House of Eratosthenes

We have reached the point where in our current political system the only things the left is remotely ‘liberal’ about have to do with sex, i.e. situations involving peoples’ genitals coming into contact. Oh yes, I’ll agree, the left is very liberal on matters involving peoples’ genitals coming into contact…

It’s just every single other sort of liberty imaginable that the left doesn’t care for.

In the English language, ‘liberal’ is not the right term for such people at all. It is an antonym for what they are, which is: authoritarian.

As if on cue, our other blogger friend North-of-the-Border, she of the dark pixie curls, KC — leaped forth with her screed against Ann Coulter who, because she said (actually, KC was altogether missing any specific examples) should not be allowed to speak at Ottawa U.

As if prodded by a cosmic Kismet.

As if put on notice that this point needed some proving.

Liberals. Authoritarians. Once antonymous, now ominously synonymous.

So, I won’t go anywhere near my personal opinions of the skanky-assed shock-jock white-supremacist that is called Ann Coulter… oh wait.
I just did.
I despise everything that she represents and says. And I will probably get my Canadian Libertarian ass chewed off for saying the above… be told about how stupid I am or how wrong I am for thinking she is a waste of space and energy on this planet.
Whatever: bring it on. If you agree with her then your racist views will speak for yourself.
:
There are limitations.
In everything.
Including democracy.
That’s life.
Simply because a VERY large majority of Canadians disagree with Ms. Coulter and are exercising their right to protest does not make Canadians fascist. And receiving fair warning to educate yourself on the laws of the land… does not equate to human rights violations – especially comparing Canada to those of Iran, Nazi Germany and Cuba.

So I entered a reply, which I thought was perfectly in keeping with the spirit of classical liberalism. But, perhaps because of the mood KC is in, comments to her system will have to go through moderation before being made visible. Hehe. The irony…

And you know what this means. Yeah, I wasn’t feeling too trusting of the universe in general when I hit the “Post” button. Had the wonderful prose loaded into the clipboard, I did…

Okay, so noted; Coulter shouldn’t be allowed to speak because she’s a bitch. Who else?

Maybe it’s the straight white right-handed six-foot-tall male still in possession of all 21 digits in me talking…but I have a litmus test for laws like this. Let’s call them “Only As Much Free Speech As We Want You To Have” laws — for that is what they are. They are not liberal or progressive, they are quite the opposite…authoritarian.

My litmus test is, I want to see someone from the “wrong” demographic prosecuted according to these laws. I want to see feminists thrown in jail for publishing books that say all men are potential rapists. I want to see black people prosecuted for beating up on white kids just because they’re white. I want to see liberal radio networks forced to put in 30 and 60 minute blocks of conservative programming for “equal time.”

And if I do not see such reverse polarity, I view these laws as what they all, in likelihood, really are: One-sided attempts by specialized advocacy grievance groups, to seize power, and maintain it. Maybe you resent my litmus test but at least concede that it’s fair (it is…for such a law to be brandished as a one-bladed sword, is disingenuous and autocratic)…or maybe you aren’t even willing to concede that it’s fair.

But either way, isn’t it quite out of harmony with a “university”‘s purpose to blockade a scheduled speaker, before she’s said anything? To effectively plug its fingers in its ears and go “la la la I can’t hear you”? At this point I’m much closer in age to parent-of-college-kid than college-kid…and this kind of thing makes me want to cinch up the purse strings REAL tight. This is higher learning? Listening to the other side receives such low priority, and protesting receives such high priority?

What a wonderful experience it would have been, for the university to select ten or twenty of their brightest from the debate team — have those finalists pepper Ms. Coulter with their questions — and then, in the aftermath, hold an open forum about whether they did a good job, what better questions they could have selected, what points should have been made, and horror of horrors, what utterances may have been indulged by Ms. Coulter that made one or two people think about some things not previously thought-about.

Seriously. If that’s so unthinkable, just disband the university and send everyone home. Because, then, frankly I don’t see the point. Everyone’s got their minds made up, why bother to get dressed and go to class every morning.

I don’t care what you call the country, or what the ideological flavoring is of the speaker who is being sent packing. Or what your precious laws are supposed to be accomplishing.

Once you start saying “Waitaminnit…we have to make sure if your speech affects people, it doesn’t have a bad effect on them, so we’ll put some sensible precautions in place” — you have crossed a Rubicon.

I don’t see liberals as liberals anymore. I don’t necessarily see them as authoritarians either. I see them as people who simply cannot imagine — ever! — that power will ever be wielded by persons who fundamentally disagree with them about things. Management is given the authority to say “You May Speak…You, Over There, May Not” — and liberalism seems to be the proclivity to say “Hey, yeah that’s cool.” It invests the trust in total strangers first, and asks questions later.

Oh but yeah, on that other matter. Genitals coming into contact with genitals. Men sticking their penises up the assholes of other men. On those issues, yes, they remain “classic” liberals.

Oh geez, KC is a girl? I had no idea, but honestly it’s even worse knowing that.

I’m guessing she isn’t overly fond of Sarah Palin either. What is it with these self-proclaimed “strong, empowered women” who go batshit-crazy when actually confronted with an example of one?
- cylarz | 03/25/2010 @ 18:33
Oh yes, I’ll agree, the left is very liberal on matters involving peoples’ genitals coming into contact…

I’ve noticed this, too. They’re pro-choice on abortion, but not on school vouchers, gun rights, teaching about the origin of life, health care reform, social security, energy, or anything else that really matters.
- cylarz | 03/25/2010 @ 18:36
For the record, overall I have found KC to be very cultured, civilized, down-to-earth, roll-with-the-punches, and somewhat sensible.

She’s going against type on all that here. Don’t look to me for an explanation. It’s almost as if someone stole her password. Maybe the strong women like Coulter/Palin really do have this kind of an effect.
- mkfreeberg | 03/25/2010 @ 18:40
I haven’t read KC’s piece yet… it’ll be my next stop. But, yeah, I agree with ya Morgan. I like the girl a lot.
- bpenni | 03/25/2010 @ 21:03
FWIW… my comment went right thru at KC’s place – no moderation hell. It might be that I’m better looking than you, Morgan. Just sayin’. 🙂
- bpenni | 03/25/2010 @ 22:10
Yeah, and mine just got bottled up. I’m not accusing anyone of anything, I’m saying it went exactly as I wrote. I push “Post”…text disappears…and I cannot help but chuckle about it, because what was the subject again? And where exactly did we disagree, again? On the subject of disagreeable people and the virtues of making sure they’re not allowed to say anything.

I think your comments got right to the heart of the matter. Problem is this: On such issues, KC is young. I do not mean that as a measurement of age, or as an insult or a put-down. I mean, when you have a counterpoint to offer, and the counterpoint consists of saying “when you do THIS, history has shown it leads to THIS” — she’s just not going to pick it up. Can’t relate.

The mindset is terribly troubling to me. Someone, somewhere, has put out the word that “when you tolerate intolerance, you’re being intolerant” and a whole bunch of people are taking that way, way too literally. The pathway to serfdom is obvious. Like you said at her place, it’s a slippery slope.
- mkfreeberg | 03/26/2010 @ 06:23
Does this mean they’re going to have to amend the Preamble to the Constitution to “promote the genital welfare”?
- Rich Fader | 03/26/2010 @ 09:29
Seriously, KC, Vice-Rector Houle’s letter was basically an extremely polite way of saying “nice freedom of speech you have, Miss Coulter, damned shame if anything should happen to it”. Which makes it if anything even more repugnant both to human rights in general and freedom of academic thought in particular. It is a shame upon him, the U of O, the Canadian educational system, the Dominion of Canada, the British Commonwealth and the free world that he had such poor judgment as to let that letter go out over his signature, under the letterhead of his university. Especially as a political-science professor, he had no excuse not to have known better.
- Rich Fader | 03/26/2010 @ 09:42
Thank you.

Carry on.
.
- OregonGuy | 03/26/2010 @ 11:01
Yes. I have tits. I am a chick. Oh yes. And young (because you know my age). Therefore, THAT clearly must mean I am all for all the things you find oppressive and repressive and wrong with anyone not of a Conservative mind. Yes. It must be. Because I clearly lost my mind for having a strong disdain for someone you admire. One that strongly disagrees with your views and you don’t agree with my disagreeing with you. You don’t like my views, my opinions of Ms. Coulter. You conclude many things… you’re right. As it is my right to have a very differing view on the subject… as passionate as it is. That’s the approach taken all the time. So be it.

I DON’T have moderation on the blog (and that is not yelling – that is emphasizing). Never have, never will. I have checked the spam and there is nothing there. So if you posted something and it is not appearing – its not because of moderation – its a glitch in the system. And Morgan – your comment went straight to SPAM… and as you can clearly see, I didn’t delete it. So you can all post to your hearts content and repost if you want to.
- KC | 03/26/2010 @ 11:19
… and while I despise everything she represents and what she says: I didn’t say she shouldn’t speak at the University. I don’t want to hear her speak. I don’t want to hear her propaganda and strongly believe, as many others do, that it is rooted in hatred and bigotry – and that is NOT the education I want out there. Diversity yes. Bigotry and hatred – no. Perhaps it is all about getting a rise. I don’t care honestly what her motives are. I simply don’t. And we don’t want that kind of propaganda promoted anywhere. My blog posting was about her crying wolf where it isn’t warranted. So your blog posting is inaccurate in stating otherwise. You might want to re-read it again.

What a wonderful experience it would have been, for the university to select ten or twenty of their brightest from the debate team — have those finalists pepper Ms. Coulter with their questions — and then, in the aftermath, hold an open forum about whether they did a good job, what better questions they could have selected, what points should have been made, and horror of horrors, what utterances may have been indulged by Ms. Coulter that made one or two people think about some things not previously thought-about.

Shame on the Universities for not doing so – across NA, not just Canada. I agree. But during a Q&A portion that did pretty much the same thing to a lower degree, challenging Ms. Coulter’s words and beliefs…. she attacks with racial epitaph rather the issue as you suggested, in a proper debate. Yes. I learned everything I wanted to learn from her. I’ll stick to hearing out Sarah Palin from here on out when I need to understand the Conservative mind-set.
- KC | 03/26/2010 @ 11:49
Yeah, the spam thing happens here. For the record, it’s as annoying to me as it is to the people who complain about it. Things get stuck; that’s life.

To my way of thinking, there really isn’t anything to be gained from shutting people up. This is slicing things way, way too thin…

[W]hile I despise everything she represents and what she says: I didn’t say she shouldn’t speak at the University. I don’t want to hear her speak. I don’t want to hear her propaganda and strongly believe, as many others do, that it is rooted in hatred and bigotry – and that is NOT the education I want out there.

With that arrangement, you are simultaneously saying something and asserting you are not saying it. Your hair-splitting has entered the realm of simply refusing to take responsibility for where you advocacy leads. You aren’t going to say she shouldn’t speak, but you don’t want her points to be out there? Please.

Ah, well. Let’s just mark you down as being for the protest that shut down her speech. You’re on record supporting it, along with the laws that would criminalize some of what she had to say. But let us agree on this: Removing speech from a forum is stultifying and not edifying. Whether the “incitement to violence” excuse applies, or is just something for agendized zealots to hide behind, is a matter of opinion.

But you’re certainly not going to emerge from the experience any wiser, or responsible for having made someone else wiser, for having so muzzled the target of your wrath. It is what dullards do when they want to have a monopoly on the conversation. In my opinion, that is what happened at Ottawa and it’s what is happening in the States right here.

I’m sure it must have occurred to you at some point: We damn Yankees have our First Amendment for a reason. With your incitement codes, hate speech laws, call them what you will…the potential for abuse is just too great. These are not compatible with any society that wants to call itself free, or civilized.
- mkfreeberg | 03/26/2010 @ 12:02
Yes. I support the protest. I agree. I’ve explained why but apparently that doesn’t matter. Free speech and bigotry aren’t the same and that line is drawn in the sand, in my life. Apparently not in yours… and so be it.

…the potential for abuse is just too great. With and without them… the potential for abuse is great for ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. I don’t believe it is any better to not have them than it is to have them. Doesn’t make the US a better place or way of living. It simply makes it different. A ‘cowboy’ way of living isn’t civilized nor 100% free either. While I don’t agree with how far many an American exercise their First Amendment rights, I say… keep at it. If you feel it promotes a higher form of education for you and those who subscribe to that thought process… keep at it! It doesn’t mean I have to accept and agree or want the content of what is out there in my life, in my livingroom, and subscribe to it … regardless of the consequences. And to be called ignorant … is simply ignorant to say. And like every decision (to accept it or not) has consequences. I am comfortable and confident in my stance. I know what she preaches. I know what she says. I know her propaganda is about. I’ve educated myself… as many people have. I have taken a stance against her… while you are on the other side saying… YEAH Coulter!

It’s simple.
Thus the joys of your First Amendment… supporting people for making opinions and decisions for themselves and standing behind them, regardless of what another says. Heck. Ms. Coulter does it… so why can’t I?
- KC | 03/26/2010 @ 13:28
Uh, waitaminnit, you’re not. If I understand your point, you’re saying Ms. Coulter is pushing hate and not debating….therefore, should be shut up and run out.

I haven’t heard of Ann Coulter taking that position against you. Or anyone else. Have you?
- mkfreeberg | 03/26/2010 @ 13:42
I haven’t heard of Ann Coulter taking that position against you. Or anyone else. Have you?

She has taken a position against anyone who doesn’t share her views, ie: me.
I’ve taken a position against her and her views.
And yeah… see the above comments on your blog mocking, ridiculing my views and opinions.
You don’t agree with them. Many don’t.
I don’t agree with yours and hers and those who share them. Many of us don’t.

Her stance is very clear and you feel its OK for her to freely share them, regardless of who, what, where, why and how. OK. Fine. My stance is that it shouldn’t be free-willy and screw-you-if-you-don’t-like-it attitude and screw the consequences.
- KC | 03/26/2010 @ 13:50
Yes, by all means, keep at it. Over there somewhere. Not here, not around me.

Got it. Enjoy the echo chamber.
- chunt31854 | 03/27/2010 @ 01:49
KC, after reading your comments, I’m guessing you’ve attended a Canadian University in the recent past. That explains your point of view. I do have a problem with the original post on your own blog where you say ‘a VERY large majority of Canadians disagree with Miss Coulter’. Any chance of a link to the statistics you use to back up this statement.
- glxi390 | 03/27/2010 @ 04:34
Thus the joys of your First Amendment… supporting people for making opinions and decisions for themselves and standing behind them, regardless of what another says. Heck. Ms. Coulter does it… so why can’t I?

The First Amendment doesn’t say you have to support Coulter. All it says is, using force to shut her up just because you don’t like what she says is wrong, and — if you’re using government power to do it — unconstitutional and illegal as well.

Is she really so inflammatory and dangerous that merely to permit her to speak is to be considered functionally equivalent to supporting what she says? She’s so evil that merely to permit her speech is to cooperate with evil? Because that sounds awfully like the kind of “if you are not with us you’re with the Bad Guys” black-and-white thinking that I seem to recall a former President coming in for a lot of flak about.
- Stephen J. | 03/28/2010 @ 21:19

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Genital LibertyThursday, March 25th, 2010

Genital Liberty
Thursday, March 25th, 2010