."

Posted by: Lizzy at February 22, 2017 05:01 PM (NOIQH)

126 also
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkuWXBAuCps

since this may be a #NeverTrump v RINO thread

Content Time!!

Posted by: DaveA at February 22, 2017 05:01 PM (8J/Te)

127 Ace, you kinda missed the entire point of Ben's article, and in a way you provided a case proving his point by way of a corollary to "opposition to something bad is good", namely "opposition to something good is bad", with "bad" and "good" being axiomatically and in a manichean fashion defined.

Posted by: The Political Hat at February 22, 2017 05:01 PM (rUIbB)

128 55,
"I was just watching Cavuto and he was showing a "spontaneous" protest at
a town hall event in Iowa. You know who these town hall protests will
help-at least in Michigan-?"

Rep. Amash will find out tomorrow at his townhall. I'm unable to go but there are plenty of large nearby parking lots for buses. Heck the greyhound train station is just a block away.

Posted by: geoffb5 at February 22, 2017 05:01 PM (d3wbb)

129 Shorter Ace:
If you only have principles when principles support your positions, then you really don't have any principles at all.

Posted by: proudvastrightwingconspirator at February 22, 2017 05:03 PM (hL4DM)

130 I've not read Shapiro's article, but the way ace frames it makes Shapiro out to be a horribly failed sophist.

Eh, this sort of stuff reinforces - in the positive sense- my reasons for simply not reading internet news websites. It's all useless dreck and bruit.

Posted by: 13times at February 22, 2017 05:04 PM (WHVu+)

131 *Trokes chin whiskers*

This ace fellow is highly intelligent and well spoken. I should like to subscribe to his newsletter. Wait, I do!

Also, Ben Shapiro talks like a fag and his shit's all retarded.

Posted by: Duke Lowell at February 22, 2017 05:04 PM (kTF2Z)

132 Hey pep,

Check this out.

http://tinyurl.com/zodzbcn

Posted by: JackStraw at February 22, 2017 05:04 PM (/tuJf)

133 History does show our Free Speech was not as Free as we believe it was. Mostly on the social / morals dynamic.

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at February 22, 2017 05:04 PM (0q4vG)

134 Of course...of COURSE this article is hosted at NR.

Frelling hacks.

I hope Milo dances on their graves with Trump swaying in place to the music.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at February 22, 2017 05:04 PM (NdM46)

135 44
Ben Shapiro is Steven Crowder.
Posted by: Soothsayer 45 at February 22, 2017 04:42 PM (hdoNb)

Nah. Steve Crowder's funny.

Posted by: Insomniac at February 22, 2017 05:04 PM (0mRoj)

136 New Republican town hall demonstrators: disheveled
dress, surly, leave the meeting area littered with trash.

I guess Trump brings out the worst in them.

Posted by: gNewt at February 22, 2017 05:04 PM (5t7Yo)

137 I have to order more ammo ...

Posted by: ScoggDog at February 22, 2017 05:05 PM (RWSlt)

138 Now I've read what Ace wrote.
I'm really surprised that Shapiro made that silly of an argument.

Posted by: m at February 22, 2017 05:06 PM (3jGss)

139 Ace, you kinda missed the entire point of Ben's article, and in a way you provided a case proving his point by way of a corollary to "opposition to something bad is good", namely "opposition to something good is bad", with "bad" and "good" being axiomatically and in a manichean fashion defined.
Posted by: The Political Hat

* beach chair *

DIS GONNA BE GOOD

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 22, 2017 05:06 PM (4YGWz)

140 How long til KG knocks Beckel out of his chair?

Posted by: Duke Lowell at February 22, 2017 05:06 PM (kTF2Z)

141 >>>93 I don't like it when campuses pay to have actual criminals speak.
Posted by: @votermom @vm at February 22, 2017 04:51 PM (Om16U)

Why?

Posted by: m at February 22, 2017 05:06 PM (3jGss)

142 who cares if David Duke speaks, he's a loser who no one pays any attention to

Posted by: jihadi at February 22, 2017 05:06 PM (I64i9)

143 >>BTW have you seem the ads for some movie called "Get

Out".

Written by Jordan Peele of Key and Peele comedy show.
Haven't figured out of it's 100% serious are a sort-of satire of horror movies (closer to one of those Wayans movies)...

Posted by: Lizzy at February 22, 2017 05:07 PM (NOIQH)

144 Nah. Steve Crowder's funny.
Posted by: Insomniac at February 22, 2017 05:04 PM (0mRoj)

He's a strange animal.

I think Crowder crosses some lines in his own enthusiasm. But I like him.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at February 22, 2017 05:07 PM (NdM46)

145 Posted by: pep at February 22, 2017 05:01 PM (LAe3v)

Well that is a classic case of inciting violence. I think the legal term is the Dunham Effect.

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at February 22, 2017 05:07 PM (0q4vG)

146 One thing about free speech. You're also not required to listen to what you don't want to hear. It's really that simple.

Posted by: Soona at February 22, 2017 05:07 PM (Fmupd)

147 Posted by: Lizzy at February 22, 2017 05:07 PM (NOIQH)

Totally serious.

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at February 22, 2017 05:07 PM (0q4vG)

148 Ben Shapiro is simply a contrarian. He's the kind of Young College Republican who's pro-choice, soft on the second amendment, and very, very eager to talk about race, because the reason he's a Young College Republican in the first place is because he gets to be "different" in a way which seems intelligent.

But it's VERY VERY IMPORTANT that no one actually dislike him as a result. He wants to be noticed, NOT disliked, and noticed for being smart. So once the girl in the short dress has gotten over the shock of meeting an out and proud Republican (but BEFORE she has to leave to refill her drink) he needs to start explaining that he's not what he thinks. He's not religious. He's not a gun nut. He believes there need to be checks and balances on big banks. He's all for abortion - it's a woman's right to choose! He's certainly, definitely not a fan of Milo Yiannopoulos. No, to him, conservatism is really about principles.

Please note, he sounds a lot different when he's talking to a real conservative.

These "principles" he doesn't actually give a fuck about give him a solid, comfortable, and comforting pillow fort from which to wave his fire-engine red "I am the very model of a modern true conservative" flag.

But oh man look at what just happened to Milo! Why, a truly polarizing figure actually rose above the crowd, and he's being cut down by a carefully planned and coordinated media campaign.

Lil Benji can't fuck with that kind of heat. He doesn't have that kind of fanbase. He doesn't have his own brand. He doesn't have a book 15 million people are clamoring to read. He needs to head this off at the pass.

Posted by: most deplorable Ghost of kari - certified sidebar at February 22, 2017 05:07 PM (Iy6JT)

149 141 because parents tuition dollars are supporting a criminal then

Posted by: @votermom @vm at February 22, 2017 05:08 PM (Om16U)

150 Nah. Steve Crowder's funny.

Posted by: Insomniac at February 22, 2017 05:04 PM

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence

Posted by: AltonJackson at February 22, 2017 05:08 PM (ZQfW9)

151 Premise 1: There is no idea so horrid that it should never be spoken or thought.

Premise 2: There is no person so horrid that they should never be allowed to speak or think.

IF: 1 and/or 2 are false;
THEN: No man is truly free.

Reason: The definition of "horrid" depends upon the whims of the mob.

Yesterday's horrid is today's accepted. Today's accepted is tomorrow's horrid.

Posted by: RoyalOil at February 22, 2017 05:08 PM (AmMfi)

152 Ben Shapiro? Who?

Posted by: dantesed at February 22, 2017 05:08 PM (88xKn)

153 Can someone tell me if Ace liked the movie.. that's way too long for me.. especially at work!

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 22, 2017 05:08 PM (so+oy)

154 >>>111 A person gets invited to speak because there exist a significant number of people who believe that speech will offer something valuable, even if it's only to understand his position so they can dismantle it more effectively.

Ben's principle is to say "Fuck those people." Well, fuck you, too, Ben. Fuck you, too.
Posted by: JSchuler at February 22, 2017 04:57 PM (YsGL+)

Yay; well put.

Posted by: m at February 22, 2017 05:09 PM (3jGss)

155 Is this movie in theaters yet?

Posted by: Country Boy - just a humble, occasionally hotheaded poster at February 22, 2017 05:09 PM (RND7l)

156 The thing that really puzzles me is how a person, who initially starts out conservative, or in the middle somewhere, starts shifting to the left. It goes beyond logic and reason because the more you know, the more you learn, and the more you read, the obvious turn would be right. Not the other way around. The RINOs in the govt. are just a few examples.

Posted by: washrivergal at February 22, 2017 05:10 PM (Ivjge)

157 He doesn't understand that your corpse will only attract more wolves to the sled.

I have never been thrown into the pool alone. I drive the same way.

Posted by: DaveA at February 22, 2017 05:10 PM (8J/Te)

158 [Dunham link]
Posted by: JackStraw at February 22, 2017 05:04 PM (/tuJf)

xx
---

http://bit.ly/1ciHnih

Posted by: most deplorable Ghost of kari - certified sidebar at February 22, 2017 05:10 PM (Iy6JT)

159 Interesting how the ACLU defended the Klan and the Nazis to the hilt for
their right to march in Skokie, IL way back in 1977 but are completely
silent when it comes to people on our side of the political spectrum.

I remember that incident. There was a lot of angst from the ACLU-ers about what to do, and in the end, they lost a lot of members over it, but they DID do the right thing.

That was a different ACLU. The modern one cares not a whit about principle, it's all leftist politics.

Posted by: pep at February 22, 2017 05:10 PM (LAe3v)

160 Shapiro has had his moments I'll give him that much. But at the end of the day, he'll side with George Will, Bill Kristol, Jonah Goldberg, Kevin Williamson, over people like us every freaking time. And that's all you need to know about him.

Posted by: Independent George's Phone at February 22, 2017 05:10 PM (5W5VZ)

161 It goes beyond logic and reason because the more you know, the more you learn, and the more you read, the obvious turn would be right. Not the other way around. The RINOs in the govt. are just a few examples.
Posted by: washrivergal at February 22, 2017 05:10 PM (Ivjge)
----------

It really must be peer pressure. Or outright corruption, I guess.

Posted by: Moron Pundit at February 22, 2017 05:11 PM (xeeHA)

162 The "fighting words" exception to the 1st Amendment comes into play here as well. And while one early SC decision on this was bad, it has been much more narrowly defined by subsequent SC decisions.

FIRE.org has a decent writeup on its history:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/gonop25

Posted by: GnuBreed at February 22, 2017 05:11 PM (xpfRn)

163 151 Premise 1: There is no idea so horrid that it should never be spoken or thought.

Premise 2: There is no person so horrid that they should never be allowed to speak or think.

IF: 1 and/or 2 are false;
THEN: No man is truly free.

Reason: The definition of "horrid" depends upon the whims of the mob.

I got a twelve year old boy. I run into a NAMBLA advocate, I'm going to county lockup.

Posted by: ScoggDog at February 22, 2017 05:11 PM (RWSlt)

164 Ben Shapiro? Who?

Posted by: dantesed at February 22, 2017 05:08 PM (88xKn)
***********************

A person only middle earth persons and Ewoks concern themselves with.

Posted by: gNewt at February 22, 2017 05:11 PM (5t7Yo)

165 Hold up Ace...

There's a difference between "Did this make inviting the speaker worthwhile?"
and "support the disinvitation" of the speaker.

Embrace the power of AND.

I have no idea if the speaker's presentation will be worthwhile AND I pretty much don't care to stomp on someone else's right to hear someone I think is a jackass.

I don't seem much space between your and Ben's opinions here on free speech.

Ben's point seems to be that by reflexively opposing the left, you may ally with folk who suck.

Posted by: Zionist Redneck at February 22, 2017 05:11 PM (sgx/T)

166 "they are some sort of evil whites who operate on black mens brains and make them act white"

And, after you have endured my fiendish surgery, you will henceforth during traffic stops have your license and insurance papers in order, have no open warrants, keep your hands in plain view, and respond politely to the officer's questions!

::: laughs evilly, dons surgical mask :::

Posted by: torquewrench at February 22, 2017 05:12 PM (noWW6)

167 George Takei says the same things Milo that got Milo burned at the Twitter Stake, but the NeverTrump and SJW Twitter Outrage Machine somehow never got switched on...

https://twitter.com/kbdabear/status/834427383470026752

Posted by: kbdabear at February 22, 2017 05:12 PM (Ya7zs)

168 Nice burn, Kari

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at February 22, 2017 05:12 PM (NdM46)

169 Anybody watching The Five? I really hope Bob Becker has a heart attack before the next commercial

Posted by: UGAdawg at February 22, 2017 05:12 PM (HL3BI)

170 And now I'll go chew on Ben to consider your points.

-ZR

Posted by: Zionist Redneck at February 22, 2017 05:12 PM (sgx/T)

171 156
The thing that really puzzles me is how a person, who initially starts
out conservative, or in the middle somewhere, starts shifting to the
left. It goes beyond logic and reason because the more you know, the
more you learn, and the more you read, the obvious turn would be right.
Not the other way around. The RINOs in the govt. are just a few
examples.

Posted by: washrivergal at February 22, 2017 05:10 PM (Ivjge)

Peer pressure via the left owning the media, Hollywood and academia.

Posted by: Tami at February 22, 2017 05:13 PM (Enq6K)

172
Tucker Carlson (and previously others) does a good job of having people with idiot ideas on his show. Its the exact opposite thinking of Shapiro and the better one.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 22, 2017 04:55 PM (ODxAs)

That woman he had on last night was a real dozzy

Posted by: Deplorable Male Logic at February 22, 2017 05:13 PM (lKyWE)

173 Shapiro's boner is so soft it's been advertised as a My Pillow.

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at February 22, 2017 05:13 PM (0q4vG)

174 >>>127 Ace, you kinda missed the entire point of Ben's article, and in a way you provided a case proving his point by way of a corollary to "opposition to something bad is good", namely "opposition to something good is bad", with "bad" and "good" being axiomatically and in a manichean fashion defined.
Posted by: The Political Hat at February 22, 2017 05:01 PM (rUIbB)

Wut.

Posted by: m at February 22, 2017 05:13 PM (3jGss)

175 I think you've missed Ben's point. I haven't read the article, but I heard him speak about this. Does he explicitly say he endorses no platforming people he doesn't like? I certainly got the impression he was saying just because someone had this happen doesn't mean you should automatically support them. You can be against them being shut down whilst still being against what they say. He's saying people need to do more than just tick off the left for you to like them. You obviously don't have to like someone to support their right to speech. Have I misread this? Did he say somewhere that duke should actually be silenced?

Posted by: Allan at February 22, 2017 05:13 PM (GdtAP)

176 Beckel. Stupid IPad autocorrect

Posted by: UGAdawg at February 22, 2017 05:13 PM (HL3BI)

177 Dwight Schrutte's shun/unshun theory of speech

Posted by: Biggie Rat at February 22, 2017 05:13 PM (/aqtu)

178 None of this is to argue that Trump is a leftist or that
conservatives are wrong to support many of his policy prescriptions. But
if your standard of right and wrong is whether the Left hates it,
you're making a category error.

Ah! Looks like Ben is concerned, very, very concerned that people who voted for Trump - and who are still supporting him - because he fights and he drives the Left nuts.

Give Ben a treat, he nailed it!
In fact, Warden has already written a response to this very serious concern of Ben's a few weeks ago (link on sidebar). One can support Trump without the weight of having to defend him thanks to the Left killing all the rules.

Posted by: Lizzy at February 22, 2017 05:13 PM (NOIQH)

179 148, thumbs up.

Posted by: geoffb5 at February 22, 2017 05:13 PM (d3wbb)

180 "Is this movie in theatres yet?"

It was cancelled, partly because of Ben.

Posted by: Boulder terlit hobo at February 22, 2017 05:13 PM (L/Hik)

181 As of this writing, Benny is still getting No Ass from Michelle Fields for his white knighting

She does like him as a friend though...

Posted by: kbdabear at February 22, 2017 05:14 PM (Ya7zs)

182 "being axiomatically and in a manichean fashion defined."

You had me then you lost me...

Posted by: Chris M at February 22, 2017 05:14 PM (eAZVt)

183 Ben Shapiro is an insufferable and rather vapid bumfuck of an airheaded twat waffle who still sniffs Michelle Fields underwear on his days off.

Posted by: Al Franken at February 22, 2017 05:14 PM (W9dvU)

184 132
Hey pep,

Check this out.

http://tinyurl.com/zodzbcn

You're a dead man, Straw.

Posted by: pep at February 22, 2017 05:14 PM (LAe3v)

185 And sock off, lol.

Posted by: John Nada who is NOT Al Franken at February 22, 2017 05:14 PM (W9dvU)

186 What happened to changing the channel? What happened to NOT going to hear some one give a talk?

NoPlatforming is the equivalent of saying I can't refute the ideas put forward by the speaker.

Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2017 05:14 PM (YX9fV)

187 Aren't we seeing #NoPlatforming happening at the republican townhall meets?

I mean, aren't those halls being packed with leftists seeking to shut down things? As Ace says above, they "block such statements from even being made at a venue they control."

This is not what the Tea Party did. The Tea Party organized, held their own meets, tried to expand, sought out members to actually challenge elected officials not by shouting down townhalls, but by running against them in primaries.

No, the left is trying to shout down debate and make it seem, with their numbers at these meetings, as if a majority of public opinion aligns with theirs. Obamacare, don't you touch it you meanies. Immigration: don't you dare touch those wonderful people you meanies.

Posted by: Les Kinetic at February 22, 2017 05:15 PM (U6f54)

188 161 It goes beyond logic and reason because the more you know, the more you learn, and the more you read, the obvious turn would be right. Not the other way around. The RINOs in the govt. are just a few examples.
Posted by: washrivergal at February 22, 2017 05:10 PM (Ivjge)
----------

It really must be peer pressure. Or outright corruption, I guess.
Posted by: Moron Pundit at February 22, 2017 05:11 PM (xeeHA)

The establishment runs on big government--dem and repub. That's where the money, power, fame and iron rice bowl DC careers are. K street, campaign checks, Soros, Kotchs, think tanks, bureaucrats and bureaucracies. The Dems have the luxury of having a platform that supports their best personal interests. The repubs have to fake it and hope enough failure theater gets done to keep Leviathan slithering along.

Posted by: Keith at February 22, 2017 05:15 PM (USf3s)

189 For being nobody, David Duke sure gets a lot of mentions.

And since when is he not allowed to speak in a public forum? When did his rights become inferior to everyone else's?

Sheesh.

Posted by: Country Boy - just a humble, occasionally hotheaded poster at February 22, 2017 05:15 PM (RND7l)

190 I have some thoughts on this subject.

Posted by: Voltaire at February 22, 2017 05:15 PM (kTF2Z)

191 He wants to be noticed, NOT disliked, and noticed for being smart. So once the girl in the short dress...

And there we have it.

Posted by: pep at February 22, 2017 05:15 PM (LAe3v)

192 that thar is a lotta wordin'

Posted by: musical jolly chimp at February 22, 2017 05:15 PM (WTSFk)

193 >>You're a dead man, Straw.

Take a number.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 22, 2017 05:15 PM (/tuJf)

194 The point of the piece, which was not directly stated, was to further anathematize and stigmatize Milo, and place him in the same category as David Duke.

It's to prepare the ground for a similar attack on Bannon and, following that, Trump.

Posted by: Scalia's Ghost at February 22, 2017 05:16 PM (hA1V+)

195 ... and no pichurs.

Posted by: musical jolly chimp at February 22, 2017 05:16 PM (WTSFk)

196 Ace brought the fucking hammer.

Posted by: gm at February 22, 2017 05:16 PM (mNEd/)

197 A principle is supposed to be a restraint on ourselves first and foremost,

Usually the toughest of these I see nowadays is when the other food pantry guys bring their day-old breads and there's cinnamon bread. Mighty tough to put that out for the clients vs. hide it. Jalapeno bagels - not so much.

Posted by: DaveA at February 22, 2017 05:17 PM (8J/Te)

198 What's wrong with supporting someone because they give the left apoplexy? Doesn't mean I have to be or am in lockstep with everything they say or do. That's how the left rolls.

Posted by: Insomniac at February 22, 2017 05:17 PM (0mRoj)

199 >>>149 141 because parents tuition dollars are supporting a criminal then
Posted by: @votermom @vm at February 22, 2017 05:08 PM (Om16U)

Not necessarily. Many times, speakers are not paid.

Posted by: m at February 22, 2017 05:17 PM (3jGss)

200 >>>Have I misread this? Did he say somewhere that duke should actually be silenced?

yes, he said it. He said without knowing who the disinvitee was, you didn't have enough information to say whether the pressure tactic to NoPlatform him was justified or not --ergo, if he's a bad guy, NoPlatform's okay, ,but if he's a good guy (like Ben Shapirio, I imagine), then it's not okay.

If he wanted to talk about Milo and CPAC, he should have talked about Milo and CPAC explicitly.

Plainly he is talking about Milo and CPAC here but if he's going to use this as his actual example, then it's fair to talk about what he explicitly talks about.

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2017 05:17 PM (8rNrN)

201 What happened to changing the channel? What happened to NOT going to hear some one give a talk?

NoPlatforming is the equivalent of saying I can't refute the ideas put forward by the speaker.
Posted by: Jack

Because the Left doesn't *do* casual indifference.

They insist you applaud their every whim.

It this little thing called ABSOLUTE POWER OVER ALL.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 22, 2017 05:17 PM (4YGWz)

202 What if you think that anyone, including David Duke, should be allowed to speak?

The best way to stop ideas is to let them be expressed in full, so that the listener/reader can say, "Wow, this idea is dangerous and stupid." Simply trying to make the idea disappear will only make it more attractive to certain people *cough*liberals*cough*.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at February 22, 2017 05:18 PM (MZcWR)

203
Interestingly enough, and something that I think is lost on Ben Shapiro, is that the more the Left "talks" - meaning, yell, scream, punch, set fire to, trash, destroy and rant incoherently - the more the general public sees AND IS COMPLETELY TURNED OFF.

Supposedly, regular viewers of Saturday Night Live were polled and about 80% said they were sick already of the Trump trashing skits.

This is why I welcome assholes like Tubby Riefenstahl, Fauxcahontas, Webb Hubbell's kid, Cher, etc. etc. to keep it up.

AND - Keith Ellison for DNC chairman.

More please.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 22, 2017 05:18 PM (mbhDw)

204 "The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and
Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes.
The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being
corrected."

G.K. Chesterton said that over a hundred years ago. It still holds.

As for free speech I completely agree with Ace. Defending free speech only counts when the speech in question upsets you. Here in Australia our supposedly biggest defender of free speech, conservative journalist Andrew Bolt, recently said that a conservative commentator who told a naughty joke against Muslims and gays at a private function should have been "howled down off the stage" and went on a public witch hunt of fellow conservatives who were present but did not denounce the individual.

Bolt is a fraud. He is not a seeker of truth. People who protect free speech, really protect free speech, are seekers of truth. Now it seems that we can add little Ben to the list.

Posted by: Adam at February 22, 2017 05:19 PM (fFrkw)

205 Shapiro isn't a bright guy. Obvious from Ace's podcast with him.

Milo should be able to speak wherever invited and in the public square. But he never should have been invited to CPAC because he isn't conservative.

Posted by: WOPR - Nationalist at February 22, 2017 05:19 PM (J70i0)

206 (Conservatism, for many, seems to be "progressivism plus a short period
of time to give it some veneer of 'beloved tradition.'")

That's called a "temporal phase shift"

Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at February 22, 2017 05:19 PM (jCwj+)

207 I was put off by cutesy likening of Milo to David Duke, but that's, as Ace says, substantive. The procedural argument makes Ben look like an unprincipled child trying to play big boy games.

Posted by: gm at February 22, 2017 05:19 PM (mNEd/)

208 Has anyone ever seen Mark Potok and David Duke in the same place?

How do we know Duke isn't just Potok in a life-like rubbery mask, trying to drum up donations to SPLC?

Posted by: Scalia's Ghost at February 22, 2017 05:20 PM (hA1V+)

209 Nice burn, Kari
Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at February 22, 2017 05:12 PM (NdM46)

It's moments like this that make it all worth it.

Posted by: most deplorable Ghost of kari - certified sidebar at February 22, 2017 05:20 PM (Iy6JT)

210 205 Shapiro isn't a bright guy. Obvious from Ace's podcast with him.

Milo should be able to speak wherever invited and in the public square. But he never should have been invited to CPAC because he isn't conservative.
Posted by: WOPR - Nationalist at February 22, 2017 05:19 PM (J70i0)

To be fair, CPAC ain't what it used to be. The last great speaker was Rush in 2009 just after the "naqba."

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 22, 2017 05:20 PM (mbhDw)

211 Ben has spent the better part of a year now trying to become Milo-lite; the hip, young conservative that all the cool kids are talking about! Hey, check out these Ben Shapiro Thug Life videos. They're the bee's knees, fellow kids! Here's a Harambe picture too!

He's Louis Tully. He may be book smart, but he's got the charisma and appeal of a dried out goldfish. And his constant attempts to look like the edgy (but acceptable) renegade to replace Milo are getting pathetic.

Posted by: El Kabong at February 22, 2017 05:20 PM (datdl)

212 The chief difference between Ben Shapiro and David Duke are that Duke's a good foot taller than Ben. Other than that it no more serves me to let Ben speak than it does Duke. If anything, I'd rather let Duke speak since he's not trying to curb freedom of thought like Ben is. I only support free speech for those who support free speech.

Posted by: Johnny at February 22, 2017 05:20 PM (+fFCJ)

213 But at the end of the day, he'll side with George Will, Bill Kristol,
Jonah Goldberg, Kevin Williamson, over people like us every freaking
time.

I really don't get the Kevin Williamson hate. As far as I can tell, it stems from his one column arguing that if you're poor, and in an area with no jobs, perhaps you should move to one with jobs. Was he a NeverTrumper? If so, so what? We won. We can be magnanimous and try to persuade him.

He's smart, and a hell of a good writer. We can use a man like that.

Posted by: pep at February 22, 2017 05:21 PM (LAe3v)

214 Because the Left doesn't *do* casual indifference.

They insist you applaud their every whim.

It this little thing called ABSOLUTE POWER OVER ALL.

Nailed it. Its best exemplified by all of the faux outrage over gay marriage and transgender restrooms. It was NEVER enough for the left that we simply "accept" that a small percentage of our population have homosexual interactions. No, no, no, they DEMANDED that the rest of us get in line and APPROVE of their behavior and treat it as if it were the societal norm.

Posted by: Crusader at February 22, 2017 05:21 PM (ewSN2)

215 Platforming for the children or if it saves one life is good and necessary. Now I will go to my man cave and reloaded empty cases of 357 Mag with 125 grain JHP bullets for the children and to perhaps save one life while taking another life.

Posted by: colfax mingo at February 22, 2017 05:21 PM (Ik1WR)

216 175 I think you've missed Ben's point. I haven't read the article, but I heard him speak about this.
--

Yeah, maybe the NoPlatforming thing at the beginning of Shapiro's piece was just an example. He says basically, "In this scenario, whose side are you on?"

I guess we're supposed to conclude that it's a false choice. We're "against" the lefty protestors, but not necessarily "for" whoever it is that they're protesting.

Eh, maybe he's right. But I still think the piece is weaselly McMuffinism.

Posted by: Geronimo Stilton at February 22, 2017 05:21 PM (10LGw)

217 >>> I can see Ben as the kind of guy that will throw you out of the sled hoping that the wolves will consume you and let him escape.

He doesn't understand that your corpse will only attract more wolves to the sled. And if he runs out of people, he'll starting giving them the horses.
Posted by: rd at February 22, 2017 04:42 PM (iT57s)

Beautiful analogy. The wolves of the left are never satiated. Shapiro doesn't seem to grasp that even giving over the horses to them will NOT be enough.

Posted by: LizLem at February 22, 2017 05:21 PM (hvf9s)

218 I may not agree with what you say, but I WILL BURN THIS MOTHERFUCKER DOWN TO MAKE SURE YOU DONT SAY IT!

Needs work.

Posted by: Voltaire at February 22, 2017 05:21 PM (kTF2Z)

219 He weasels it.

He says, "So, here's the question: Did this make inviting the speaker worthwhile?" but he really means "Do you agree/ally with this person?" He's strawmanning.

Ace is right, here. I don't have to ally with someone on a procedural point, precisely because it's a procedural point. In this case, an important one: "Free Speech".

And, yes, as pointed out: The provocation has a value maybe even MORE because you DON'T agree with it.

Posted by: moviegique at February 22, 2017 05:22 PM (7zeA4)

220 As for free speech I completely agree with Ace. Defending free speech only counts when the speech in question upsets you. Here in Australia our supposedly biggest defender of free speech, conservative journalist Andrew Bolt, recently said that a conservative commentator who told a naughty joke against Muslims and gays at a private function should have been "howled down off the stage" and went on a public witch hunt of fellow conservatives who were present but did not denounce the individual.

Bolt is a fraud. He is not a seeker of truth. People who protect free speech, really protect free speech, are seekers of truth. Now it seems that we can add little Ben to the list.

Posted by: Adam at February 22, 2017 05:19 PM (fFrkw)

You guys make up for it with Pauline Hanson.

Posted by: Berserker- Dragonheads Division at February 22, 2017 05:22 PM (aMlLZ)

221
I found the Ben Shapiro piece linked in the post to be very confusing.

Posted by: Skandia Recluse at February 22, 2017 05:22 PM (DPObg)

222 one thing Zimriel learnt at Charles' Mansion: you only learn how good you are at protecting free speech when you are given power to censor it (or help shout it down)

and you only learn how important free speech is when you become a dissident and your platform is removed

Shapiro' s turn will come

Posted by: Boulder terlit hobo at February 22, 2017 05:22 PM (L/Hik)

223 If anyone needs a good laugh, Barstool Sports has the hilarious tale of the HuffPo writer that got busted cheating at a mini-marathon. There are pictures showing her posing smugly with her medal followed by her pathetic apology. Leftists have no honor!!!

Bonus: She's kind of cute if you are in to skinny Asian chicks.

Posted by: Benji Carver at February 22, 2017 05:22 PM (OD2ni)

224
Bolt is a fraud. He is not a seeker of truth. People who protect free speech, really protect free speech, are seekers of truth. Now it seems that we can add little Ben to the list.
Posted by: Adam

Cool, another OZ resident on the HQ.

Stick around, we're sure to offend you eventually.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 22, 2017 05:22 PM (4YGWz)

225 213
He's smart, and a hell of a good writer. We can use a man like that.

Posted by: pep at February 22, 2017 05:21 PM (LAe3v)

He went off the rails on Trump, and all but endorsed Hillary. Sorry, I'm done with him. Too bad because he was "wicked smaaart."

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 22, 2017 05:23 PM (mbhDw)

226 160 Shapiro has had his moments I'll give him that much. But at the end of the day, he'll side with George Will, Bill Kristol, Jonah Goldberg, Kevin Williamson, over people like us every freaking time. And that's all you need to know about him.
Posted by: Independent George's Phone at February 22, 2017 05:10 PM (5W5VZ)

----------------

But through freedom of speech, you know enough to form an opinion. And you know enough to decide if you want to read his articles or hear him speak.

I've learned the many of these so-called pundits don't deserve my time. So I don't give it to them.

I think it's one of the reasons I don't know about many of the people discussed on this blog.

Posted by: Soona at February 22, 2017 05:23 PM (Fmupd)

227 >>Not necessarily. Many times, speakers are not paid.

And other times, they're paid quite well!

Posted by: Hillary Clinton - Taking $350K for a canned 60 min speech at February 22, 2017 05:23 PM (NOIQH)

228 Here in Australia our supposedly biggest defender of free speech,
conservative journalist Andrew Bolt, recently said that a conservative
commentator who told a naughty joke against Muslims and gays at a
private function should have been "howled down off the stage" and went
on a public witch hunt of fellow conservatives who were present but did
not denounce the individual.

I'm trying to come up with a Crocodile Dundee joke, but it's just not happening. Please forgive me.

Posted by: pep at February 22, 2017 05:23 PM (LAe3v)

229 202 What if you think that anyone, including David Duke, should be allowed to speak?

Hell, I think Maxine Waters, Joe Biden and Hank Johnson should be required to speak more.

Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2017 05:23 PM (YX9fV)

230 211 Ben has spent the better part of a year now trying to become Milo-lite; the hip, young conservative that all the cool kids are talking about! Hey, check out these Ben Shapiro Thug Life videos. They're the bee's knees, fellow kids! Here's a Harambe picture too!

He's Louis Tully. He may be book smart, but he's got the charisma and appeal of a dried out goldfish. And his constant attempts to look like the edgy (but acceptable) renegade to replace Milo are getting pathetic.
Posted by: El Kabong at February 22, 2017 05:20 PM (datdl)

Yup. He's got all the hip appeal of a less interesting Hugh Hewitt.

Posted by: Keith at February 22, 2017 05:24 PM (USf3s)

231 I think Shapiro is now saying on Twitter that he agrees with Ace. I'm confused.

Posted by: Benji Carver at February 22, 2017 05:24 PM (OD2ni)

232 >>I was put off by cutesy likening of Milo to David Duke, but that's, as Ace says, substantive. The procedural argument makes Ben look like an unprincipled child trying to play big boy games.

It's also a terrible analogy. CPAC is a private organization that invites only like minded speakers to push a certain agenda. No different from the NAACP or La Raza or any other private, advocacy group.

Universities by definition are designed to expose students to a wide and often contrarian view to help them not only develop their own opinions but to be able to reason. If they only allow the "right" kind of speakers they become advocacy organizations and cease to be universities.

Other than that and the fact that it appears Ben doesn't understand the very principle underlying the First Amendment, great article.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 22, 2017 05:24 PM (/tuJf)

233 Shapiro did defend Trump on his waterboarding comments.

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at February 22, 2017 05:24 PM (0q4vG)

234 >>>205 Milo should be able to speak wherever invited and in the public square. But he never should have been invited to CPAC because he isn't conservative.
Posted by: WOPR - Nationalist at February 22, 2017 05:19 PM (J70i0)>>>

I agree, but he actually does great work with unparalleled success, so he's a very useful ally. But these fuckheads that have told me that I have to support a worthless GOP for the last couple decades have finally found people in Trump, Milo, and others who actually accomplish things who must be destroyed because they aren't "pure" enough.

Posted by: gm at February 22, 2017 05:24 PM (mNEd/)

235 205 Shapiro isn't a bright guy. Obvious from Ace's podcast with him.

Milo should be able to speak wherever invited and in the public square. But he never should have been invited to CPAC because he isn't conservative.
Posted by: WOPR - Nationalist at February 22, 2017 05:19 PM (J70i0)

I know people say this, and even milo says it himself. But, he's pro-border enforcement, anti-gay marriage, pro-free speech, against men in women's bathrooms, hardcore pro-life, opposes identity politics.

Quite frankly he's a lot more conservative than some other speakers at CPAC probably have been.

Posted by: buzzion at February 22, 2017 05:24 PM (z/Ubi)

236 "This is sadly now accepted by many quarters of the staid, color-within-the-lines repressed right. Perhaps it always was."

-Ace

Buckley and the neocons read a lot of people out of the conservative movement.

Posted by: DFCtomm at February 22, 2017 05:25 PM (dylA9)

237 # 228

"Sounds like a prize ratbag."

Michael J. 'Crockadile' Dundee

Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2017 05:25 PM (YX9fV)

238 Was he a NeverTrumper? If so, so what? We won. We can be magnanimous and try to persuade him.
---
Sure, we could be. But there's nothing to be gained in being magnanimous and quite a bit to be gained in punishing those who stood up to be counted with Hillary.

That sort of betrayal simply can't be tolerated.

Posted by: Methos at February 22, 2017 05:25 PM (3Liv/)

239 He's Louis Tully.

I must admit, this is an insult that never occurred to me.

Posted by: pep at February 22, 2017 05:25 PM (LAe3v)

240 I gotta' admit ... I'm biased. I hate 'em all now.

Williamson. Shapiro. Will. Krystol. Etc ... Would not piss on 'em if they were on fire and I'd just drank a barrel of beer.

The fuckers obviously consider the pot they piss in just a little better than mine. I'm willing at this point to watch it all burn, and set a few fires myself, just for the satisfaction of watching them suffer a much longer fall and harder landing than me.

I'd like to lean over, once they're at the bottom, and ask "How do you fucking like the view now ?"

Posted by: ScoggDog at February 22, 2017 05:25 PM (RWSlt)

241 This is shapiros fight with milo... and I like Shapiro more for his connections to Andrew breitbart and that he's got a lot of arguments just locked down on logical grounds.

That being said, "no platform" is awful because it occurs in spaces which are invited towards groups with limited-interest in an environment that's supposed to be free and open. Nobody has set out the guidelines for a "right and proper" veto. Nobody has established when things should not continue. No policy in our society has built to this.

As such the "no platforming" movement is nothing more than a hecklers movement of connected persons and not related to the actual interests of people. It is a veto that goes on without measure. If we are vetoing things from a space of intellectual engagement as too dangerous then it must be clear what those terms are.

Posted by: Former mass resident at February 22, 2017 05:25 PM (FTIES)

242 >>>231 I think Shapiro is now saying on Twitter that he agrees with Ace. I'm confused.

Wait for the Ben Shapiro Thug Life video to come out. They're what the kids say is 'L.O.L.'

These interweb memes are outta sight!

Posted by: El Kabong at February 22, 2017 05:25 PM (datdl)

243 Also CPAC has a habit of inviting then disinviting speakers which they need to get called on.

Posted by: @votermom @vm at February 22, 2017 05:25 PM (Om16U)

244 To be fair, CPAC ain't what it used to be. The last great speaker was Rush in 2009 just after the "naqba."

Posted by: J.J. Sefton

Out of perverse curiosity, when was CPAC something other than a trade show for political groupies, DC scum, and lobbyist interns?

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 22, 2017 05:26 PM (4YGWz)

245 You don't support free speech if you don't support it for positions that you loath and not just ones you like.

And the antidote to bad ideas is found in their comparison to good ideas when both are freely discussed.

Posted by: Our Unelected Black-robed Betters at February 22, 2017 05:26 PM (f5uaD)

246 I must have missed the part in Shapiro's article that said Duke or anybody else didn't deserve first amendment protection of their speech or where he encouraged anybody's speech be shut down.

All he said is that you can't judge who is on your side based on who they make angry.

Posted by: Whatsamattau at February 22, 2017 05:26 PM (crb2g)

247 I think we basically have 2 parties in America. First, we have Constitutional Conservatives. They love America and are thankful that GOD inspired the Founders to do things right from the very start. And secondly, we have everybody else. They hate America, the Founders, the Constitution, and GOD.

Posted by: Eromero at February 22, 2017 05:27 PM (zLDYs)

248 NoPlatforming isn't wrong in principle. It's okay to have boundaries on certain issues. Its the reason you did or didn't NoPlatform them that makes the difference. Some venues and settings are appropriate for some topics and speakers, and others aren't.

That's how societies should work if you want to avoid the law-backed approach for everything. In some instances it's called shame.

All societies/cultures have to work out how much deviation is allowed and how much isn't. Societies differ in this tolerance, individualism, etc. You can't get away from it by adopting some ideal libertarian BS complete free speech. There will always be moral judgments to be made.

Posted by: goodluckduck at February 22, 2017 05:27 PM (yqvys)

249 he's got the charisma and appeal of a dried out
goldfish. And his constant attempts to look like the edgy (but
acceptable) renegade to replace Milo are getting pathetic.

Posted by: El Kabong at February 22, 2017 05:20 PM (datdl)

Perfect! He is the nevertrump posterboy. I have no use for anything he says, after his abrupt about face from X is the perfect candidate in 2012 to X is the devil incarnate in 2016. Replace X with Trump, or anyone, because it is not about Trump. BS is not intellectually consistent.

He serves a master, and that master now is nevertrump, who preferred to give us hillary. F them all.

Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at February 22, 2017 05:27 PM (GX63o)

250 >>I found the Ben Shapiro piece linked in the post to be very confusing.

Yeah, he seems to be saying "don't be taken in by fake conservatives like Trump and Milo" just because they piss off the Left - only support true conservatives.

I get it, but it's the opposite of the "big tent" shtick the GOP has been trying to sell ("Not one of us" is the new attitude, apparently), and it comes off more like concern trolling about making sure we only support people who pass a purity test.

Posted by: Hillary Clinton - Taking $350K for a canned 60 min speech at February 22, 2017 05:28 PM (NOIQH)

251 "This is shapiros fight with milo... and I like Shapiro more for his connections to Andrew breitbart and that he's got a lot of arguments just locked down on logical grounds."

The Shapiro/Milo stuff last year got pretty nasty and I think Shapiro took it very personally.

Posted by: Benji Carver at February 22, 2017 05:28 PM (OD2ni)

252 Ben Shapiro doesn't believe in free speech any more than the average Lefty does. The only difference is the speech each would shut down.

He was more than happy to participate in the take down of Milo -- with whom he publicly funded for years -- because Milo was more successful at youth outreach than Ben will ever be.

CPAC inviting Milo to speak in the first place --2011 they didn't even allow Gay Patriot to go AS AN ATTENDEE!! (which makes Gay Patriot's participation in the Milo hit even sadder--what kind of self loathing and need for acceptance must one have to be an attack dog for those who hate you?).
So CPAC out of nowhere invites flaming gay Milo to speak and the pedophilia tape drops just 2 days later and CPAC publicly dis-invites Milo.
Reminds me of time during GE when Paul Ryan out of nowhere invited Trump to campaign with him in WI and then pussy tape dropped 2 days later causing Ryan to publicly dis-invite Trump.
That's not a coincidence. That's the NeverTrump playbook.
It didn't work on Trump but it did on Milo. Plan seems to be to take out his prominent supporters to isolate Trump.
Ben Shapiro and NeverTrumps are more than happy to help with that because they are the "true conservatives."

Posted by: Dancing Queen at February 22, 2017 05:28 PM (lZaEn)

253 Sure, we could be. But there's nothing to be gained in being magnanimous
and quite a bit to be gained in punishing those who stood up to be
counted with Hillary.

There's a hell of a lot more to be gained by listening to the arguments of a smart person. Specifically, you get keyed in to their thinking, so as to more easily refute it, and who knows, you might just learn something.

Anyway, everybody agreeing gets boring. I like the old give and take.

Posted by: pep at February 22, 2017 05:28 PM (LAe3v)

254 I really don't get the Kevin Williamson hate. As far as I can tell, it stems from his one column arguing that if you're poor, and in an area with no jobs, perhaps you should move to one with jobs. Was he a NeverTrumper? If so, so what? We won. We can be magnanimous and try to persuade him.

He's smart, and a hell of a good writer. We can use a man like that.
Posted by: pep at February 22, 2017 05:21 PM (LAe3v)

The crotch-sniffing at National Review does not take place in a vacuum. They're safe from the mean liberals in there: we are not. Their abdication of actual politics in favor of turning bon mots with James Lileks on the annual cruise and kicking fighters like Trump and Milo when they're down so they can get a couple dozen leftists to retweet them is the height of faggotry.

Posted by: most deplorable Ghost of kari - certified sidebar at February 22, 2017 05:28 PM (Iy6JT)

255 Awesome post. I like some of what Shapiro does, he is an encyclopedia of statistics and can frame some really well thought out and consistent arguments, but he has some blind spots, and Milo is a major one. Not just Milo, but Brietbart generally, where there are a lot of bad feelings on both sides.

But this sort of pisses me off. This is kicking a guy while down in a thinly disguised way, and violating basic principles that he purports to uphold, just to get in a dagger blow at the now staggering emperor.

Posted by: Tantumblogo at February 22, 2017 05:28 PM (0zHpd)

256 CPAC didn't deserve Milo, Buzzion. They were putting a pro-Trump veneer over their creamy #nevertrump centers.

As far as Shapiro: Vox Day had his number years ago, and it wasn't the Ew-jay thing.

Posted by: Chupacabra at February 22, 2017 05:29 PM (/x6xU)

257 *fueded with Milo not funded
Damn auto correct

Posted by: Dancing Queen at February 22, 2017 05:29 PM (lZaEn)

258 >>> The only real controversy was over Lawrence Ferlinghetti that the administration wouldn't allow to perform on campus because his poems had profanity in them. He performed across the street from the campus at a movie theater. Posted by: geoffb5 at February 22, 2017 04:38 PM (d3wbb)

Did you get to hear him? If so I'm jealous. I like a lot of Beat poets and artists, but Ferlinghetti is one of the few I really quite respect on a personal level. A true renaissance man, he wrote, painted and ran the City Lights bookstore/press. He was involved with the Beat movement but had a stable family life and job, never let the maelstrom of self destructive genius + addiction combo destroy him like it did so many of the others.

Posted by: LizLem at February 22, 2017 05:29 PM (hvf9s)

259 Shapiro's judgement is not the best...

https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/794018103520874496

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQvIzrhX_sk

A McMuffin guy...and we all know how they "support" the constitution, the idea of voting for our leaders, etc. If you don't get what you want call for a Deep State coup.

Posted by: William Eaton at February 22, 2017 05:29 PM (MuTTO)

260 Shapiro did defend Trump on his waterboarding comments.
Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at February 22, 2017 05:24 PM (0q4vG)

Then they're both wrong.

Posted by: most deplorable Ghost of kari - certified sidebar at February 22, 2017 05:30 PM (Iy6JT)

261 NoPlatforming isn't wrong in principle. It's okay to have boundaries on certain issues.

Really? And who decides?

Posted by: pep at February 22, 2017 05:30 PM (LAe3v)

262 Shapiro is just another bitter never Trumper...

Posted by: It's me donna at February 22, 2017 05:30 PM (O2RFr)

263 Posted by: most deplorable Ghost of kari - certified sidebar at February 22, 2017 05:30 PM (Iy6JT)

Do you even know what the comments were?

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at February 22, 2017 05:30 PM (0q4vG)

264

"The leftist says: "I agree with #NoPlatforming them, but I'm also offended by you, and I will #NoPlatform you as well."

What does he say in return? "No, I'm Good, you see?""

The eternal cry of cuckservatives. "No, no I'm good, I'm safe, you can like me. I meet your moral standards." That is also the source of all their failures.

Posted by: DFCtomm at February 22, 2017 05:31 PM (dylA9)

265 I wouldn't piss on Kevin Williamson if he was on fire.

Posted by: gm at February 22, 2017 05:31 PM (mNEd/)

266 Do you even know what the comments were?
Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at February 22, 2017 05:30 PM (0q4vG)

Oh my god no, who's Donald Trump?

Posted by: most deplorable Ghost of kari - certified sidebar at February 22, 2017 05:31 PM (Iy6JT)

267 #247 "I think we basically have 2 parties in America....."

In the General Public: Those who use logic and reason and those aren't capable of it.

In the elite: Those who know how to manipulate those who aren't capable of it, and, for the most, those who really can't be bothered.

Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2017 05:32 PM (YX9fV)

268 I wouldn't fire on Kevin Williamson if he was on piss.

Wait yes I would.

Posted by: most deplorable Ghost of kari - certified sidebar at February 22, 2017 05:32 PM (Iy6JT)

269 266 Do you even know what the comments were?
Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at February 22, 2017 05:30 PM (0q4vG)

Oh my god no, who's Donald Trump?
Posted by: most deplorable Ghost of kari - certified sidebar at February 22, 2017 05:31 PM (Iy6JT)

So your answer is no.

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at February 22, 2017 05:32 PM (0q4vG)

270 246 I must have missed the part in Shapiro's article that said Duke or anybody else didn't deserve first amendment protection of their speech or where he encouraged anybody's speech be shut down.
--

He says "Did [the protests] make it worthwhile to invite [Duke/Milo/hypothetical]?" and the answer is supposed to be "No."

That's not advocating violent protests outside lectures, or government censorship, or internet hate-storming. But it's obviously providing cover for what just happened to Milo. "Don't defend this guy," he's saying.

Posted by: Geronimo Stilton at February 22, 2017 05:32 PM (10LGw)

271 Okay, I read most of it. Well alright, about half.

Whole lotta words to say "I don't agree with what you're saying but will defend to the death your right to say it."
Of course I'm just an old geezer meister so what do I know.

Posted by: teej at February 22, 2017 05:32 PM (mzTVj)

272 >> I think we basically have 2 parties in America. First, we have Constitutional Conservatives. They love America and are thankful that GOD inspired the Founders to do things right from the very start.

Guaranteed Overnight Delivery.

I miss those guys. Started in newark, I think.

Posted by: garrett at February 22, 2017 05:32 PM (NXfyF)

273 All he said is that you can't judge who is on your side based on who they make angry.
Posted by: Whatsamattau at February 22, 2017 05:26 PM (crb2g)

And that's where I think he's wrong.

I'm willing to accept all help I can get on issues I care about. I'll take Bill Mahr's help, I'll take Jonah Goldberg's help.

I don't need to defend people. I only have to defend myself and what issues I care about. If Stalin is going to hammer the Germans, I'm going to let them. Doesn't mean I have to endorse the pogroms.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at February 22, 2017 05:32 PM (NdM46)

274
Ben Shapiro is Steven Crowder.

Posted by: Soothsayer

Am I extra stupid today?!?

Ben Shapiro is no Stephen Crowder.

Posted by: Soothsayer 45 at February 22, 2017 05:32 PM (hdoNb)

275 I think CPAC is on much firmer ground disinviting Milo because in that case, they're the inviting party.

IN the college/Duke case, there was a student group who invited Duke (one assumes the college itself didn't!), and presumably the rules allow them to do so, and then the mobs forced a disinvitation, or got the college to suspend the group's invitation rights.

But in both cases, the people using pressure tactics and ratfucking to push the #NoPlatforming thing are not friends of free thought and therefore not my friends.

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2017 05:32 PM (8rNrN)

276 I really don't get the Kevin Williamson hate. As far as I can tell, it stems from his one column arguing that if you're poor, and in an area with no jobs, perhaps you should move to one with jobs. Was he a NeverTrumper? If so, so what? We won. We can be magnanimous and try to persuade him.

He's smart, and a hell of a good writer. We can use a man like that.
Posted by: pep

A lot of psychopaths are smart and presentable.

I'm not sure what is confusing about a writer who endorses ethnic cleansing.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 22, 2017 05:32 PM (4YGWz)

277 Awful lot of new nics. Not a bad thing. Jus sayin.

Posted by: Duke Lowell at February 22, 2017 05:32 PM (kTF2Z)

278 God, I fucking hate NRO.

Posted by: gm at February 22, 2017 05:33 PM (mNEd/)

279 I gave up on Ben Shapiro a while back.

He's one of those "you play by my rules or I take the ball and go home nyaah nyaah" types.

Posted by: JEM at February 22, 2017 05:33 PM (TppKb)

280 By the way...Shapiro is a self fart sniffer.

Posted by: eleven at February 22, 2017 05:33 PM (qUNWi)

281 >>> one thing Zimriel learnt at Charles' Mansion: you only learn how good you are at protecting free speech when you are given power to censor it (or help shout it down)

Yes!! Wait what?

Posted by: Anita Sarkeesian, Twitter thought Czarina at February 22, 2017 05:33 PM (hvf9s)

282 There's a hell of a lot more to be gained by listening to the arguments
of a smart person. Specifically, you get keyed in to their thinking, so
as to more easily refute it, and who knows, you might just learn
something.
----
The arguments of a smart person are worthless.

The arguments of a *wise* person are certainly worth listening to, but he's permanently disqualified himself on that count.

Posted by: Methos at February 22, 2017 05:33 PM (3Liv/)

283
I wouldn't piss on Kevin Williamson if he was on fire.

If Kevin Williamson was on fire, I'd put him out with Rick the cocksucker Wilson.

Posted by: Soothsayer 45 at February 22, 2017 05:33 PM (hdoNb)

284 That's a whole lot of mansplaining by Ben Shapiro.

Posted by: mrp at February 22, 2017 05:34 PM (JBggj)

285 I think we basically have 2 parties in America. First, we have Constitutional Conservatives. They love America and are thankful that GOD inspired the Founders to do things right from the very start. And secondly, we have everybody else. They hate America, the Founders, the Constitution, and GOD.

Posted by: Eromero at February 22, 2017 05:27 PM (zLDYs)

Yeah that's about it. Americans and non Americans who happen to live here.

Posted by: Berserker- Dragonheads Division at February 22, 2017 05:34 PM (aMlLZ)

286 Quite frankly he's a lot more conservative than some other speakers at CPAC probably have been.

Posted by: buzzion at February 22, 2017 05:24 PM (z/Ubi)

Well said, for a corpse.

Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at February 22, 2017 05:34 PM (GX63o)

287 Hamburgers for dinner again. Probably my favorite food, the hamburger.

Posted by: Weasel at February 22, 2017 05:34 PM (Sfs6o)

288
We can use a man like that.

Heh.

Posted by: Soothsayer 45 at February 22, 2017 05:34 PM (hdoNb)

289 @pep -- characterizing Kevin Williamson's article where he literally wrote that poor whites "need to die already" as they should move to find a job is ludicrous.
He's not just NeverTrump -- he's an open borders globalist who consistently lies (he claimed a wall can't be built because you would "deny Americans their water" as if anyone is getting watter from that dirty little river.
He's a grad A twat

Posted by: Dancing Queen at February 22, 2017 05:34 PM (lZaEn)

290 287 Hamburgers for dinner again. Probably my favorite food, the hamburger.
Posted by: Weasel at February 22, 2017 05:34 PM (Sfs6o)

Wimpy Weasel

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at February 22, 2017 05:34 PM (0q4vG)

291 Ben Shapiro is basically Leonard in Big Bang Theory.

Posted by: @votermom @vm at February 22, 2017 05:35 PM (Om16U)

292 >>>
Ben Shapiro is no Stephen Crowder.
Posted by: Soothsayer 45 at February 22, 2017 05:32 PM (hdoNb)>>>

Like I said last night, Milo is a more trollish, successful Crowder. Ben Shapiro is a wannabe who dreams of being as provocative or successful as either.

Posted by: gm at February 22, 2017 05:35 PM (mNEd/)

293 I really don't get the Kevin Williamson hate

I don't hate him. I disagree with him on occasion, disagree in spittle-flecks-on-the-monitor form now and then, but probably agree with him more often than not though the ratio's probably no better than 0.7.

Posted by: JEM at February 22, 2017 05:35 PM (TppKb)

294 One of the left's recent inventions was the doctrine of "No Platforming," or #NoPlatforming, as the kids say on Twitter. The idea of it is that people should not merely oppose, contradict, refute, or rubbish statements they do not like, but apply social and economic pressure to block such statements from even being made at a venue they control (or influence). Hence, "No Platforming" -- we will blockade anyone from even providing a platform to people whose speech we don't like.

In other words, "shunning".

I have no problem with shunning when it's appropriate. The problem with the left, of course, is that they want to take normal tools and pervert them and use them abnormally while screaming that they're using "normal tools".

I can't comment on any more of the movie review since I only made it this far ...

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 22, 2017 05:36 PM (zc3Db)

295 The remedy for bad speech is more speech.

Somebody famous said that.

Posted by: Jaqen H'ghar at February 22, 2017 05:36 PM (5fSr7)

296 NeverTrump = I'm with her.

I just have zero tolerance for that.

Posted by: eleven at February 22, 2017 05:36 PM (qUNWi)

297 228,
"I'm trying to come up with a Crocodile Dundee joke, but it's just not happening."

"Shapiro, you call that a knife?" "Now this is a knife." http://tinyurl.com/jcyxmje

Posted by: geoffb5 at February 22, 2017 05:36 PM (d3wbb)

298 Basically, Ben Shapiro vs. Milo was like if the movie Election was about a pair of youth ministers, only the newer one has a guitar!. Or something like that.

Posted by: Chupacabra at February 22, 2017 05:36 PM (/x6xU)

299 >>>283
I wouldn't piss on Kevin Williamson if he was on fire.

If Kevin Williamson was on fire, I'd put him out with Rick the cocksucker Wilson.
Posted by: Soothsayer 45 at February 22, 2017 05:33 PM (hdoNb)>>>

After dousing him in kerosene and detergent.

Posted by: gm at February 22, 2017 05:37 PM (mNEd/)

300 pep, Kevin Williamson had this to say in 2016:

Williamson writes in NRO:

My own view is that Donald and Ivanka and Uday and Qusay are genuinely bad human beings and that the American public has made a grave error in entrusting its highest office to this cast of American Psycho extras. That a major political party was captured by these cretins suggests that its members are not worthy of the blessings of this republic...

You might take a second and look up the crazy antics the Saddam sons were up during their lives, compare them to Ivanka, then get back to me on good ole KDW. Fuck him with a tentpole.

Posted by: GnuBreed at February 22, 2017 05:37 PM (xpfRn)

301 I guess I differ with Shapiro in that I lie closer to "Everyone has a right to free speech," than he does. I may not like it. I may trash the person making it, but this whole "uninviting" trend is ridiculous. If you invite a person to speak, then withdraw it when people of either side apply pressure, YOU are the one with the problem. Not the speaker.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at February 22, 2017 05:37 PM (VV72c)

302 If Kevin Williamson was on fire, I'd put him out with Rick the cocksucker Wilson.

The Rick Wilson burned his bridges with me - not that he knows or cares - this electoral season.

We need a large vat of something caustic into which we can dip GOPe consultants.

Posted by: JEM at February 22, 2017 05:37 PM (TppKb)

303 "287 Hamburgers for dinner again. Probably my favorite food, the hamburger."

I know Charles Cooke is not a favorite here, but he has written some fun things about his love and appreciation of the Hamburger from the perspective of a foreigner and how it symbolizes the greatness of America. "Simple, yet perfect."

Posted by: Benji Carver at February 22, 2017 05:37 PM (OD2ni)

304 A lot of psychopaths are smart and presentable.

Ted Bundy was by most accounts quite charming.

Posted by: Insomniac at February 22, 2017 05:38 PM (0mRoj)

305 Another one of the Left's favorite rhetorical devices that Ben makes use of here is to quickly move beyond the first-level issue (for example, whether or not Milo is comparable to David Duke), and spend his time arguing some second-level point (for example, whether or not a platform should be given to such a person) that assumes that the case for the first-level issue was already made beyond doubt, and therefore implicitly reinforces the claim on the first-level issue without having to address it substantively.

Posted by: Scalia's Ghost at February 22, 2017 05:38 PM (hA1V+)

306 Posted by: GnuBreed at February 22, 2017 05:37 PM (xpfRn)

That's where he really lost me . Not so much lost me as much as me believing he needed a good beating.

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at February 22, 2017 05:39 PM (0q4vG)

307 Hamburger in SoCal is $3.99 / lbs.

Count your lucky stars.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 22, 2017 05:39 PM (4YGWz)

308 285 I think we basically have 2 parties

Yeah that's about it. Americans and non Americans who happen to live here.
Posted by: Berserker- Dragonheads Division at February 22, 2017 05:34 PM (aMlLZ)

------------

Different take but perhaps the same meaning: There is a large portion of the population of this country who are citizens of the United States, but Americans are becoming fewer and fewer.

Posted by: Soona at February 22, 2017 05:39 PM (Fmupd)

309 Wow; Williamson compared the torturers,murderers and serial rapist sons of Saddam Husseinto the Trump family?!! He's deranged.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 22, 2017 05:40 PM (fDdVG)

310 So your answer is no.
Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at February 22, 2017 05:32 PM (0q4vG)

Turn off your sarcasm detector and then turn it back on again.

Personally, I'm against torture, don't think waterboarding is torture, and am comfortable with our military torturing jihadists. I'd prefer a presidential candidate who isn't pro-torture but it didn't turn me off of Trump. Shapiro wrote that column about how Trump is right about waterboarding as part of his "look at me! I'm edgy and pro-Trump, but in a thoughtful way!" campaign.

Read my first comment on this thread. Ben Shapiro is physically repulsed by Trump. He was a cheeto-dipping #NeverTrumper. He only wrote that article so people would talk about him.

Posted by: most deplorable Ghost of kari - certified sidebar at February 22, 2017 05:40 PM (Iy6JT)

311 I know Charles Cooke is not a favorite here

There are thousands of clocks who are right twice a day. For God's sake, if you look at fucking Piers Morgan and strip out the City-of-London-bien-pensant gun shit he's been surprisingly on time.

Posted by: JEM at February 22, 2017 05:40 PM (TppKb)

312 He claims you actually don't have enough information yet to make this determination, then, with a flourish, reveals the name of the successfully #NoPlatformed speaker -- David Duke.

I can't say that I care if some group invites David Duke to speak or not.

I didn't really care that Columbia invited that midget terrorist, Achmadinejijijadeh to speak. Shit ... after Columbia let Barky the Retard skate through there's nothing that shithole can do to make me hate it any more. It's done more than enough damage, already. Shame, because one of the greatest mathematicians used to be at Columbia.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 22, 2017 05:40 PM (zc3Db)

313 Yeah that's about it. Americans and non Americans who happen to live here.
Posted by: Berserker- Dragonheads Division at February 22, 2017 05:34 PM (aMlLZ)

I got a survey from the RNC and one of the first questions they asked is how I identify politically. After going down the list and seeing that none of the descriptions applied - (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, liberal, conservative, etc. etc.)- I checked;: OTHER, and wrote in "anti-commie"

Posted by: kallisto at February 22, 2017 05:40 PM (nNdYv)

314 They can shun by just not going to the speech. Left doesn't shun they demand that everybody shun who they want shunned and they'll use force to get their way.

Next step, which already happens at some schools, is that they demand everyone attend and listen to those they approve of.

Posted by: geoffb5 at February 22, 2017 05:41 PM (d3wbb)

315 Different take but perhaps the same meaning: There is a large portion of the population of this country who are citizens of the United States, but Americans are becoming fewer and fewer.

Posted by: Soona at February 22, 2017 05:39 PM (Fmupd)

Pretty much. Being American has nothing to do with geography.

Posted by: Berserker- Dragonheads Division at February 22, 2017 05:41 PM (aMlLZ)

316 #292.... to be fair.... he had DePaul on his finger last year... its these needless fights that are stupid stupid stupid. Yes Ben, we know Milo is an opportunist but man if he isn't doing wrecking crew damage right now. Work within your own niche... how do you think things would be going now if Glenn Beck didn't low bridge Andrew Breitbart on Sherrod? This fight serves nobody.... well, not nobody but it isn't helpful to us out here to say the least

Posted by: Former mass resident at February 22, 2017 05:41 PM (FTIES)

317 Posted by: goodluckduck at February 22, 2017 05:27 PM (yqvys)

BS. Everyone is entitled to speak in a public setting. There is no justification for using violence or interference to prevent an individual from speaking or the audience from listening.

A private entity is fully within their rights to decide to restrict access to their private resources, but that's never been their focus. It's about preventing public resources from being used and punishing private groups who invite speakers they disagree with.

Even if you agree with certain limits on speech, such as slander or incitements to immediate violence, it is never the role of the mob to enforce those limits.

Posted by: Sjg at February 22, 2017 05:42 PM (gDSJf)

318 Was he a NeverTrumper? If so, so what? We won. We can be magnanimous and try to persuade him.

I'm all out of magnanimity for NeverTrumpers. They can all choke on a bagel and die.

Why would I want to be bothered persuading someone who I don't care about, in the least? Kevin Williamson can go DIAF.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 22, 2017 05:42 PM (zc3Db)

319 Basically, Ben Shapiro vs. Milo was like if the movie Election was about a pair of youth ministers, only the newer one has a guitar!. Or something like that.
Posted by: Chupacabra

*readies CAM 1 and cues sound *

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 22, 2017 05:42 PM (4YGWz)

320 305 Another one of the Left's favorite rhetorical devices that Ben makes use
of here is to quickly move beyond the first-level issue (for example,
whether or not Milo is comparable to David Duke), and spend his time
arguing some second-level point (for example, whether or not a platform
should be given to such a person) that assumes that the case for the
first-level issue was already made beyond doubt, and therefore
implicitly reinforces the claim on the first-level issue without having
to address it substantively.

Posted by: Scalia's Ghost at February 22, 2017 05:38 PM (hA1V+)

The right ceded the ability to define reality to the left in the sixties. It basically agreed to allow them to be their moral judges. Given that reality, is it any surprise that the left began to define EVERYTHING in some moral context? It was simply the maximization of the uncontested power they were given. The fact that the right still can't quiet grasp that is........amusing and frustrating.

Posted by: DFCtomm at February 22, 2017 05:42 PM (dylA9)

321 For me I was a lot more troubled by Shapiro's saying he would vote McMullin (if he lived in Utah) than what Milo said about "jail-baiting" a Catholic priest.

For one, pushing for a Hillary presidency while pretending not to, is a lot more dangerous to my country and me personally.

Posted by: William Eaton at February 22, 2017 05:43 PM (MuTTO)

322 Pretty much. Being American has nothing to do with geography.
Posted by: Berserker- Dragonheads Division at February 22, 2017 05:41 PM (aMlLZ)

It's in the heart. Like groove.

Posted by: Insomniac at February 22, 2017 05:43 PM (0mRoj)

323 I have been reading this blog and lurking for many years now. Ace you almost always have the well thought out and fuck you all opinions that many of us have been looking for but been unable to put into words. On the topic, can we please all stop embracing this sad totalitarianism for children bull shit that the left is constantly pushing. That's what it is, the adults are all dead on the left and we have petty children who can't stand the idea of having to defend their ideas in public debate or having someone actually disagree with them.

Posted by: Drew in MO at February 22, 2017 05:43 PM (cGlgB)

324 Berserker,

Yeah Pauline Hanson is great but it would have been better if we had listened to her 20 years ago before we fucked the country.

As for me being offended here, I've been around for a long while but mostly lurk. The only thing that offends me is poor Crocodile Dundee jokes ...

Posted by: Adam at February 22, 2017 05:44 PM (fFrkw)

325 I got a survey from the RNC and one of the first questions they asked is how I identify politically. After going down the list and seeing that none of the descriptions applied - (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, liberal, conservative, etc. etc.)- I checked;: OTHER, and wrote in "anti-commie"

I might have written in 'colonialist' just to twit them.

And yes, I firmly believe that, abominations like the Chinese opium trade and the Belgian Congo aside, colonialism did more good than harm.

Posted by: JEM at February 22, 2017 05:44 PM (TppKb)

326 We can be magnanimous and try to persuade him.

I'll pass.

Posted by: Notorious BFD at February 22, 2017 05:44 PM (Tyii7)

327
After dousing him in kerosene and detergent.

What are we, animals, now?

I'd first wrap Rick the cocksucker Wilson in barbed wire. And then put out Kevin Williamson with him. Because I'm a samaritan and shit.

Posted by: Soothsayer 45 at February 22, 2017 05:44 PM (hdoNb)

328 Great post, ace.

It's hard to believe that this needs to be restated, since it was common knowledge in the America I grew up in. But America in 2017 is a very different place.

Posted by: rickl at February 22, 2017 05:44 PM (zoehZ)

329 I was about to go read the Shapiro piece but I see that it's at National Review.

Posted by: m at February 22, 2017 05:44 PM (3jGss)

330 Ben most people would turn you away
I don't listen to a word they say
They don't see you as I do I wish they would try to
I'm sure they'd think again if they had a friend like Ben

Posted by: Michael Jackson at February 22, 2017 05:44 PM (oVJmc)

331 >>>>298 Basically, Ben Shapiro vs. Milo was like if the movie Election was about a pair of youth ministers, only the newer one has a guitar!. Or something like that.

It all started with Milo making fun of Ben for having fewer twitter followers than he did.

No, really. This is a thing. That happened.

Posted by: El Kabong at February 22, 2017 05:45 PM (datdl)

332 @289
Except that isn't what he said at all. What he actually said was "The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets". IOW, his argument is for a market economy. He also discusses the negative cultural traits of those communities, and much of that is true. If you doubt it, read Hillbilly Elegy.

Posted by: pep at February 22, 2017 05:45 PM (LAe3v)

333 Posted by: Adam at February 22, 2017 05:44 PM (fFrkw)

That's not being offended. This is being offended.

Posted by: Sebastian Melmoth at February 22, 2017 05:45 PM (0q4vG)

334 It's in the heart. Like groove.
Posted by: Insomniac

Oh so gaddamn you...

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 22, 2017 05:45 PM (4YGWz)

335 Berserker,

Yeah Pauline Hanson is great but it would have been better if we had listened to her 20 years ago before we fucked the country.

As for me being offended here, I've been around for a long while but mostly lurk. The only thing that offends me is poor Crocodile Dundee jokes ...

Posted by: Adam at February 22, 2017 05:44 PM (fFrkw)

yeah, and don't accuse an Aussie of drinking Fosters. lol

Posted by: Berserker- Dragonheads Division at February 22, 2017 05:45 PM (aMlLZ)

336 Whatever point Ben could have made about not embracing "the enemy of my enemy" was lost when he chose to do this just day's after Milo was taken down (by a what looks like a combo of the Left and the NeverTrump brigades) by essentially likening him to David Duke, as well as once again giving all us idiots a neverTrump lecture.

We get it, we really do, but you're a sh#tbird to use Milo's situation to do it, just like Kevin Williamson was a sh#tbird to compare Ivanka Trump to Uday an Qsay in a column promoting freakin' civility in political discourse.

Posted by: Hillary Clinton - Taking $350K for a canned 60 min speech at February 22, 2017 05:46 PM (NOIQH)

337 >>And yes, I firmly believe that, abominations like the Chinese opium trade and the Belgian Congo aside, colonialism did more good than harm.

Not for the Brits it didn't.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 22, 2017 05:46 PM (/tuJf)

338 Sjg, if you cuss me out in public I will punch you in the face. There are limits to free speech always.

Posted by: goodluckduck at February 22, 2017 05:47 PM (yqvys)

339 Why would I want to be bothered persuading someone who I don't care about, in the least?

I already answered the question. Because it is to our advantage.

Posted by: pep at February 22, 2017 05:47 PM (LAe3v)

340 apparently, there is a metric shitload of people in this country who don't understand at all how free speech is supposed to w*rk...

Posted by: redc1c4 at February 22, 2017 05:47 PM (CJzVB)

341 https://tinyurl.com/jfjd2sn

______________________

BREAKING: Georgia Election System Was Cyber-Attack... By Obama's Homeland Security?!

Posted by: EVLINC! at February 22, 2017 05:47 PM (y3aQB)

342 The only thing that offends me is poor Crocodile Dundee jokes ...

Posted by: Adam at February 22, 2017 05:44 PM (fFrkw)

You mean like that sequel, Crocodile Dundee in San Francisco ... or Los Angeles ... or Tempe or wherever it was? Yeah ... that was offensive.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 22, 2017 05:47 PM (zc3Db)

343 Not having read the original Shapiro piece, I am absolutely certain that I don't want to read a lot more like this excerpt from it:

"If you did not answer that the story provided too little information for you to judge, it's time to check your biases."

Who writes all shame-on-you like that?

Posted by: m at February 22, 2017 05:47 PM (3jGss)

344 Ben Shapiro?

Didn't he own that deli on 53rd and 3rd, Shapiro's?

Great pastrami but pass on the chicken salad.

Posted by: Hairyback Guy at February 22, 2017 05:48 PM (5VlCp)

345 I still agree with the sentiment that I might not agree with your opinion but I will defend your right to say it. I just want to alter it a bit, your a childish snow flake moron and your opinion is fucking stupid but I will defend your right to be a fucking moron.

Posted by: Drew in MO at February 22, 2017 05:48 PM (cGlgB)

346 Here is a good one, #CalExit comic book, in reality the situation would be reversed but thats the Leftists world. (LegalInsurrection)

Posted by: Skip at February 22, 2017 05:48 PM (HDU3V)

347 pass on the chicken salad

Loaded with carrots.

Posted by: Notorious BFD at February 22, 2017 05:49 PM (Tyii7)

348 The antifarts say "no free speech for fascism." Of course, fascism to them is any disagreement from their right.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at February 22, 2017 05:49 PM (IqV8l)

349 https://tinyurl.com/hmaoegg

___________________________

Town Hall Project Founded By Former Clinton Staffer
Parent company located at same address as Soros-funded group

Posted by: EVLINC! at February 22, 2017 05:49 PM (y3aQB)

350 As for me being offended here, I've been around for a long while but mostly lurk. The only thing that offends me is poor Crocodile Dundee jokes ...

You drive on the wrong side of the road and your footy is too much fun.

And despite their claims to wipe-off-five and all the enforcement bullshit the Vic fuzz never caught me doing very, very illegal things in my rented Falcon GT-P back in 2006.

Posted by: JEM at February 22, 2017 05:50 PM (TppKb)

351 "Quite frankly he's [Milo] a lot more conservative than some other speakers at CPAC probably have been."

Dang straight. Also agree that there is zero chance of coincidence between the Milo invite to CPAC and the shoe dropping less than 48 hours later - from ostensible social conservative circles, no less.

Contrived, and orchestrated, to say the least. This is NeverTrumper revenge, plain and simple.

And yes I've seen the video. Milo's a very hurt individual who is rationalizing something horrific that happened to him. His "advocacy" for pedophilia was far more tame than, say, Richard Dawkins, and yet Dawkins has not paid even the slightest penalty for his far more open advocacy for this grave moral evil, while Milo has been permanently damaged if not destroyed. His actions - outing real pedophiles and plainly denouncing this evil - speak a lot louder than these offhand words. This is all about damaging or destroying a powerful advocate for Trump.

This incident has only reinforced people's preexisting notions of Milo.

Posted by: Tantumblogo at February 22, 2017 05:50 PM (0zHpd)

352 "[Kevin Williamson] claimed a wall can't be built because you would 'deny Americans their
water' as if anyone is getting watter from that dirty little river"

There are places where secured borders run through rivers, and those rivers have tall imposing security fences right down the middle of the watercourse.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 22, 2017 05:50 PM (noWW6)

353 348 The antifarts say "no free speech for fascism." Of course, fascism to them is any disagreement from their right.
Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at February 22, 2017 05:49 PM (IqV8l)

To them, even the possibility that someone would speak words of disagreement from their right is cause for violent suppression. They really don't understand this whole "fascism" thing very well.

Posted by: Insomniac at February 22, 2017 05:50 PM (0mRoj)

354 And the Left loves Democracy:

"All those who think the evil Trump is under Putin's thumb, raise your hands, NOW!"

"That was kinda slow, bro ... you like Trump, don't you?... I need some muscle over here!"

Posted by: mrp at February 22, 2017 05:50 PM (JBggj)

355

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was invited to speak at Colombia and came and did speak. Some on the right thought he ought not to speak because he is a psycho and most on the left thought he should speak because he's an oppressed minority in their eyes and he's GOT to be a great guy because George W. Bush doesn't like him. Some eyes were opened when the little stinky man came and spoke.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the KKK and Duke have the right to protest, to run political ads, so why not have him speak? Same principle as AAhmadinejad, so we can see his true face and message.

Posted by: Sphynx at February 22, 2017 05:50 PM (OZmbA)

356 I still agree with the sentiment that I might not agree with your opinion but I will defend your right to say it. I just want to alter it a bit, your a childish snow flake moron and your opinion is fucking stupid but I will defend your right to be a fucking moron.
Posted by: Drew in MO at February 22, 2017 05:48 PM (cGlgB)

Yup. Keep talking, I need to discern just how stupid your position is.

Posted by: alexthechick - Darth Victory Tits at February 22, 2017 05:51 PM (dEQP3)

357 We can be magnanimous and try to persuade him.
---
/me grabs the "Clue by Four"(TM)

i'll take a whack at it!

Posted by: redc1c4 at February 22, 2017 05:51 PM (CJzVB)

358 Ben Shapiro is being stupid ... or he has joined a (nevertrump?) cult that holds (what he perceives to be) AllTruth.

Those in his cult with that special knowledge are an exalted priesthood that can oversee the limits to the commoner's "free speech". His neverTrump cult is challenging the MFM which currently holds the title as chief controller of allowable PeasantThink.

The NeverTrump gang bravely battles the PC Left gang ... in their make believe world in never never land. But real adults in the real world must face real world problems.

Posted by: illiniwek at February 22, 2017 05:51 PM (YMJtx)

359 I really don't get the Kevin Williamson hate. As far as I can tell, it stems from his one column arguing that if you're poor, and in an area with no jobs, perhaps you should move to one with jobs. Was he a NeverTrumper? If so, so what? We won. We can be magnanimous and try to persuade him.

He's smart, and a hell of a good writer. We can use a man like that.

Posted by: pep at February 22, 2017 05:21 PM (LAe3v)

------------------------------------------------------------

As Ace points out in this post, they keep saying and doing stupid stuff which is why they were NeverTrump to begin with.

It is one thing to oppose Trump in the primary, but once it came down to a possible Hillary presidency it was time to man up and save the country. Ben decided to instead support taking the country down into the fifth level of hell just so he could tell all the Trump supporters how wrong they were, and sell his brand in the ruins of the Republic.

Posted by: William Eaton at February 22, 2017 05:52 PM (MuTTO)

360 I would just like to take a moment and ask people to contemplate the fact that we can be sophomoric jerkoffs in real time with someone on the OTHER SIDE OF THE PLANET!

Posted by: pep at February 22, 2017 05:52 PM (LAe3v)

361 "You mean like that sequel, Crocodile Dundee in San Francisco ... or Los
Angeles ... or Tempe or wherever it was? Yeah ... that was offensive."

Actually I thought that the first movie was pretty fucking shit.

Posted by: Adam at February 22, 2017 05:53 PM (fFrkw)

362 303 "287 Hamburgers for dinner again. Probably my favorite food, the hamburger."

I know Charles Cooke is not a favorite here, but he has written some fun things about his love and appreciation of the Hamburger from the perspective of a foreigner and how it symbolizes the greatness of America. "Simple, yet perfect."
Posted by: Benji Carver at February 22, 2017 05:37 PM (OD2ni)

He's also the one that wrote the apologist article at National Review for Salon putting up pro-pedophile articles.

Posted by: buzzion at February 22, 2017 05:53 PM (z/Ubi)

363 Posted by: Scalia's Ghost at February 22, 2017 05:38 PM (hA1V+)

I wanna read this guy's blog.

Posted by: most deplorable Ghost of kari - certified sidebar at February 22, 2017 05:53 PM (Iy6JT)

364 >>>Why would I want to be bothered persuading someone who I don't care about, in the least?

I already answered the question. Because it is to our advantage.

Posted by: pep at February 22, 2017 05:47 PM (LAe3v)

Knock yourself out. I wouldn't bother. Persuading someone like that is akin to picking up the French as an ally. Thanks ... but no thanks.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 22, 2017 05:53 PM (zc3Db)

365 I would just like to take a moment and ask people to contemplate the fact that we can be sophomoric jerkoffs in real time with someone on the OTHER SIDE OF THE PLANET!

Ask aussie to pull your finger.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 22, 2017 05:54 PM (WFe5M)

366 Oooh. Trump is going after the transgender bathroom bullshit in public schools in a new EO.

Everyday is like Trumpmas.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 22, 2017 05:54 PM (/tuJf)

367 Anything wrapped in an "ism" is defined in the eye of the beholder. So I'll be damned if I concede the right of anyone to outlaw me if they think they can fit me into their "ism."

Yes, you can get off my lawn now dammit.

Posted by: xnycpeasant at February 22, 2017 05:54 PM (QtQaN)

368 361
"You mean like that sequel, Crocodile Dundee in San Francisco ... or Los

Angeles ... or Tempe or wherever it was? Yeah ... that was offensive."

Actually I thought that the first movie was pretty fucking shit.

Posted by: Adam at February 22, 2017 05:53 PM (fFrkw)

Except her ass-shot. That's free speech I can get behind.

Posted by: davidt at February 22, 2017 05:55 PM (XoldI)

369 Posted by: goodluckduck at February 22, 2017 05:47 PM (yqvys)

And I would see you jailed for it. You are not the arbiter of what speech is allowable. You are subject to the law, not above it.

Posted by: Sjg at February 22, 2017 05:56 PM (gDSJf)

370 Shapiro made a movie?

How was it?

Posted by: Mortimer, Finish Her! at February 22, 2017 05:56 PM (KgpWR)

371
Ask aussie to pull your finger.
Posted by: rickb223

I think they push them down under.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at February 22, 2017 05:57 PM (IqV8l)

372 Hamburgers for dinner again. Probably my favorite food, the hamburger."

I know Charles Cooke is not a favorite here, but he has written some fun things about his love and appreciation of the Hamburger from the perspective of a foreigner and how it symbolizes the greatness of America. "Simple, yet perfect."

I don't read Cooke anymore. But yes, Hamburgers are excellent. I lived on little else for close to a decade...back when hamburger was cheap.

Days gone by...

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at February 22, 2017 05:57 PM (NdM46)

373 367 Anything wrapped in an "ism" is defined in the eye of the beholder. So
I'll be damned if I concede the right of anyone to outlaw me if they
think they can fit me into their "ism."

Yes, you can get off my lawn now dammit.

Posted by: xnycpeasant at February 22, 2017 05:54 PM (QtQaN)

That is the attitude the right should have adopted from the start. You want to judge me? Fuck you! I won't stand for it, but instead they said "What must I do to gain your approval?" and they were lost.

Posted by: DFCtomm at February 22, 2017 05:57 PM (dylA9)

374
Can we crowd source an anti-SNL and have you people write it? Most of y'all are some funny SOBs.

Posted by: Sphynx at February 22, 2017 05:58 PM (OZmbA)

375 Has anyone issued a BOLO for Jeff Sessions yet?

Posted by: Under Fire at February 22, 2017 05:58 PM (6LwXe)

376 370 Shapiro made a movie?

How was it?
Posted by: Mortimer, Finish Her! at February 22, 2017 05:56 PM (KgpWR)

---------------------------------------------------

It was like the Crying Game...

Posted by: William Eaton at February 22, 2017 05:58 PM (MuTTO)

377 Never, ever claim that you aren't engaging in "hate speech."
It only perpetuates the Big Lie that some words are less equal than other words.

Posted by: xnycpeasant at February 22, 2017 05:58 PM (QtQaN)

378 "Ask aussie to pull your finger."

I try to avoid touching Americans, (or Seppos as we call you here.)

Posted by: Adam at February 22, 2017 05:59 PM (fFrkw)

379 363 Posted by: Scalia's Ghost at February 22, 2017 05:38 PM (hA1V+)

I wanna read this guy's blog.
Posted by: most deplorable Ghost of kari - certified sidebar at February 22, 2017 05:53 PM (Iy6JT)

Thanks! My blog is mostly used to promote my self-help books, motivational tapes and holistic natural herbal remedies.

Posted by: Scalia's Ghost at February 22, 2017 05:59 PM (hA1V+)

380 First, they came for David Duke, and I said nothing because Duke doesn't even exist except as a prop for bashing Republicans. A one--term state legislator ex-con from 3 decades ago who also ran as a Democrat? Reporter, please.

Platforming strikes me as just more of the Hyper-Politicization of Everything. When Government is your god, it follows logically, like 'totalitarian' follows 'total'.

Posted by: The Gipper Lives at February 22, 2017 05:59 PM (6lzOo)

381 Update: A commenter suggests this comparison:
OUT: "I may not agree with what you're saying, but I'll defend with my life your right to say it!"
IN: "It's complicated"

*************************

CPAC--is not the same thing as a federally funded college campus.

Posted by: Scalia's stenographer at February 22, 2017 05:59 PM (fi5nC)

382 Posted by: Sphynx at February 22, 2017 05:50 PM (OZmbA)

This.... if you are INVITED to speak, you should be able to speak...

What is happening is that groups who have nothing to do with the event, are trying to FORCE others to disinvite.

If you don't like the speaker, don't attend... but don't stop OTHERS from hearing people THEY wish to hear.

Posted by: Don Q. at February 22, 2017 05:59 PM (qf6WZ)

383 and holistic natural herbal remedies.

Posted by: Scalia's Ghost at February 22, 2017 05:59 PM (hA1V+)

Which is why he's a Ghost....

/I Keed... I keed....

Posted by: Don Q. at February 22, 2017 06:00 PM (qf6WZ)

384 CPAC--is not the same thing as a federally funded college campus.

Posted by: Scalia's stenographer at February 22, 2017 05:59 PM (fi5nC)

Yep. But it doesn't mean we can't bash CPAC for inviting and then disinviting Milo due to a co-ordinated smear campaign.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at February 22, 2017 06:02 PM (NdM46)

385 Ya know, this could have been a much more effective column if Shapiro had instead used the example of Islam allying itself with the Left, such as Linda Sarsour co-chairing the Women's March, that doing the cutesy Milo-is-David Duke thingy.

Posted by: Lizzy at February 22, 2017 06:03 PM (NOIQH)

386 I try to avoid touching Americans, (or Seppos as we call you here.)

If you find us in a boat, do you tow us all the way back to California?

Posted by: JEM at February 22, 2017 06:03 PM (TppKb)

387 Except her ass-shot. That's free speech I can get behind.

Posted by: davidt at February 22, 2017 05:55 PM (XoldI) \

Linda Kozlowski was just incredibly smoking hot in that movie. ANd I liked the original Crocodile Dundee movie, anyway. It was fun and cute.

I think it has now been banned because of Dundee's mish test.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 22, 2017 06:03 PM (zc3Db)

388 Posted by: alexthechick - Darth Victory Tits at February 22, 2017 05:51 PM

Empress, we stand ready to assist you!

Posted by: Members of the members of Linyphiidae genus at February 22, 2017 06:03 PM (DMUuz)

389 How to ruin your career.

Written by:

George F Will
Bill Kristol
Fred Barns
Jonah Goldberg
Jim Geraghty
Glenn Beck

Posted by: name at February 22, 2017 06:03 PM (En9Fa)

390 To further the point (my last post, need to wrap up at work) you can't do better than Ezra Levant being deposed under oath by the Canadian "Human Rights Commission" about the "intent" behind his piece on Muslims in Canada, viz. whether he "intended" to "give offense."

To paraphrase Ezra: "You ask me about my "intent" in writing an article? Whatever was or is in my mind, for purposes of this proceeding, I will concede that I intended the maximum amount of offense you can accuse me of... but I entirely reject the authority of anyone to police my thoughts."

Anyone serious about modern threats against free speech should take a look at the easily Googled video.

Posted by: xnycpeasant at February 22, 2017 06:03 PM (QtQaN)

391 Ya know, this could have been a much more effective column

It's Ben Shapiro.

Posted by: JEM at February 22, 2017 06:03 PM (TppKb)

392 Start with the baseline of Shapiro being a weasel, and things about him get easier to understand.

Posted by: Just A Guy at February 22, 2017 06:04 PM (+63g5)

393 5 See how long it's taking everyone to read this?

Posted by: Evelyn Wood at February 22, 2017 04:33 PM (HgMAr)

See..funny amirite?

Posted by: Cannibal Bob at February 22, 2017 06:04 PM (nIGPZ)

394 Linda Kozlowski was just incredibly smoking hot in that movie. ANd I liked the original Crocodile Dundee movie, anyway. It was fun and cute.

I think it has now been banned because of Dundee's mish test.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 22, 2017 06:03 PM (zc3Db)

He was a man ahead of his time. Or behind it. Or behind her behind.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at February 22, 2017 06:04 PM (NdM46)

395 384 CPAC--is not the same thing as a federally funded college campus.

Posted by: Scalia's stenographer at February 22, 2017 05:59 PM (fi5nC)

Yep. But it doesn't mean we can't bash CPAC for inviting and then disinviting Milo due to a co-ordinated smear campaign.
Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at February 22, 2017 06:02 PM (NdM46)

Yup... they have the absolute Right to invite, or disinvite anyone they want...

We have the absolute Right to say, in public, we disagree with them...

Posted by: Don Q. at February 22, 2017 06:04 PM (qf6WZ)

396 I try to avoid touching Americans, (or Seppos as we call you here.)
Posted by: Adam at February 22, 2017 05:59 PM

Have a Toohey's or two.

Posted by: Duncanthrax at February 22, 2017 06:05 PM (DMUuz)

397 Why are the NeverTrumoers so freaking obseesed with White Supremacists? It is bizarre.

Posted by: Widespread Pepe at February 22, 2017 06:05 PM (1dH2d)

398 Out: Nazis
In: The Klan

Posted by: Fritz at February 22, 2017 06:05 PM (FmAZH)

399 Me likee Ace! Excellente!

Posted by: Cannibal Bob at February 22, 2017 06:06 PM (nIGPZ)

400 Shut up and make me a vegemite sammich.

Posted by: The Seppos at February 22, 2017 06:06 PM (Tyii7)

401 Sjg, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there are laws about speech that incites violence, aka "fighting words". I'm not talking about "hate speech" either. I don't know if they would excuse a punch in the face.

Posted by: goodluckduck at February 22, 2017 06:06 PM (yqvys)

402 https://tinyurl.com/h3hcaxs

-----------------------------------------

Hillary Clinton roasts Republicans who 'can't take the heat' of town halls

NOT THE ONION !

Posted by: EVLINC! at February 22, 2017 06:07 PM (y3aQB)

403 {{nood}}

Posted by: shibumi, a rational single white female and kitteh servant at February 22, 2017 06:07 PM (J5mC3)

404 I think it's personal with Ben. Milo and Ben have some ugly history - I don't know if it started when Milo enthusiastically supported Trump early in the primaries and Shapiro was a #NeverTrumper or if it happened when Michelle Fields got her arm ripped off or who knows, maybe they just never got along. And for a while, I thought Milo was the more culpable guy, because he would make "cuck" remarks about Shapiro and refer to his height, and I would just cringe and think, "Milo, shut it about Ben, you're just making yourself look bad."

But whether Ben and Milo get along or not is entirely besides the point. You don't say "This guy has been an asshole to me, so I support his speech being taken away."

This was a chance for Ben to show himself to be a big guy no matter what his height is and say "Milo is an asshole but what was done to him was shitty and I support his right to free speech."

But Shapiro just couldn't do it - so he came up with this crock of shit argument instead.

I've admired the bravery of both men. I'm sorry Ben is pettier than I thought he was.

Posted by: Donna di deplorable ampersands&&&&and so there at February 22, 2017 06:07 PM (P8951)

405 I try to avoid touching Americans, (or Seppos as we call you here.)

If you find us in a boat, do you tow us all the way back to California?
Posted by: JEM

2017 AoSHQ Cruise starts in 5, 4, 3, 9, ...

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 22, 2017 06:07 PM (4YGWz)

406 Illinois neverTrumpers.
I hate Illinois neverTrumpers.
Scratcb and sniff and you smell an elitist, new world order globalist.
Theh should all be given a semi working chute and dropped in a remote area of the Amazon.

Posted by: teej at February 22, 2017 06:08 PM (mzTVj)

407 Out: Nazis
In: The Klan
Posted by: Fritz

Damn it! The sheets would be at the cleaners!

Posted by: rickb223 at February 22, 2017 06:08 PM (WFe5M)

408 CPAC should invite Ben Shapiro to speak instead so he can give us all the numbers needed to support McMuffin 2020 for President.

Or hell maybe sooner...like 2017!

Deep State can make this happen. McMuffin said so and he is so smart and patriotic and such.

Posted by: William Eaton at February 22, 2017 06:08 PM (MuTTO)

409 The doctrine of "fighting words" has historically been pretty narrowly defined. The fact that somebody "pisses me off" doesn't legally rise to the level of allowing punches to be thrown.

Posted by: Crusader at February 22, 2017 06:08 PM (ewSN2)

410 397 Why are the NeverTrumoers so freaking obseesed with White Supremacists? It is bizarre.
Posted by: Widespread Pepe at February 22, 2017 06:05 PM (1dH2d)

Funny.... I figured out a few years ago, that we always accuse others of what we are guilty of...

If we are cheaters, we accuse others of cheating...

If we are liars, we accuse others of telling lies...

BLM, IMO is one of the greatest sets of Racist groups short of La Raza...

Now look at how these guys are so 'concerned' about White Supremacists....

Some.... assembly... required??

Kinda makes ya go.... Hmmmmm......

Posted by: Don Q. at February 22, 2017 06:09 PM (qf6WZ)

411 366 Oooh. Trump is going after the transgender bathroom bullshit in public schools in a new EO.

Everyday is like Trumpmas.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 22, 2017 05:54 PM (/tuJf)

+++

One of the top insane ventures of Obama's - accommodating the what, scores of transgenders we have in this country with shared bathrooms.

When I think how Hillary could have won, and what she would be doing to enhance Obama's lunatic writs, I shudder. Literally.

Posted by: washrivergal at February 22, 2017 06:09 PM (Ivjge)

412 Posted by: Donna di deplorable ampersands&&&&and so there at February 22, 2017 06:07 PM (P8951)

*applauds*

Accurate and very well put.

Posted by: Geronimo Stilton at February 22, 2017 06:09 PM (10LGw)

413 Sjg, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there are laws about speech that incites violence, aka "fighting words".

Posted by: goodluckduck at February 22, 2017 06:06 PM (yqvys)

"Fighting words" are different from speech that incites violence. Inciting speech, as it were, is designed to get violence started from the speaker's allies. Fighting words are designed to get violence from the speaker's enemies.

Personally, I allow a ton of leeway on both of those. Violence is the fault of the person who initially commits it. The speech connection is almost always very tenuous, at best.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 22, 2017 06:09 PM (zc3Db)

414 It's hard to admit about a publication that most of us have revered for decades, but "National Review" has become one big stinking turd over the last year or so. They exist only to tear apart the right from the inside.

Posted by: Tom Servo at February 22, 2017 06:10 PM (YsaNw)

415 338 Sjg, if you cuss me out in public I will punch you in the face. There are limits to free speech always.

Fighting words.

Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2017 06:10 PM (YX9fV)

416 I read the article (and heard the same words on his podcast today) and read Ace's post but have not read through all 300 comments so apologies if someone made this point.

I think that Ben is not advocating the position that Ace thinks he is advocating.

Ben sets up the scenario of the David Duke invite and before the reveal asks: So, heres the question: Did this make inviting the speaker worthwhile

He isn't saying that the the Leftist protestors in his scenario are correct. He isn't saying that the campus should overrule the students and dis-invite him. What he is saying (at least my interpretation) is that the fact that the Left is protesting the speaker does not retroactively mean that the group that invited him made a good choice. The fact that we should fight to uphold the groups decision to invite the speaker doesn't mean that the group made a good decision to invite that speaker.

When Ben says Did you decide that the speaker was on the right because the protesters were on the left. Did you decide that the speaker had something valuable to say if he ticked off the Left enough, if he melted enough snowflakes, he doesn't mean that his speech should be censored. He simply means that we shouldn't judge whether someone is an ally or not solely based on the left's reaction to them.

To give a separate example, if a college hippie group invited an anti-vaccine speaker to campus, I would not want the campus to forcibly disinvite the speaker. Nevertheless, I would also conclude that the speaker probably did not have something valuable to say.

The point of his article I think is that conservatives should like or dislike Milo based on his views and actions, not solely based on the left's reaction to him.

On a separate note, if you actually listen to his podcast, Ben almost every day has something positive and negative to say about Trump, and he doesn't water down the positivity. He did not vote for Trump (Disclaimer: I voted for Trump similar reasons as Mark Levin) but he clearly is not rooting for the deep state to defeat Trump does not twist everything into a negative about Trump.

Posted by: Keyser at February 22, 2017 06:11 PM (v8/5X)

417 So speaking of words, when i see a 'robust' piece like this i wonder..'does Ace use a speech to text program a la Dragon or do his paws move so fast on the keyboard that he burns through them at a pace of several a day.'

I imagine him tossing smoking keyboards over his shoulder into a pile.

Posted by: Cannibal Bob at February 22, 2017 06:11 PM (nIGPZ)

418 Cal-exit is a pipe dream.

Posted by: gNewt at February 22, 2017 06:12 PM (5t7Yo)

419 Sjg, if you cuss me out in public I will punch you in the face. There are limits to free speech always.

Fighting words.

A court might disagree with your actions.

Posted by: Crusader at February 22, 2017 06:12 PM (ewSN2)

420 416 Ben Shapiro accuses people of being tribal. 1000 word essay and 400 comments and not one person mentions what Ben Shapiro's tribe is.

Well, this is one free market of free speech that has utterly failed.
Posted by: jackmcg at February 22, 2017 06:11 PM (G5CMc)

Wow what restraint from you. I'm surprised you were able to keep yourself from going (((Ben Shapiro))).

Get bent you antisemitic jackass that has never posted here before.

Posted by: buzzion at February 22, 2017 06:13 PM (z/Ubi)

421 "If you find us in a boat, do you tow us all the way back to California"

Didn't Ace post a link the other day on how to gain citizenship in Australia for US progressive fucktards who want to escape the rampaging Trumpinator?

I mean, what the fuck are you trying to do to us? We don't want them.

(We'd board your boat, take all your valuables, and then sink it with you locked in the hold of course. Like we did to most of those Vietnamese boats in 1975. Oh, you didn't know about that?)

Posted by: Adam at February 22, 2017 06:17 PM (fFrkw)

422 Get bent you antisemitic jackass that has never posted here before.

Posted by: buzzion at February 22, 2017 06:13 PM (z/Ubi)

Your virtue is acknowledged. Your reward will pop out of the slot at any moment now.

Posted by: DFCtomm at February 22, 2017 06:17 PM (dylA9)

423 410 397 Why are the NeverTrumoers so freaking obseesed with White Supremacists? It is bizarre.
Posted by: Widespread Pepe at February 22, 2017 06:05 PM (1dH2d)

Funny.... I figured out a few years ago, that we always accuse others of what we are guilty of...

If we are cheaters, we accuse others of cheating...

If we are liars, we accuse others of telling lies...

BLM, IMO is one of the greatest sets of Racist groups short of La Raza...

Now look at how these guys are so 'concerned' about White Supremacists....

Some.... assembly... required??

Kinda makes ya go.... Hmmmmm......
Posted by: Don Q. at February 22, 2017 06:09 PM (qf6WZ

Oh stop. You have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to not see that NeverTrumpers are just as obsessed as the Left with calling Trump and his supporters White Supremacists. Wake up bro.

Posted by: Widespread Pepe at February 22, 2017 06:18 PM (1dH2d)

424 Oroville dam evacuation reinstated. CA learning some hard lessons. Fuck 'em.

Posted by: Soona at February 22, 2017 06:19 PM (Fmupd)

425 Oh shit, Ben Shapiro is Jewish? With a name like Shapiro I figured him to be Zoroastrian.

Thankfully intrepid Internet Jew Finder jackmcg alerted me to my mistake.

Posted by: broseidon on even newer magic glowy rectangle at February 22, 2017 06:20 PM (M+xKj)

426 the jackass anti-semite has been banished to The Daily Stormer.

by the way -- the Nazis sure won the fuck out of World War II, huh?

Well played, Hans.

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2017 06:22 PM (8rNrN)

427 It's my belief that one should never subscribe to an ideology that guarantees all your women will be raped by Slavs.

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2017 06:24 PM (8rNrN)

428 Remember when those idiot U Oklahoma frat boys got recorded singing some retarded racist chant on a bus? I told my college son that rather than ban them from the universe, I would have invited them to publicly perform the same chant at a Free Speech Rally at every campus in America, so people could judge for themselves what idiots they were. THAT's how you deal with bigotry, not by driving it underground.

Posted by: goatexchange at February 22, 2017 06:24 PM (YFnq5)

429 425 410 397 Why are the NeverTrumoers so freaking obseesed with White Supremacists? It is bizarre.
Posted by: Widespread Pepe at February 22, 2017 06:05 PM (1dH2d)

Funny.... I figured out a few years ago, that we always accuse others of what we are guilty of...

If we are cheaters, we accuse others of cheating...

If we are liars, we accuse others of telling lies...

BLM, IMO is one of the greatest sets of Racist groups short of La Raza...

Now look at how these guys are so 'concerned' about White Supremacists....

Some.... assembly... required??

Kinda makes ya go.... Hmmmmm......
Posted by: Don Q. at February 22, 2017 06:09 PM (qf6WZ

Oh stop. You have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to not see that NeverTrumpers are just as obsessed as the Left with calling Trump and his supporters White Supremacists. Wake up bro.
Posted by: Widespread Pepe at February 22, 2017 06:18 PM (1dH2d

I read that as you calling me a white supremacist.

To be fair, I'm being worn down with 8 years of being called and thought of every hateful name in the book. Millions of people are. It is toxic for individuals and as a society. It seems to bring the best and worse out of people at the same time.

I appologize if I took your statement the wrong way.

Time to hit the weights. Be well.

Posted by: Widespread Pepe at February 22, 2017 06:24 PM (1dH2d)

430 DFC,

You have anything to confess? If you want a ban, I wouldn't mind getting rid of more trash.

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2017 06:25 PM (8rNrN)

431 remember, NoPlatforming is pressuring THIRD PARTIES to deny platforms they have otherwise offered to people whose views the mob doesn't like.

But this is not a third-party-pressuring-me situation. This is my platform. I permit and ban whom I choose.

If you want to Make America Safe for Racism and Antisemtism again, I don't need much pressuring to be rid of you.

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2017 06:27 PM (8rNrN)

432 Is this inconsistent with Ace's position on other things which, in essence, is "let's stop unilaterally disarming and punish the left with their own tactics". Clearly everyone on this board would support free speech in a vacuum

Posted by: thatguy at February 22, 2017 06:28 PM (K3/PA)

433 "I read the article (and heard the same words on his podcast today) and read Ace's post but have not read through all 300 comments so apologies if someone made this point.

I think that Ben is not advocating the position that Ace thinks he is advocating...."

This.

Almost spot on to my interpretation as well. Lo & behold here's a giant rant missing the point.

Posted by: PunchFist2.0 at February 22, 2017 06:29 PM (sKDzR)

434 I wonder how many of these No Platform folks grow up to be librarians who formerly raged against conservative book banning when they were kids.

Posted by: Walter Freeman at February 22, 2017 06:33 PM (3Vlkn)

435 Was he a NeverTrumper? If so, so what? We won. We can be magnanimous and try to persuade him.

===

Nevertrumper.

Not Eventuallytrumper. Or Maybetrumper.

'Never.'

Their word. Not mine.

Posted by: Mortimer, Finish Her! at February 22, 2017 06:34 PM (KgpWR)

436 Poor Ben, he's still upset I never gave him so much as a pat on the head for white-knighting me.

Posted by: Michelle "Huffington Post Conservative" Fields at February 22, 2017 06:34 PM (nvc/3)

437 My two cents: it was a mistake to invite Milo, but it was a bigger mistake to disinvite him.

Posted by: TexasJew at February 22, 2017 06:35 PM (o2eGw)

438 NoPlatforming is just speech suppression.

Love the Newspeak title though.

Posted by: Mortimer, Finish Her! at February 22, 2017 06:37 PM (KgpWR)

439 >>>"I read the article (and heard the same words on his podcast today) and read Ace's post but have not read through all 300 comments so apologies if someone made this point.

I think that Ben is not advocating the position that Ace thinks he is advocating...."

This.

Almost spot on to my interpretation as well. Lo & behold here's a giant rant missing the point.

...

really? You're claiming this isn't about Ben Shapiro's own actions to get Milo disinvited from CPAC, then?

You think it's just random he brings this up now?

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2017 06:40 PM (8rNrN)

440 >>>Is this inconsistent with Ace's position on other things which, in essence, is "let's stop unilaterally disarming and punish the left with their own tactics". Clearly everyone on this board would support free speech in a vacuum

i'm afraid it might be and i'm wondering if I can reconcile them.

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2017 06:41 PM (8rNrN)

441 I had a bit of an argument about the wall. We're both West Texans, but he's from Lubbock, three hundred miles from the Rio Grande.
I live less than 1000 yards from the river, and one of the nastiest colonias in Juarez, Anapra. We have a nice big-ass wall here. People here demanded it.
And we have lots of water. Only an idiot would drink from the nasty Rio Grande.

Posted by: TexasJew at February 22, 2017 06:43 PM (o2eGw)

442 Argument with Kevin Williamson, that is, on Twitter.

Posted by: TexasJew at February 22, 2017 06:43 PM (o2eGw)

443 It really isn't about the contents of the speech at all. It's about the person and how people feel about them. If Milo or David Duke gave a speech about gardening people would still be outraged THAT sort of person was allowed to talk at all.

Posted by: Pervy Grin at February 22, 2017 06:45 PM (t5SJk)

444 SO SO SO late to this but I just wanted to say what a great post this is!!!!

Someone with Twatter access should twat this to Shapiro, he needs to fucking read it!!!!

Posted by: Dirty Randy at February 22, 2017 06:46 PM (br2jI)

445 Was he a NeverTrumper? If so, so what? We won. We can be magnanimous and try to persuade him.

Howabout a crack team of 300 monkeys at keyboards can get ChemHeff to concede some small point before we move on to the big fish.

Posted by: BourbonChicken at February 22, 2017 06:49 PM (VdICR)

446 430
DFC,

You have anything to confess? If you want a ban, I wouldn't mind getting rid of more trash.

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2017 06:25 PM (8rNrN)

I don't sensor myself much anymore, so no confessions. I don't hate Jews, but I have come to hate conservatives busybodies. We comment here at your indulgence so I'll abide by your stated rules, and if that comment violated those rules then I didn't realize it.

Posted by: DFCtomm at February 22, 2017 06:50 PM (dylA9)

447 I watched some Milo speeches on YouTube.

Unfortunately, YouTube now recommends me to watch Ben Shapiro videos. Because they're similar or something.

He's a nice boy. He's usually right about most things. He's a reliable source of information. But the information and opinions he provides is painfully conventional. He's boring. He's got idiot fans (possibly his employees) who post video snippets with titles like "That time Ben Shapiro DESTROYED black lives matter!!!" He's arrogant and condescending. I don't want to listen to him. It feels like a lecture rather than a conversation. I've no-platformed him on my computer monitor.

If CPAC wants to show that it's not anti-gay, it should invite Ben to replace Milo.

I kid, I kid. But that joke was more interesting than anything Ben Shapiro has done in the past year.

Posted by: Daryl Herbert at February 22, 2017 06:51 PM (BHpB+)

448 I wouldn't rewrite it ace. This is your natural inclination, rather than the "if this is how you want it progressives then game on bitch". And Shapiro would probably argue to not do #noplatforming to the left.

Posted by: Buzzion at February 22, 2017 06:52 PM (9YPtX)

449 Sigh... Ben has been on this point for over a year. Milo might play in to the timing of this article, but not the sentiment.

Ace has the right message but the wrong target.

Posted by: Zionist Redneck at February 22, 2017 06:53 PM (sgx/T)

450 No platform for Ben.

Posted by: local news at February 22, 2017 06:55 PM (1isJI)

451 I think Ben let Milo give him a hand job at a convention late nighter once, and Ben's been terrified ever since that Milo is going to spill the beans on him.

Posted by: Tom Servo at February 22, 2017 06:56 PM (V2Yro)

452 I'll take historical parallels for $200 Alex.

Answer: "This program of the early Church was set out to act as a penitential and proselytizing office, not a true penal council. Therefore, its chief desire was a promise from the accused to the Church pledging eternal loyalty and obedience...They did not consider heresy a crime, merely a sin for which confession and absolution was required."

Please answer in the form of a question.

Posted by: Zon Toro at February 22, 2017 06:56 PM (82s/V)

453 439
>>>"I read the article (and heard the same words on his podcast
today) and read Ace's post but have not read through all 300 comments
so apologies if someone made this point.

I think that Ben is not advocating the position that Ace thinks he is advocating...."

This.

Almost spot on to my interpretation as well. Lo behold here's a giant rant missing the point.

...

really? You're claiming this isn't about Ben Shapiro's own actions to get Milo disinvited from CPAC, then?

You think it's just random he brings this up now?Posted by: ace at February 22, 2017 06:40 PM (8rNrN)

I'm sure this is exactly related. I think that Ben's point is
1) Milo had an absolute right to speak at Berkeley since he was invited by a group of students to speal there and that right should be fought for (He made this point on his podcasts clearly after the Milo-Berkeley kerfuffle happened).
2) Milo is not a conservative and therefore CPAC should not have him speak there. The fact that the left hates him doesn't justify the invitation in it of itself.

I don't know much about Milo to agree or disagree about his conservative bonafides. I am not happy that he got disinvited once he was invited even if I disagree with everything he stands for (which I'm sure I don't). Nevertheless, I don't think holding an opinion that Milo shouldn't have been given a platform to speak at CPAC means that one is against free speech.

Posted by: Keyser at February 22, 2017 07:10 PM (v8/5X)

454 I unfortunately read through Mr. Shapiro's piece, and I think you're misinterpreting it, Ace. He didn't say that David Duke should be no-platformed. He just said that David Duke is useless and we shouldn't assume he's a good guy just because he gets a reaction out of the left. Which is correct.

The same is true for Milo: we should not assume Milo is good just because the left hates him. We should watch Milo's videos to decide for ourselves if he's valuable. Which he is. He's also interesting, funny, lovable, and mischievous.

Posted by: Daryl Herbert at February 22, 2017 07:12 PM (BHpB+)

455 there's a difference between #noplatform and #NotMyPlatform. This is Ace's house and he can ban whoever he wants. Sounds like he may have just done so.

This first is censorship and reprehensible. But I think it was the second that Ace did and the Ben was writing about.

Posted by: buzzsaw90 at February 22, 2017 07:13 PM (PqqkK)

456 Hey Ace, I agree with what you write in regards to platforms, but, being a fairly consistent listener of Ben as well I was surprised to see the censorship charge being leveled at him.

I read through the original piece a couple of times and I didn't see the same thing you saw.

I read the article to say, "Just because the left is bothered by a speaker, does not mean that person is good for our cause."

Ben has, on multiple occasions, said that, while people can be dis-invited from private places, there's no good reason for political discourse for that to ever happen. I feel like he butchered this article, or he had a huge 180 in the past 3 days on this subject. He seems relatively active on Twitter; maybe he would respond to someone with clout such as yourself (hopefully in a better format than Twitter)?

Posted by: Idiot_90's_kid at February 22, 2017 07:18 PM (ohCwJ)

457 148
Ben Shapiro is simply a contrarian. He's the kind of Young College
Republican who's pro-choice, soft on the second amendment, and very,
very eager to talk about race, because the reason he's a Young College
Republican in the first place is because he gets to be "different" in a
way which seems intelligent.

But it's VERY VERY IMPORTANT that no one actually dislike him as a
result. He wants to be noticed, NOT disliked, and noticed for being
smart. So once the girl in the short dress has gotten over the shock of
meeting an out and proud Republican (but BEFORE she has to leave to
refill her drink) he needs to start explaining that he's not what he
thinks. He's not religious. He's not a gun nut. He believes there need
to be checks and balances on big banks. He's all for abortion - it's a
woman's right to choose! He's certainly, definitely not a fan of Milo
Yiannopoulos. No, to him, conservatism is really about principles.

Please note, he sounds a lot different when he's talking to a real conservative.

These "principles" he doesn't actually give a fuck about give him a
solid, comfortable, and comforting pillow fort from which to wave his
fire-engine red "I am the very model of a modern true conservative"
flag.

But oh man look at what just happened to Milo! Why, a truly
polarizing figure actually rose above the crowd, and he's being cut down
by a carefully planned and coordinated media campaign.

Lil Benji can't fuck with that kind of heat. He doesn't have that
kind of fanbase. He doesn't have his own brand. He doesn't have a book
15 million people are clamoring to read. He needs to head this off at
the pass.

Posted by: most deplorable Ghost of kari - certified sidebar at February 22, 2017 05:07 PM (Iy6JT)
Aside from the fact that:1) Ben is very pro-life and calls abortion murder2) Ben is very pro-second amendment (Search for Ben Shapiro and Piers Morgan on guns on youtube)
3) Anti-affirmative action/quotas4) Very religious (albeit religious Orthodox Jewish, not religious Christian) who has a segment on the Bible every week on his podcast5) Believes in laisse faire capitalism / deregulation and has never advocated regulating big banks6) He does have his own brand and actually quit his LA morning radio gig because he was making enough money on his own brand and didn't have time to keep doing the radio show.
Asides from all those facts, you got Ben exactly right! 0/6 congratulations!

Posted by: Keyser at February 22, 2017 07:22 PM (v8/5X)

458 >>>The same is true for Milo: we should not assume Milo is good just because the left hates him. We should watch Milo's videos to decide for ourselves if he's valuable. Which he is. He's also interesting, funny, lovable, and mischievous.
Posted by: Daryl Herbert at February 22, 2017 07:12 PM (BHpB+)>>>

Which is a lot more than can be said for Shapiro. Even though I thought he was 100% correct in his split with breitbart.

Posted by: gm at February 22, 2017 07:23 PM (mNEd/)

459 And that's why Shapiro is a cuck.

Posted by: Pete at February 22, 2017 07:30 PM (kHNsF)

460 Related to "conservatives" being five years behind lock-step with Progressive consensus, R.L. Dabney called it back in the 19th century: https://mildcolonialboy.wordpress.com/category/robert-lewis-dabney/

Posted by: bvuk at February 22, 2017 07:31 PM (KzwzI)

461 Meanwhile, not EVERYONE has lost track of Alcibiades!!!

Surely there must be a way of getting messages to him!!!

Posted by: Anne R. Abler at February 22, 2017 07:33 PM (Fq0e/)

462 "yes, he said it. He said without knowing who the disinvitee was, you didn't have enough information to say whether the pressure tactic to NoPlatform him was justified or not --ergo, if he's a bad guy, NoPlatform's okay, ,but if he's a good guy (like Ben Shapirio, I imagine), then it's not okay.

If he wanted to talk about Milo and CPAC, he should have talked about Milo and CPAC explicitly. "

With respect, you've changed the question.

The question he posed was: "Did this make inviting the speaker worthwhile?"

He's correct that you can't answer that from whether or not the speaker was protested (depending I guess on what your definition of worthwhile is).

His entire premise is summed up here: Did you decide that the speaker had something valuable to say if he ticked off the Left enough, if he melted enough snowflakes?

It does not say "did you decide the speaker should be permitted to speak because.."

You can dislike the smug way he writes and talks, but I don't think he's wrong on this. The example is a bit imprecise, but I do agree that people are siding with people purely against the left. This is a tactic the left uses (Muslims and gays working together!). It's not a good one.

Posted by: Allan at February 22, 2017 07:34 PM (k3yiP)

463 455
there's a difference between #noplatform and #NotMyPlatform. This is
Ace's house and he can ban whoever he wants. Sounds like he may have
just done so.

Posted by: buzzsaw90 at February 22, 2017 07:13 PM (PqqkK)

Is that like planking Brah?...cuz man, I planked this one time...duuude.Don't ban me Brah!!

Posted by: Zombie Jerry Garcia at February 22, 2017 07:40 PM (n3hky)

464 I realize you have a rep to worry about, ace, so I don't blame you for censoring your comment section. But for your own sake I hope you are not truly naive to people's loyalties. Its important. And you are too smart not to get it.

Posted by: jackmcg at February 22, 2017 07:52 PM (G5CMc)

465 This is perfect. Up until this election, I always respected Shapiro for his intellect and an activism, but boy did he show his true colors when he couldn't get his way.

I can still picture his smug little face, split screen with some other never trumper, along with some blaring anti Trump chyron on the Kelly File - night after night. I have no use for him or any of the others I once bookmarked (Allah Pundit, Erickson, Beck, Levin, etc).

Posted by: Kev at February 22, 2017 07:58 PM (KczA1)

466 I'm sorry, but if I have to choose someone to listen to, I side with Ben Shapiro over Ace any day of the week.

Posted by: rexbatt at February 22, 2017 08:02 PM (Hysk8)

467 This post is the reason I read here. Thanks, Ace.

Posted by: circumlocutious at February 22, 2017 08:24 PM (n2r4H)

468 Ben's not good enough.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at February 22, 2017 08:48 PM (LTHVh)

469 As far as free speech :

I may not agree with what your bumper sticker says, but I will defend to the death your right to stick it.!

Posted by: matthewdean at February 22, 2017 08:53 PM (H+Beu)

470 440:

Say what you will about them, Milo and Duke aren't on the left.

Crush the left first, then I'll worry about a flamboyantly homosexual British troll and an old man with a YouTube channel.

Posted by: WARPIG at February 22, 2017 09:09 PM (KL5Ns)

471 Posted by: Allan at February 22, 2017 07:34 PM (k3yiP)

"Did this make inviting the speaker worthwhile?"

When a mob acts to prohibit the speech of an individual, that speech has undeniable value. The persuasions of the speaker or those of the mob are not relevant. The merit of the speech's content is not relevant. The speaker or his speech being considered repugnant is not relevant.

The ability to speak freely is what is at stake. The first instinct of every American should be to defend that. Allowing the mob to decide who may enjoy the blessings of liberty is far more repulsive than any words can ever be. Reflexively standing up to that mob, and supporting that speaker's right to speak is always worthwhile.

Someone who "melts snowflakes" always merits a defense, because that is where the rights of all of us live or die. The more you disagree with the speech, the more vigorously the ability to speak needs to be defended. Arguing that a speaker's worth depends on who they are and what they espouse, means that all of us are at risk of losing an essential liberty to the whims of a mob or the state.

Posted by: Sjg at February 22, 2017 09:11 PM (gDSJf)

472 Wow i've found you pretty annoying post-Trump but this is very spot on. Thoroughly enjoyed and will share. I feel like there's a better word than "procedural" though.

Posted by: matt at February 22, 2017 09:13 PM (qijoK)

473 Also, if you think Ben Shapiro wrote that tedious article because he had an important, timely point to make, or because he was defending timeless conservative values... you don't really think that. He wrote it because he wanted to take a swipe at Milo, while Milo is at his lowest point, but was too much of a coward to come right out and say he was taking a swipe at Milo.

He isn't even attacking Milo for something Milo did. He's attacking Milo for being more popular than Ben is. He's suggesting that the only reason Milo is more popular is because leftists protest Milo--not because, for example, Milo is interesting and Ben is fucking tedious. It's some boring high school drama bullshit, wrapped in the boring, bland packaging that will always be Ben's hallmark. (Let's call it: "Bensplaining")

Milo might be out of Breitbart today, but Ben will be fucking boring forever.

Posted by: Daryl Herbert at February 22, 2017 09:18 PM (BHpB+)

474 "I don't know how on earth he could possibly have this argument with a leftist. Shapiro says "No, only use #NoPlatforming against people who are really bad, like David Duke, or Milo."
The leftist says: "I agree with #NoPlatforming them, but I'm also offended by you, and I will #NoPlatform you as well."
What does he say in return? "No, I'm Good, you see?"

This is an excellent summary of post Reagan conservatism.

Outstanding post, Ace, maybe your best ever. I only wish the target had more heft than Shapiro, but a substantive person likely would at least be aware of the contradiction he espoused.

Posted by: Trump poisoned my cat at February 22, 2017 09:22 PM (xDP/U)

475 Oh good Lord how far Ace has fallen. From his tendentious and intentional misreading of Shapiro, to his long-winded, strawman-laden diatribe, he has basically gone full-blown Little Green Aceballs.

Posted by: Paul Zummo at February 22, 2017 09:31 PM (R0kAj)

476 ""Did this make inviting the speaker worthwhile?"

When a mob acts to prohibit the speech of an individual, that speech has undeniable value. The persuasions of the speaker or those of the mob are not relevant. The merit of the speech's content is not relevant. The speaker or his speech being considered repugnant is not relevant.

The ability to speak freely is what is at stake. The first instinct of every American should be to defend that. Allowing the mob to decide who may enjoy the blessings of liberty is far more repulsive than any words can ever be. Reflexively standing up to that mob, and supporting that speaker's right to speak is always worthwhile.

Someone who "melts snowflakes" always merits a defense, because that is where the rights of all of us live or die. The more you disagree with the speech, the more vigorously the ability to speak needs to be defended. Arguing that a speaker's worth depends on who they are and what they espouse, means that all of us are at risk of losing an essential liberty to the whims of a mob or the state.

Again, like Ace, I feel you are sidestepping the point by focusing in on one thing and taking the meaning you want to see.

Whether or not the person is allowed to speak is not in question. At no stage did Ben actually say this person should not be allowed to speak. What he is saying is that just because the left doesn't want them to speak doesn't mean that they are saying something that's worth listening to! Can you see the difference?

This part makes no sense to me: "Arguing that a speaker's worth depends on who they are and what they espouse, means that all of us are at risk of losing an essential liberty to the whims of a mob or the state."

Of course their worth as a speaker should be judged on what they say! What else are you going to judge it on? Is it not possible for me to say "Man, this guy is not worth listening to" without advocating that he be actually silenced?

Ben is trying to warn against the danger of following people without question just because they piss off the right people. The best example is how 50% of Republicans now think Russia is your friend for some reason since Trump has been elected. Trump pisses off the media when he says Putin is OK = Putin is OK! That's the point he's making. Support people based on what they say and do, not based on who hates them.

If you think he's saying "Only let people speak if you like what they're saying" Then find me the damn quote. Since he's been a vocal and clear advocate against this for years, you'll need something more than reading between the lines about what you think he meant to convince people who are at all familiar with his work.

Posted by: Allan at February 22, 2017 09:45 PM (k3yiP)

477 "Free speech is about -- has always been about -- must always be about -- the speech we find offensive ourselves.

It is only that speech -- the speech we are sorely tempted to squelch ourselves, or too cavalierly shrug at as our allies or semi-allies squelch it for us -- that is in need of protection from without and especially from within."

Oh, and does that apply to twitter, where you block people who have dared to point out your own hypocrisy? Or does some stuff become so offensive - to you - that it becomes banworthy? Just curious as to how you reconcile your obvious inconsistency with regards to your free speech purity.

Posted by: Paul Zummo at February 22, 2017 09:45 PM (R0kAj)

478 Excellent post, Ace! Incidentally, this is why I was not pleased when that white nationalist guy (Richard Spencer, IIRC?) was filmed getting assaulted a couple of weeks ago and people were celebrating it. There were a lot of comments out there along the lines of, "It makes me so happy to see a Nazi get punched in the face."

To any conservatives who were celebrating this along with liberals, I would ask you this... have you ever heard a liberal refer to a conservative as a Nazi?

I'm betting you have, many times. I've sure heard it, and seen it in writing. Most recently, we saw a leftist named Evan McMullin call a gay Jewish conservative who only dates black dudes a "Nazi punk". What?

If it's okay to punch a Nazi in the face just for being a Nazi, what happens when some liberal decides that you're a Nazi?

Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler. Welcome to Trumpdome, bitch! at February 22, 2017 09:53 PM (0OG8D)

479 "Excellent post, Ace! Incidentally, this is why I was not pleased when that white nationalist guy (Richard Spencer, IIRC?) was filmed getting assaulted a couple of weeks ago and people were celebrating it. There were a lot of comments out there along the lines of, "It makes me so happy to see a Nazi get punched in the face."

If it's okay to punch a Nazi in the face just for being a Nazi, what happens when some liberal decides that you're a Nazi?"

Totally agree with this... I agreed with it when Ben Shapiro himself said it! I think this is a misread of what Ben was saying, since it's completely out of kilter with everything he's said in the past. His language is a bit imprecise, but I think there's no way he was advocating what he's being accused of here.

Posted by: Allan at February 22, 2017 10:01 PM (k3yiP)

480 Milo is not merely enemy of our enemy.

He is our fellow countrymen and he is under attack by our enemies. That alone makes him deserving of our support.

Posted by: chazhammond at February 22, 2017 10:14 PM (c4Oro)

481 I like Ben a lot! I should go read the post this references. But regardless of whether or not the criticism is fair to Ben, Ace's is a point that needs to be made!

I like Milo too! Can't we all just get along?

Posted by: matt at February 22, 2017 10:54 PM (qijoK)

482 #479 #481: I think what's happened to Ben, here, is something most people are occasionally prone to. He temporarily lost sight of his principles when his personal interests were on the line.

What does Ben do, really? He writes articles on conservatism, and he tours college campuses to give speeches and Q-ampersand-A sessions and debate people.

Milo has been doing all these things, too, and has enjoyed tremendous success at it in recent months. He is a direct competitor to Ben on all those fronts, and in many ways a superior one.

Ben is probably just happy to see his strongest competition get taken down a peg or two, and his own prospects improved as a result. He's trying to justify this happiness to himself and to potential critics on the Right.

Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler. Welcome to Trumpdome, bitch! at February 22, 2017 11:12 PM (0OG8D)

483 Wow that's petty if true. There's certainly room in the world for Milo AND Shapiro. It's not like there's only so many bookings to go around, they all get canceled anyways!

Posted by: matt at February 22, 2017 11:19 PM (qijoK)

484 #483: This is just my theory. And I'm not condemning Shapiro for it, because we're all petty from time to time. The only thing that really varies between individual people is how often this happens, and how soon we realize it's happened and find our principles again.

I hope Ben can find his principles again, soon.

Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler. Welcome to Trumpdome, bitch! at February 22, 2017 11:26 PM (0OG8D)

485 Just read the Shapiro article. Conclusion - unfair to Shapiro! But the broader points Ace made were excellent and reminded me of why I loved him in the first place (and why I still keep coming.)

Posted by: matt at February 22, 2017 11:26 PM (qijoK)

486 He never makes the jump to "don't let this bad man speak." He's merely saying that just because the left hates someone doesn't make them good (very true!)

I'm guilty of this myself! I'm busy! I don't know anything about Betsy DeVos, but I read my facebook timeline and saw everyone hyperventilating and concluded "wow, she must be amazing" lol. Maybe she stinks, I wouldn't know because I didn't actually put any effort into researching it.

Posted by: matt at February 22, 2017 11:30 PM (qijoK)

487 According to Ben Shapiro, most of us are little react-bots that are unable to have Deep Thoughts such as he and his friends do. All of us little binary creatures are defined by what we're against. If Reprehensible #1 is for something, then by golly I'm going to be against it no matter what it is.

The election of President Trump was as much a revolt against this type of condescending, dismissive elitism as it was against the prospect of the continuation of Obama's wrong-headed policies through Hillary. Shapiro and NR may think that they are GOP leaders but their leadership is transforming the GOP into an evaporating brand.

Posted by: LCMS Rulz! at February 22, 2017 11:34 PM (o7l6R)

488 If an idea or position makes no sense and can't be defended in an argument, hearing it will do no harm to anyone else, and may even bolster the opposite opinion or argument.

Let people hear for themselves, use their minds, and then decide. You don't strengthen a muscle without using it.

Posted by: Ashley Juddhead at February 22, 2017 11:55 PM (SJ184)

489 Posted by: Allan at February 22, 2017 09:45 PM (k3yiP)

If what you claim his intention was is correct, then Shapiro's question was flawed. It asks whether the act of inviting the speaker was worthwhile (to which I would always answer a resounding yes), not the content of the speech. He didn't open with "Is this speaker your political ally?", but that's the question he goes on to answer. His response may deal in terms of the value of the content, but the initial question doesn't ask anything of that sort. Maybe he isn't trying to say some people don't deserve a chance to speak, but when he goes on to answer his question of inviting a speaker by saying it depends on the character of the man and the content of their speech, that is how it comes across.

It doesn't help that he is convinced that Trump (and presumably Milo given the article's timing) has hoodwinked people into supporting them simply because they were attacked by the left. He turns Trump voters into strawmen, tricked into supporting him because of who his enemies are. Conveniently, he gives no evidence to support Cruz or Rubio's conservative bona fides while calling them more conservative than Trump other than the anecdote that some unnamed left-wing commentators supported Trump over them. Never mind Trump's success from clearly staking out the most law and order approach to the border and a compelling message about working to improve the lives of Americans, it was all because the media attacked him that he succeeded /s.

As to my point which confused you: any speaker has value if they go on to speak while others seek to suppress them. The value is in the act of speaking, not the content of their message. It doesn't matter how much a nation claims to protect free speech if there is a de facto prohibition on the ability of some people to speak. That is why the speaker is valuable, and that's why inviting them to speak is worthwhile. If their speech is suppressed by a mob, then anyone's can be.

Posted by: Sjg at February 22, 2017 11:57 PM (gDSJf)

490 "If what you claim his intention was is correct, then Shapiro's question was flawed. It asks whether the act of inviting the speaker was worthwhile (to which I would always answer a resounding yes), not the content of the speech. He didn't open with "Is this speaker your political ally?", but that's the question he goes on to answer. His response may deal in terms of the value of the content, but the initial question doesn't ask anything of that sort. Maybe he isn't trying to say some people don't deserve a chance to speak, but when he goes on to answer his question of inviting a speaker by saying it depends on the character of the man and the content of their speech, that is how it comes across."

Again, you're conflating "allowed" with "invited to". I don't think you should invite David Duke to speak at something. If you were in control of organising speakers is he top of your list? This doesn't mean they should not be allowed to speak. I don't think you should invite Lena Dunham either, because she doesn't have anything to say that's worth listening to in my view. That doesn't mean I want her silenced.

"It doesn't help that he is convinced that Trump (and presumably Milo given the article's timing) has hoodwinked people into supporting them simply because they were attacked by the left. He turns Trump voters into strawmen, tricked into supporting him because of who his enemies are. Conveniently, he gives no evidence to support Cruz or Rubio's conservative bona fides while calling them more conservative than Trump other than the anecdote that some unnamed left-wing commentators supported Trump over them. Never mind Trump's success from clearly staking out the most law and order approach to the border and a compelling message about working to improve the lives of Americans, it was all because the media attacked him that he succeeded /s. "

This simply reveals that you've never taken any interest in anything that Ben Shapiro says, because it's not within a country mile of it. His assessment of Trump is far more nuanced than this and not nearly as one-sided. He's not even a #NeverTrumper like so many people here like to claim. He said he wouldn't vote for Trump, but he could understand why others did and wrestled with the decision every day.

He praises Trump when he does something good and condemns him when he does something bad in his view. He is concerned that people refuse to do the latter. I tend to agree. How many Trump supporters publicly hit him over Russia or trade deals?

"As to my point which confused you: any speaker has value if they go on to speak while others seek to suppress them. The value is in the act of speaking, not the content of their message. It doesn't matter how much a nation claims to protect free speech if there is a de facto prohibition on the ability of some people to speak. That is why the speaker is valuable, and that's why inviting them to speak is worthwhile. If their speech is suppressed by a mob, then anyone's can be."

So how do you differentiate? If you had to recommend I see one person speak who would it be? This seems a silly and high-handed ethos, that all speakers are equally valuable. Of course they aren't. All speech has intrinsic value, but it's not equal in worth. Unless you think me standing up and saying "gabbagabbagabba" for four hours is equally worth seeing as a Q&A with Ayaan Hirsi Ali... BTW if you do, I'm a pretty reasonable $1.5k/hour

Posted by: Allan at February 23, 2017 12:51 AM (k3yiP)

491 "Conveniently, he gives no evidence to support Cruz or Rubio's conservative bona fides while calling them more conservative than Trump other than the anecdote that some unnamed left-wing commentators supported Trump over them. "

I am ecstatic that Trump has pushed the conservative version of his agenda so far, and all of the conservative things he has done. I am upset that Congress wasn't ready with a bunch of conservative agenda items for his signature on the day of inauguration. However, if you think that Cruz hasn't established a longer and more sustained track record of conservatism then Trump did before the election, then you really need to pay more attention. It wasn't just Robert Reich who preferred Trump over Cruz. It was also Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.

Posted by: Keyser at February 23, 2017 02:05 AM (t43JP)

492 Ace, your argument seems to be "any platform that invites a speaker MUST let them speak; even if they find out later they'll be tarnishing their brand"

Really? Is that how it must work?

How many times have you banned commenters, or removed posts because they looked bad for your blog, or were just shitty in general?

Remember the "i'll ban anyone who makes personal attacks'?

"It's not the speech we agree with that we have a principle of free speech ot protect. Free speech you agree with needs no protection, for the love of God!"

So, either you're wrong; or you clearly oppose free speech for NOT letting your comment board become an untenable wasteland of trolls.

I don't see a third path here. YOU "NoPlatform" people HERE with a message YOU don't like.

I still think you're correct for doing so... oddly you don't seem to agree that you asre correct to do what you've done.

Will you unban every useless troll and shitposter who has ever been here in the name of free speech to avoid #NoPlatofrming them and opposing free speech?

God I hope not; but it seems to be the argument you're demanding.

Posted by: gekkobear at February 23, 2017 03:01 AM (zPAXz)

493 Remember douchy Erik Errikson disinvited Trump to his little soirée because MeAgain Kelly.

Posted by: Smuf at February 23, 2017 06:23 AM (GRZXd)

494 So the dude that travels around the country speaking in defense of free speech using his real name under constant threat of violence is really a shameless free speech hatin' douche sez the anonymous poster banning proprietor of a web site based on a grossly innacurate reading of one article.

This on the heels of the Milo who is he, well I don't know much about the guy post. You know what really helps progs? Dishonest hacks they can point at.

Posted by: James at February 23, 2017 07:16 AM (8io78)

495 >>>Oh, and does that apply to twitter, where you block people who have dared to point out your own hypocrisy?

LOL, whining because I blocked a tedious, moronic troll with not a goddamn thing to say.

You have a right to speak, but you don't have a right to be listened to, you silly sissy bitch.

Go wash out your pussy, Lena.

Fucking whiney bitch.

Posted by: ace at February 23, 2017 10:48 AM (8rNrN)

496 all the fucking drama from the Twitter Drama Queens about their alleged *right* to have someone read their submoronic screeds on Twitter.

so much whining and complaining from little girls who really the first amendment protects their right to post into someone's timeline.

Posted by: ace at February 23, 2017 10:52 AM (8rNrN)

497 "It's not the speech we agree with that we have a principle of free speech ot protect. Free speech you agree with needs no protection, for the love of God!"

...

"You have a right to speak, but you don't have a right to be listened to, you silly sissy bitch. "

If everyone just ignores the one statement of the two above they think is stupid; they're certain to agree with you Ace.

Well done for taking the bold stance of being solidly on both sides of this argument.
I really hope you win this argument you're apparently having with yourself.

Posted by: gekkobear at February 23, 2017 11:20 AM (kq7Of)

498 gekko, you don't get it.

This is MY fucking platform. I do make the rules here.

If someone is asked by a third party to speak at someone else's platform, and you organize a little social justice mob to pressure the people making the invitation to rescind, you have interfered in someone else's free expression.

Furthermore, and I'm going to call you "dummy" on this one, no one has any right to repeatedly simply insult someone and then demand access to that person for purposes of further insults.

I am NOT saying, as you straw-man it, that everyone must give their platform to anyone else.

I am saying that if someone offers someone else a platform, you really shouldn't use social and economic pressure, and political ratfucking techniques (last minute disclosures to gin up a Twtiter mob, say) to, oh I don't know, pressure CPAC into disinviting Milo because you've had a longstanding personal feud with him.

CPAC had no duty to invite milo. And, as I said above, they had every right to disinvite him.

But this game of Social Justice Warriors of the Right using the left's tactics of twitter mobs to pressure THIRD PARTIES to deny plaforms to people they don't like is for the birds.

Certainly Shapiro is left without any principled argument to make the next time someone on the left no-platforms him for his sins, such as "misgendering" a transsexual to his/her face.

Principles are general and apply to any person. Many here seem to be arguing for a privilege of STATUS -- some people have the status to deserve free speech, others don't.

Paul Zummo doesn't have the right to continue doing what he's been doing for two years now, by the way: Just bopping in here to insult me. She literally does nothing else. She never says anything except "Fuck you, ace.'

Well, I've heard that from her 3000 times now. How much more do you imagine I owe her, on MY platform, and in MY Timeline?

Posted by: ace at February 23, 2017 11:28 AM (8rNrN)

499 I think CPAC's decision to invite Milo was dumb, given that milo's brand of libertine ultra-homosexuality, casual meanness, and not-entirely-clean bill of health on concerns of racism, anti-semitism, and some light Nazi signalling.

Someone predicted he'd be disinvited in days, as always happens with these last-minute controversial CPAC invites, and I retweeted that, agreeing, saying "it's a funny little dance we do every march, isn't it?"

But I don't agree with Shapiro and the rest of Conservatism, Inc. which, despite being thoroughly repudiated for 18 months straight, is determined to set up Purge Committees and wage palace-intrigue wars against their rivals in the movement, using no-platforming against enemies to re-secure their once secure positions.

Posted by: ace at February 23, 2017 11:33 AM (8rNrN)

500 These people keep saying they want to talk about the Grand Ideals of Conservatism, but all I seem them doing is using SJW tactics to no-platform people, or, as with Jonah Goldberg, shit-talking Mollie Hemingway while simultaneously defending his New Best Friend Chuck Todd!

I guess one day they'll get around to those Grand Ideals of Conservatism essays they keep claiming to want to write, but in the meantime, it's score-settling and taking down rising rivals like Mollie Hemingway and attempting to rescue the mainstream liberal media so that they continue to have some kind of elevated position in the current dispute within conservatism.

Posted by: ace at February 23, 2017 11:35 AM (8rNrN)

501 Jonah Goldberg seems to have a special problem with Mollie Hemingway. Apparently she's too critical of the media, and, like 87% of the GOP, is willing to give Trump a chance and so far generally approves. (And also, she wants to talk about stuff the media doesn't want to -- when the media (and Goldberg Conservatism, Inc. types) demand she talks about Trump's lies, Mollie quickily acknoweldges them but then talks about what the media isn't talking about -- the media's lies.

This is unacceptable to Goldberg and Conservatism, Inc. We must all share the preoccupations of Goldberg's leftist media friends!

Whether Goldberg might feel a little threatend by Mollie, who's on FNC every other days, whereas Goldberg doesn't seem to be on much anymore, I can't say.

Let's just say I think people tend to think poorly of people who maybe-might-be rising past them in the pecking order.

Posted by: ace at February 23, 2017 11:39 AM (8rNrN)

502 seriously, go read Goldberb's last G-file (now posted at NRO) trashing Mollie Hemingway for no reason, but then going on to defend Chuck Todd and the MSM.

In the MSM's darkest hour, who's there to White Knight for them? Why, super-conservative Jonah Goldberg, it turns out.

And he also quotes -- maybe misquotes. or misunderstands-- me in order to execute his unwarranted, unprovoked attack on Mollie Hemingway.

Posted by: ace at February 23, 2017 11:42 AM (8rNrN)

503 BTW, Mollie does shit I could only dream of doing, like telling left-wing media types that they're biased right to their faces. I BELIEVE that, but I wouldn't have the stones to tell them that to their face, on their own shows, as an invited guest.

She does that.

Does Jonah Goldberg?

No, he plays nice with them. He does what I'm ashamed to admit I'd do in the same situation.

But I guess Goldberg has noticed that Mollie's take-no-prisoners approach is kind of outshining his tired Star Trek and Couch act, and so she needs to be taken down a peg.

Seems to be a lot of people looking to take their rivals down a peg lately. Strangely, these people tend to be of the claque that insists, piously, that they just want to talk high-mindedly about Grand Conservative Principles, but, goshdarn wouldn't you know it, just never seem to be able to find the time to do so, with all the shit-talking of rivals they're forced to do.

Posted by: ace at February 23, 2017 11:46 AM (8rNrN)

504 Some of you guys don't seem to be able to tell the difference between two different things:

It's perfectly okay for Wegman's to decide it wants to sell Trump wine or, conversely, that it doesn't want to sell Trump wine.

I'm okay with either of those -- it's their shop. It's their business. (Literally.)

And while people have the right to organize boycotts and pressure groups and twitter mobs to pressure Wegman's into affirming their politics (and dropping Trump wine), I also have the right to tell these people they are thuggish, infantile assholes who are using shitty tactics to limit other people's zone of free thought and free action.

If Nordstrom's stopped selling Ivanka's products as a straight business decision, or even just their OWN political decision, I'd have no opinion either way.

But it wasn't just their own free action-- a boycott was announced to compel them to do this.

See the difference? I'm arguing in favor of letting people speak, or sell, or give a platform to, anyone they feel they should or can. I'm in favor of greater latitude of freedom for people.

But the boycotters and twitter mobbers are trying to shrink these spheres of free thought and free action into tiny little things where we're basically only permitted to repeat the mantras and hymns they've selected for us.

There is literally nothing I care about as much as I care about this -- including terrorism. Not saying I don't care about terrorism -- but terrorism happens once or twice a month, whereas this constant assault on people's freedom of thought and action happens every single hour of every single day.

THIS is my ONLY reason for giving a shit about politics.

It's time people stood up in a principled way and said "NO MORE."

Posted by: ace at February 23, 2017 11:56 AM (8rNrN)

505 I have nothing at all to say about Wegman's or Nordstrom's decisions. I respect their autonomy. I would not presume to pressure them into doing something I want them to do.

The way I figure it, it is a sign of RESPECT for one's fellow citizen to interfere in his affairs to the very least extent possible, and preferably, 99% of the time, interfering not at all.

And the way I figure it, this "leave others alone" philosophy is the glue that permits millions of sharply-disagreeing people to co-exist together without resorting to violence.

I am very much tired of the twitter mobs and boycotts and politicizing everything -- using the tactics of political campaigns against every private citizen or company, using oppo dump ratfucking, organizing twitter mobs, etc. I'm tired of it.

Does no one else see that by constantly shrinking other people's zones of free movement -- and tacitly or expressly supporting the shrinking of other people's zones of free movement -- you're inescapably endorsing and perpetuating this sick regime of constant erosion of freedom-in-fact (that is, not just freedom vis-a-vis government action, but freedoms you in fact have given the threats posed to it by social and economic pressure) and reducing your own freedom?

How much of your own freedom are you willing to give up to score a petty and temporary "win" against Milo?

Posted by: ace at February 23, 2017 12:05 PM (8rNrN)

506 And look, I don't want to attack Milo or anything, but let's get some perspective:

Milo does a lot of interviews... on YOUTUBE PODCASTS.

Milo had a book deal... with a $250,000 advance. That's not chump change, but that is also not a rock-star advance.

Milo gives a lot of speeches of college campuses... same as dozens of other not-terribly-consequential members of Conservatism, Inc. do.

My point is that while he does have some influence, he is still very much a niche actor, and we could all due to get some perspective about the very small pond we're in, and how a relatively, *somewhat* big fish in this very small pond is still kind of a tiny little fish.

Certainly this small flamboyant fish with a checkered past and very limited breakout potential isn't worth demolishing our OWN freedom-in-fact to take down.

Posted by: ace at February 23, 2017 12:10 PM (8rNrN)

507 Does the rise of rationality and protection of our core principles come from academia, of all places?

http://tinyurl.com/hktsapm

Answer: of course not. Like Shelby Steele and so many others before him, this guy will get sidelined for his nekulturny speech.

Posted by: BetaPhi at February 23, 2017 12:15 PM (11v76)

508 God, damn, Ace. Spot. On.

I still love my G-File but I've been disappointed by Jonah's inability to roll with the punches. He just doesn't seem to want to let go of the fact that there needs to be a lot more blood-letting before we can return to a chivalrous society.

http://___ur.com/a/mf30A

Posted by: Santos L. Halper at February 23, 2017 12:15 PM (yH0EE)

509 http://tinyurl.com/gs953ce

Posted by: Santos L. Halper at February 23, 2017 12:16 PM (yH0EE)

510 I guess here's where I come down on this:

Milo is not "conservative" -- which I don't care about; I'm not conservative either. I'm anti-liberal, and I'm anti-liberal precisely because I'm anti-OPPRESSION-BY-CLAQUES.

I stopped being a liberal myself when I realized that their rap about "freedom" was all bullshit and their real agenda was to compel people to live precisely as they thought they ought to.

At that point, liberalism became for me a despicable cult religion.

So this is why I'm even here. I will be frank: While I agree with 86% of what is branded as "conservatism," some of that stuff I agree with but do not terribly much *care* about (that is, intellectual agreement, but little *emotional* engagement, which is, let's face it, where the action really is).

What I care about is being left to discover and read and think and argue and challenge and dispute as my conscience, intellect, and emotional gut-level drivers might compel me.

I'm not really all that jazzed about the thought of some wannabe-priests (and let's face it, looking at this in a Jungian archetype way, all people who deal with WORDS and SACRED TEXTS for purposes of telling others the "right" way to think and behave are, in fact, of the priest archetype, whether they are religious or atheist, whether they have any overt religious mission or not) making demands on me to be a "better person" as their religious revelations have taught them.

I don't want it from the left, and I also don't think it's any more charming from the right.

Persuade me, fine. Argue with me. Dispute me. Call me an asshole and call me inconsistent. Call me a hypocrite.

Fine! These are all fair tactics of intellectual give-and-take. It is not unfair to attack someone's beliefs (or someone's cherished egotistical flatteries of himself) by offering words against them.

But going beyond words -- going beyond the cerebral -- going into "real life" to affect not the target's mind but his physical environment and social security - that is, organizing economic pressure against him to say "Claim to believe what we tell you to believe or we'll cut off your revenue" or "Repeat our sacred mantras or we'll get the all-mighty Twitter Church to turn its back on you and ostracize you from the Light of the Machine" -- is fucking thuggery.

It's also a staple of leftism, of relentless assaults on individuality and autonomy in order to bring the Individual into strict compliace with the Corporate Collective.

And I think I should keep pointing out this is a leftist, Stalinist tactic, because many "true conservatives" seem to dabble in this from time to time and then find reasons to justify it.

If people want the mantle of "consistent conservative," they should make some effort to earn that right, I think.

Posted by: ace at February 23, 2017 12:21 PM (8rNrN)

511 My god Ace actually reads the comments and responds in at least semi-coherent ways? I've been here a long time and never read anything past the first few shit-posts.

I think this qualifies as self destructive behavior. Someone have an intervention.

Serious note though: I'm glad you called out Shapiro, his article was trash logic and I've seen too many people pointing to it.

Posted by: Alskari at February 23, 2017 12:35 PM (6/J77)

512 In Orwell's 1984, why was it so important to control language? Why was Newspeak so important? It's because when you control the language, you can influence and ultimately control thought. That is exactly what the Left and their cultural creased-pant Conservative boot-lickers like Jonah Goldberg are trying to do. They are trying to limit what things can be discussed, what things can be thought about, and what options can even be considered. If the options are limited enough, then freedom, where it's allowed to exist, becomes a fiction.

Posted by: OCBill at February 23, 2017 12:52 PM (df+Zi)

513 Shorter Ace (for me): there are basically two types of societies -- those based on persuasion (for which he is arguing and in which he, and most of us, want to live), and those based on coercion (the ends justify the means crowd, which includes ruling-class "conservatives").

[Only because I can't crank out the beautiful, flowing prose nearly as well ...]

Posted by: ShainS at February 23, 2017 12:57 PM (mt8X9)

514 Spot on Ace. I haven't read all 500 comments but I have read the last 20. Shapiro's logic is trash and I'm 100% with you on wanting the free space to be able to learn, discuss, and challenge in the marketplace of ideas. I want to generally be left alone and by virtue of that feeling leave other people alone - I have no desire for boycotts nor do I have an opinion on what someone else does with their business. If you want to plaster Obama/obamalike imagery on your packaging do it (just don't expect me to buy it Pepsi), and if you don't want to serve at homosexual weddings then don't. I don't care. Your stuff is for you to decide how to deal with as my stuff is for me, and nobody including the government should be telling anyone how to do anything as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's natural rights.

That said, the left (and "right") continue this tactic of everything is politics including religion, jobs, and recreation/entertainment and while I have an aversion to this form of economic politics or whatever you want to call it, I don't think we will be free from it until we visit it upon those that are doing it. The tactic of visiting their actions upon them as you have espoused previously. We need to be taking some scalps of our own, even if we detest it, to show the other side that it's not the kind of world we want to live in.

Milo, while flawed, is philosophically in our camp of America first and ultimate free speech. This petty "conservative" score-settling is ridiculous, but we are going to have to drive it out using these same methods they are. I'm tired of being the only side that fights fair, and I'm tired of being on the only side where a supposed like-minded individual(s) would prefer to stab someone in the back to prevent that person's individual ascension to advancing an idea or cause under which we are all supposed to be united and working toward.

It's truly time for Andrew Breitbart's #WAR, but we are going to have to get rid of the SJWs on our side before we take the fight to the Marxist/Globalist Left.

Posted by: Chuck Finley at February 23, 2017 01:19 PM (mOEro)

515 There is a real question here, and I don't think it can be reduced to a simple matter of principle. That is, WHEN is it correct to boycott something? I mean actual boycotting, not in the sense that I "boycott" "Girls" because I don't want to look at Lena Dunham naked, and wouldn't if she sounded like Mary Katherine Ham. (Now, if she LOOKED like MKH, I might reconsider...)

OK, I got off the point. But, for instance, my wife has said that she wouldn't go to Nordstrom's under any circs, because of Ivanka. In my own case, I once listened to NPR a lot, as I like the music. But eventually, the Marx:Mozart ratio got out of hand.

Conversely, I did eat Chic-fil-A on the "boycott" day, even though my wife makes a better version at home.

But surely that is a prudential question, a judgement call. Informed by one's principles, yes, but not simply deducible from them.

Posted by: George LeS at February 23, 2017 01:41 PM (+TcCF)

516 Just read Goldberg's G-File from the 17th. It seems like we may be reading different essays. Trash Mollie? It doesn't read that way to me at all. Your characterization seems uncharitable, especially since he stipulates several times that he agrees with Mollie when she criticizes the media, that defending Chuck Todd is generally a silly thing, and so on. To call it "White Knight"ing for the media seems like you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Which is ironic, because he cites you in the essay to talk about "MacGuffinization" of politics and how any criticism of Obama became completely off limits. In this case, it's kind of a reverse MacGuffin; even a very tepid and measured defense of the media suddenly becomes a capital offense.

Posted by: Hal at February 23, 2017 03:42 PM (m+/ef)

517 Ace, I was wondering if you could clarify something.

You wrote

START I am saying that if someone offers someone else a platform, you really shouldn't use social and economic pressure, and political ratfucking techniques last minute disclosures to gin up a Twtiter mob, say to, oh I dont know, pressure CPAC into disinviting Milo because youve had a longstanding personal feud with him.

CPAC had no duty to invite milo. And, as I said above, they had every right to disinvite him.

But this game of Social Justice Warriors of the Right using the lefts tactics of twitter mobs to pressure THIRD PARTIES to deny plaforms to people they don't like is for the birds.

Certainly Shapiro is left without any principled argument to make the next time someone on the left no platforms him for his sins, such as misgendering a transsexual to his her face. FINISH

This sounds like you are stating that Shapiro lobbied CPAC to disinvite Milo.

However, Shapiro states quite clearly here that he was not in favor of disinviting Milo. See 4 thoughts free speech and noplatforming ben shapiro on dailywire website

START I dont think CPAC should have disinvited Milo, by the way they shouldnt have invited him, because hes not conservative or decent, but once invited, its wrong to disinvite him based on a year-old tape. Milo paraded around to love for nearly a full year after these tapes were posted on YouTube with the caption Milo Yiannopoulos defends pedophilia and pedophiles. It was all public. Milo didnt get caught CPAC did. FINISH

Are you saying that Shapiro is lying, that he really did lobby CPAC to disinvite Milo? Do you have sources at CPAC that make this claim?

I really do think that both of you arent really disagreeing with each other but rather are talking past each other.

More importantly, lets say that my understanding of what Shapiro is saying is wrong and yours is right. Does that really justify classifying Shapiro with this accusation:

START But I dont agree with Shapiro and the rest of Conservatism, Inc. which, despite being thoroughly repudiated for 18 months straight, is determined to set up Purge Committees and wage palace-intrigue wars against their rivals in the movement, using no-platforming against enemies to re-secure their once secure positions. FINISH

Has Shapiros actions in totality the last 18 months really warranted him being lumped in with the Bill Kristols of this world? Does he really deserve to be othered based on his negative opinion of Milo? Yes, I know, he didn't jump onto the Trump Train, but is his opinion really different than the opinion you must have held at one point when you were transitioning from being embarassed by Trump to supporting him? Disclaimer: I also went from I cant stand trump and I dont think I will vote for him to Hillary can never be president, so Im pulling the lever for Trump and will be happy with whatever good things he does do

Posted by: Keyser at February 23, 2017 04:59 PM (v8/5X)

518 I still think your read on what Shapiro is saying is wrong, however, your other arguments are very compelling (which is why I'm a frequent lurker here, just haven't really posted before). Your read on Milo is spot on, it's strange that he gets nailed for this and not some of the other stuff he's said which I find genuinely indefensible.

"But the boycotters and twitter mobbers are trying to shrink these spheres of free thought and free action into tiny little things where we're basically only permitted to repeat the mantras and hymns they've selected for us.

There is literally nothing I care about as much as I care about this -- including terrorism. Not saying I don't care about terrorism -- but terrorism happens once or twice a month, whereas this constant assault on people's freedom of thought and action happens every single hour of every single day. "

Fuckin A.

Posted by: Allan at February 23, 2017 05:38 PM (k3yiP)

519 CPAC should have let Milo talk, then ask him some questions like adults. "Why'd you say this?""Why'd you say that?""FATHER O'MALLY WAS A SAINT, YOU TAKE THAT BACK!" OK, maybe not that last one, but at least Milo would laugh at that. If you are really conservative, a protest would be OK, just keep it civil. Shouting down Milo is not acceptable, neither is setting fire to shit. Asking David Duke questions is also good, start with "When you went to USL your girlfriend was black, what happened?""Historically, most Klansmen were Democrats, why are you a Republican?" Duke is not going to answer those, though, and he would avoid any forum where he might have to.

Posted by: hurricane567 at February 23, 2017 05:55 PM (jjyTS)

520 Ben responds:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/13799/4-thoughts-free-speech-and-noplatforming-ben-shapiro

Pretty much exactly what I was trying to explain here. Pretty much exactly what Ace is saying in the comments.

IDK why so many Trump people hate Ben with such a passion. Seems like if you took the time to actually read what he's saying you'd agree with him. Doesn't mean you have to be a fan.

Posted by: Allan at February 23, 2017 08:35 PM (k3yiP)

521 When you create a popular product in an online space, ungrateful wretches emerge who have contempt for the creator, and begin to feel that because of their participation in that product, their opinion actually has substantial value. I think God must be sympathizing with those mini creators.

But you'll know you have made it when you receive a flaming sack of dog crap on your door.

Posted by: H at February 23, 2017 10:36 PM (b4rXB)

522 #517: I'm not Ace, so I can only answer this from my perspective, and Ace may or not agree with me.

I don't think Shapiro had anything to do with CPAC un-inviting Milo, but I do think he's happy about it. In the popular terminology that was put forth in some movie, I forget what it was... he's protecting his rice bowl.

Shapiro makes his living writing articles defending conservatism and attacking the left, and touring college campuses to make speeches and debate liberals and hold Q and A sessions.

Milo does all these things, too, and has in recent months been much more successful at them than Shapiro.

Shapiro is thrilled to see this faggot who straight-up stole his thunder get taken down a peg or two. This improves Shapiro's financial prospects, at least in the short term, and... as is human nature... Shapiro is more than happy to bend his own personal principles when it directly benefits him.

Add the Trump Wars that engulfed the GOP primaries to the mix... Milo supported Trump, and only Trump, while Shapiro aligned himself with the #NeverTrump camp... and there's another reason for Shapiro to be pleased about Milo's seeming downfall.

Milo will make a comeback, though, much like Trump was always coming back from one campaign-ending event after another.

Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler. Welcome to Trumpdome, bitch! at February 24, 2017 12:33 AM (0OG8D)

523 "Shapiro is thrilled to see this faggot who straight-up stole his thunder get taken down a peg or two. This improves Shapiro's financial prospects, at least in the short term, and... as is human nature... Shapiro is more than happy to bend his own personal principles when it directly benefits him."

I follow both Milo and Ben. Ben barely ever even mentions Milo, aside from things that Milo has done directly to him that he thinks are unsavoury. I've heard Milo take several shots at Ben including nonsense about Ben refusing to keep a speaking appointment because they wouldn't fly him first class. There was no evidence given for this whatsoever. Where do you get the idea that Ben is so obsessed with Milo?

In regards to what's happening at the moment Ben said he has plenty to say on it, but doesn't want to speak at the moment because he doesn't believe in kicking a man whilst he's down. You can call him a liar if you like, but I'd like to see some evidence.

Posted by: allan at February 24, 2017 04:06 AM (GdtAP)

524 I wondered if I'd read the same piece. I took Shapiro's formulation much more narrowly than many here. He asks: "So, here's the question: Did this make inviting the speaker worthwhile?" and that is the question he addresses. If you don't read more into that than the text, he's simply crafted a good warning. If you want to discuss a presumptive subtext of that, fine, but be clear about speculation.

Posted by: joe at February 24, 2017 07:30 AM (zPKc8)

525 I thought we got past the idea that words possess magical properties that can alter material reality for good or evil 300 years ago or so...

*!*! *! *! *! *! *! *!

(Oh my God, what malign cosmic forces have I unleashed upon the world by uttering the unutterable?)

[NOTE: Each asterisk in the above represents what in common PC parlance is referred to as "the 'N' word". I attempted to post my message using that actual word and it was rejected as spam. I know Ace rules the roost here and he apparently will not permit that word to be used. But it would have been a more pithy post if I could have used it. Just saying...]

Posted by: jbspry at February 24, 2017 11:54 AM (IhKmM)

526 Conservatives are OK with losing, as long as they follow all the social forms correctly.

Posted by: Kristophr at February 24, 2017 01:33 PM (Vkf+s)

Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.0795 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0457 seconds, 534 records returned.
Page size 332 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.