Basket of Deplorable Links

This is the first in our “Basket of Deplorable Links” posts. We plan to make it a regular feature.

Philippe Lemoine’s analysis of the Trump/Russia witch hunt and the recent New York Times’s fake news story.

Germany cracks down on free speech.
“On Friday morning Maas introduced a draft law to the Bundestag which requires social media networks to remove any references to the mass nonwhite invasion of Germany, and which forbids the spreading of any news which has not come through channels or journalists which the government has officially endorsed.”

Middlebury college students get away with violence with a slap on the wrist.

Study: Weak men more likely to be socialists. (Did we need a study for this?)

Listen to an annoying leftwing reporter sound like a baby after he is (in all likelihood) justly thrown to the ground. Montana voters should only vote against Gianforte if he lamely apologizes.

Study: Republican viewers are leaving ESPN.

Hunter College approves an Abolition of Whiteness course. “Hunter College will offer students an “Abolition of Whiteness” course this fall to discuss how “white supremacy and violence” influence individual identity.”

A Georgetown University professor gets white-nationalist Richard Spencer kicked out of his gym. Score one for social justice warriors.

 

AR-15

A former police officer, AR-15 (or “AR”) knows the difference between an assault rifle and home defense rifle. AR now fights with other weapons and demolishes arguments. He agrees that the pen is mightier than the sword, but he isn’t so stupid to bring a pen to a gunfight.

View All Posts

9 Comments

    • I had seen that CRD, but certainly worthy to be listed here. Thanks for sharing! Others should feel welcome to share as well.

  1. Link P: “Students who were violent should be punished severely! Violence that undermines the constitutional right to free speech is never okay.”

    Link ~P: “Politician who was violent should be lauded! Violence that undermines the constitutional right to a free press is okay if the microphone gets too close to your face and you’re anxious about losing to a Democratic folk singer in a red state.”

    Please, no lecture about the fact that this is not actually a logical contradiction. But it’s a bloody obvious inconsistency. If it’s okay to get pissed at a reporter and beat him up for doing his job, then it’s okay to beat people up because you don’t like the speech they plan to give. If you want to keep your cake qua cake, you can’t eat it too.

  2. JS,
    I might agree with you if I had the energy to learn more about these cases. I don’t object to what you say but I do object to your saying it. You spend much of your time on this site throwing around dumb insults and dismissing arguments you don’t like as ‘whingeing’, typically without even trying to understand or address the views of others. You’re really not in any position to demand consistency or rationality. (Isn’t there some kind of ‘inconsistency’ in expecting other people to uphold rational standards when you regularly ignore or grossly distort their reasoning? You’re obviously not in good faith.)

    Anyway, there is some kind of relevant difference between using force against someone who’s being super-obnoxious and aggressive inches from your face and using force against someone who wants to give a talk to a bunch of other people who want to hear it in some location that’s not your face. So if these cases are what they seem to be, it might be reasonable enough to think the one case is okay or at least excusable but not the other.

    • Jacques and I — what do you know?! — are in agreement on this one!

      JS, based on the way you’ve hypocritically conducted yourself on this site, you’re no paragon of argumentative virtue.

  3. Ladies and gents of RC, I’ve been thinking about these links and the general downgrade of American civil society and I wonder whether it isn’t somewhat tied to the radical individualism that’s both cultivated celebrated in our culture. Consider this quote by Tocquville:

    “Individualism, at first, only saps the virtues of public life; but, in the long run, it attacks and destroys all others, and is at length absorbed in downright selfishness. Selfishness is a vice as old as the world…individualism is of democratic origin.”

    Doesn’t this seem the diagnosis for the relative insanity prevalent within our broader culture? Especially, it would seem, among the children born of the self-esteem movement who now fill our institutions of higher learning, as well as the leaders of these same institutions who are themselves the children of the “me” generation, and the architects of the very system that produced the current crop of unthinking cult-like SJW zealots?

    Thoughts?

    • I think it’s part of the diagnosis. I think one thing we suffer from today is a radical form of individualism that goes way beyond what it ever should have gone. I think that’s partially why so many people have a crisis of identity now–they think they are free to define themselves in any way, including gender.

      Tocqueville has many insights into our culture. We would all do well to read his work.

  4. (1) Re the last link on the Georgetown incident (Fair vs. Spencer):

    The Left has its own crop of losers/scum, and so does the right. Whether or not neo-Nazis have any basis for being grouped on the “right” (with the major constituencies there, be they libertarians or conservatives usually), they are intellectuals losers/scum, and I like Fair’s feistiness toward them, whether or not you agree with Georgetown’s decision to ban Spencer from the gym (and we haven’t heard the last word on that, have we?).

    (2) CRD and Walter M.: re “individualism” and “selfishness” and “self-esteem movement” you’re barking right up the Objectivist alley except that the intellectual leaders there (including one-time spokesman Branden who has been called the “father of the self-esteem movement”) can’t really be held responsible for any of the bad stuff that happens under these labels; their influence hasn’t been large enough beyond a small segment of the culture (of rather well-functioning people I have to say!), and they’re too Aristotelian in their overall intellectual orientation to be aligned with leftist losers and others who would bastardize such labels. (Rand’s selfishness is much, much closer to the Aristotelian self-loving, self-honoring, great-souled man, than to whatever it is that gets cooked up and fostered in a philosophically-impoverished mainstream culture with “progressives” running the schools.) (I thought “progressives” running the schools for decades on end now, might have produced a more enlightened culture? What the heck happened I wonder? And now we’re supposed to subsidize this failure ever more with taxpayer funds?)

Leave a Reply (Be sure to read our comment disclaimer)