“Stopped Clock Principle” Proven Again
Can’t say I think much of – or often agree with – Bill Maher. But IMO he certainly hits the nail on the head here:
Bill Maher: UC Berkeley is ‘the cradle for f—king babies’
So, what did Berkeley do to get under Maher’s skin? He was referring to the recent trend of UC-B (and other universities) caving and “uninviting” conservative speakers in response to student complaints.
The short linked article has another gem or two in the way of quotes from Maher. It’s definitely worth the two minutes to read for those alone.
Well done, Mr. M. You’re proof that at least a few liberals don’t always merit the title “libidiot”.
Category: Reality Check, Schools
Freedom of speech for all…..except those that do not agree with the residents of Berklystan.
This is not a freedom of speech issue. These are PAID performances. They are HIGHLY PAID performances and speaking at Berkeley increases the credibility of the product because it is a high profile prestigious university.
Freedom of speech is about the GOVERNMENT surpassing speech. And it sure as shit is not about people not wanting universities to buy shit products and provide a venue for them.
Well, it looks like a certain local government official may have some explaining to do:
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/04/21/berkeley-mayor-is-member-of-antifa-facebook-group-that-organized-riots/
FREE SPEECH FOR ME, BUT NOT FOR THEE!
Well, since he is now a private citizen he really does not have anything to explain. Unless he commits an actual crime as a member of antifa.
If there is evidence he used is official position so surpress or infringe on the rights of other then there would be a controversy.
And joining a Facebook group for an a movement does not make you a member of the movement. Many people join groups to be informed.
A lot of cops join these groups for instance so they know what to expect next.
But regular private citizens that like to know what is going on with respect to these movement (which can be disruptive in the community) might also join.
I believe a city mayor is a public official and not a “private citizen”, Poodle.
I also believe Jesse Arreguin is still mayor of Berkeley (he started a 4-year term on 1 Dec of last year). I don’t recall seeing anything saying he’d resigned. If so, by calling him a “private citizen” you’ve just proven yourself to be full of it.
Then again, that’s nothing new.
Wrong again, Lars!
Oh please…..now you are simply being disingenuous and hypocritical.
Berkley, the birthplace of free speech has turned its back on free speech in favor of stifling opposing points of view.
You can quote “legalities” all day long Komerade Kommissar, but we both know whats happening down there……you are simply being intentionally obtuse and parsing your words…once step from being a snake oil salesman…or a politician.
Lars. You assert as fact that which is merely your mistaken opinion, probably adopted from some other ignoramus who has instant credibility with you b/c he has letters behind his name. You might begin researching for yourself what constitutes government with respect to unconstitutional (state and Federal) suppression of speech.
Really. Who the hell would recognize anything from Lars that might actually be accurate and true? He misconstrues and misunderstands much too much about something that he claims to know. I wish he would start using the standard watchword that most people who don’t know what they’re talking about use to begin pontificating. That word is “Basically.” He doesn’t and that’s a shame b/c he usually doesn’t know what he’e talking about but those who don’t know him could easily get the mistaken impression that he does.
Trust Commissar to come up with some half-baked horseshit about how, as long as leftists do it, fascist behavior isn’t really fascist, communism isn’t really communist, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength…
Lars, on top of everything else, you’re an idiot with delusions of genius.
Apparently, the Left cannot see that it is coming to resemble the “Facists” it claims to oppose. “Stop talking or masked thugs will bust your head” is not exactly the height of the Enlightenment, now is it?
The black “SA” of the Sturm Abteilung has been replaced with the red “A” of the new Red Abteilung, the so-called “anarchists” who seem to “an” anything authoritarian except Marxism.
Effectively, they of the Red Abteilung are tools of their Marxist overlords, who are now egging them on to greater efforts, greater “spontaneous organization”, and escalating armament. The goal is production of the martyrs neeeded for the Marxist struggle, and to justify a crackdown on self-defense by the Freedom types who just will not bend their knee or neck to Marxist thuggery.
^^^THIS^^^
Their agitators and handlers today aren’t any different from the ones in the sixties and seventies, they get a mob riled up and didi mau just before the shit hits the fan and claim anyone injured or killed as a martyr for their propaganda.
I haven’t seen very many of the shitty little sparklebutts try their antics outside of liberal enclaves, especially in States where concealed carry is legal. Happenstance? Coincidence?
Bullshit.
BANM has a little problem… terrorism problem:
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/direct-action-foia-document
http://archive.is/sRsJd#selection-1327.375-1327.470
The “peaceful” left: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446810/berkeley-riot-leftist-mob-violence-undermines-rule-law
You talking to the mirror again, Larsie?
TOW….that’s the sound of a strident, screeching voice in an echo chamber being drowned out by “We the people” and the loss of the presidential election and over 1000 liberal seats lost under the previous WH occupant.
Must be more of that “Obama Legacy” we keep hearing about.
That must be hell, Lars, to know that We the people have rejected liberalism to the tune of over 1000 seats under Obama’s watch.
What does that tell you?
Maher is buds with Ann Coulter. Perhaps she twisted his scroat a bit to get him to call out the hypocrisy.
I’d like to think so anyway.
He used to be a conservative and, now and then, his used-to-be reappears.
He’s always been a blowhard douche, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
At one time they were an item……
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
William F. Buckley
As for Mr. Maher, even a blind chipmunk finds the occasional acorn.
Hate crimes are silly. Remember when they were new and many people pointed out that one’s motive is not a separate crime from the battery, murder or whatever? Now, hate crime statutes abound. The next step is hate speech and the Left has been hammering this for years now. There may be nothing more antithetical to our 1st Amendment than criminalizing speech with which one disagrees. Nevertheless, many individuals espouse exactly that and, little by little, it is being endorsed by (presumably) intelligent individuals. Maher called this the equivalent of book burning and he is 100% correct.
I’d agree with you if he didn’t say earilier this week that we were as bad as Assad, cause we’re gassing the Syrians with CO2.
Maher can suck a lemon.
“…the Left cannot see that it is coming to resemble the “Facists” it claims to oppose.”
That is the proverbial nail and you hit it on the head, 11B-Mailclerk. The simplest means of exposing people like for what they really are is to publicize them and their destructive attacks and bad behavior as much as possible, because no one wants his business destroyed by a gang of masked thugs, or his car set on fire by them, or any of the rest of the things they’ve been doing.
This is not civil unrest. It is planned rioting and destruction. Do enough damage in a popular area where people feel free to shop, dine or whatever – even sit in a bookstore and read the book they just bought – and all those businesses that make it so homey and attractive will just close up shop and go away. They will also take with them jobs, sales taxes, attractive streets, a population demographic with money to spend, and leave behind a business desert.
Well stated, Ex-PH2…
Like Hondo, I’ve not agreed with much of Bill Maher’s politics. But he is intelligent, has a sense of humor (which is the hallmark tell of every liberal I’ve encountered, they have no sense of humor because everything is a headache causing, hand wringing issue) and if Bill Maher believes something, even a conservative point, he’ll say it without fear of the rest of the left. I enjoyed the clip and agreed concerning Ann Coulter. Our institutions of lower learning, also known as “liberal manufacturing plants”, have caved to the whims of the fools who are suppose to be there to LEARN, not teach what they have no life experience to know yet. The whole point though to me is money. As much as liberals talk of it in disgust, liberals in the higher echelons love their money. Especially those in the tenured and power positions of universities such as Berkeley.
11B-Mailclerk hit it on the head and countersunk it in his post above. Liberals in America are and are more every day, becoming the fascists of 20th century Europe. If they don’t agree with an issue, kill it, burn the books about it and silence, even to the point of violence, those who profess it. All they need are brown shirts and jack boots and they would fit right in the with Hitler Youth who patrolled the streets and beat hell out of or killed anyone they didn’t like.
But I still believe the voices of reason and pardon the expression, right thinking, will prevail in the end. Our new President is beginning proof of this and I believe there is a sea change coming for our nation. It happened after the sixties and early seventies and it will happen again. Not soon enough for me though.
Maher has his moments. One thing I respect -in a way- is his equal opportunity hating on all religionists.
Most progs lurve to pick on Jews & Christians, but not Muslims. Maher has called his fellow progs “cowards” several times over their fear of offending Muslims. He will criticize Muslims at least as strongly as he does other religions, and doesn’t hold back when they commit terror attacks.
This is not a free speech issue.
There are dozens of conservative speakers that come to Berkeley without incident every semester. And Berkeley students in the liberal arts and Philosophy programs read a shit ton more conservative thinkers than most of you have ever read.
This is a FEE speech issue. These “speakers” are performers. They are paid performances. And many students think it is bullshit that the university is providing a venue for these highly paid performers to peddle their shit product.
As far as the protests that occurred this week that led to violence; that had nothing to do with the university. It was in downtown Berkeley and not at the university.
The university is an open campus. It is a few miles from Oakland which has a very large and often militant activist community that is well tied into activists at the national level.
Protestors come from as far as Seattle to some of these protests and the university sucks up any damage resulting from them using funds MOSTLY generated from student TUITION which is already obscenely expensive and still rising.
It is prudent for the university to reconsider the costs associated with these paid performances.
If you owned a club and some shit bands drew crowds that led to violence because people that liked the band would clash with people that didn’t would you keep inviting and paying these shitty bands?
It sure as shit would not be a free speech issue.
Music is protected speech as well. But people don’t whine when someone disinvites a shitty band.
HEY Sparkle-butt, it’s creepazoids, rejects, stank-ass hippies and flunkies from YOUR SIDE of the political spectrum that cause the problem . Ever hear about mobs of President Trump supporters attacking Hillarrhoids or your fellow Bernie-heads? How many times did anyone hear about drugs, rape, looting, vandalism and rioting at Tea Party Rallies versus what we saw from the “Occupy” movement?
Bill Maher compared the censorship of Conservative Speech to the Nazi book burnings which I agree with, SCHMUCK!
Lars – were you protesting when the CGI showed up at Bezerkley last year protesting about the money paid to them? How about the other left groups that pay to use UC property for “performances”?
I don’t seem to remember hearing about Tea Party groups vandalizing businesses back then…
I have not participated in any of the protests concerning who speaks at Berkeley.
It annoys me that the costs of these paid performances are often covered by student tuition. But that is a broader issue and not specific to any one speaker. I have participated in a few protests regarding the broader use of university funds and a few community protests regarding broader local and national issues.
I am fine with student funds going to quality speakers that have something actually insightful and enlightening to add to the public discourse. But most of these shit-perfomers are just saying crap that they know riles people up and generates a profit for them.
When speech is driven by whatever is most profitable to say it is likely not worth a fucking dime as far as actual content.
Look at how shitty news and media has become in an era where profit > actual information.
If by “…shit-perfomers (sic) are just saying crap that they know riles people up…” you mean, “People who articulate views that are different from mine” please refer to the W. F. Buckley quote I posted.
So I guess that would apply to Bill Clinton, Hillary and Obama when he starts the talk circuit as well. They don’t come cheap.
I hate Clinton family profiteering. That is why I despise the Clintons. They do not do what they believe is best for the country or political “right”. They do what is most profitable and most serves their ambition.
There is a lot of difference between their profit model and the model of someone like Ann Coulter.
Courter is literally peddling her performance for profit and generating controversy and conflict to increase her brand. She says what sells. Her speech is her product.
The Clintons are peddling their influence for profit and branding themselves to best access the power and influence they wish to sell. They say what gives them more influence. Their influence is the product.
I hate both business models.
I guess Rachel Maddow fits the bill for you then.
How about your boy Bernie Sanders who bought his THIRD house, a nice waterfront place for a great price shortly after he bowed out of the Presidential Primaries? It’s well known he doesn’t go speak anywhere for free!
All on his measly public servant salary. What a guy.
Don’t forget that “sweet” real estate deal the missus did while heading the college that had to close its doors this year…
Guess what pao? the costs of the far more frequent leftist liberal speakers also comes from the same sources. You got a problem with that too?
And yes, it most definitely is a free speech issue. Any time a mob of thugs prevents someone from speaking their mind, particularly when contracted to do so, because they don’t want to hear it, that is CENSORSHIP. Those leftards could just as easily stay home if it offends them. There is no right not to be offended found anywhere in the constitution.
“If you owned a club and some shit bands drew crowds that led to violence because people that liked the band would clash with people that didn’t would you keep inviting and paying these shitty bands?”
Your analogy sucks ass Lars. If Berkeley was a private institution, they could easily refuse the shitty band, it is not.
Lars does not understand what the First Amendment means, especially for a university that accepts public money.
We all know what it means when someone says “mostly”, “almost always”, “almost certainly”, “usually”….
It is a paid performance. Thus they CAN decide not to provide the venue.
And universities do not have to provide a venue for anyone that wants to speak, paid or not. Accepting public funds for education does not change that at all.
I have no idea where you came up with the notion that universities have to provide venues for anyone that has something to say. They don’t. Never have. That is a dumb notion.
People are free to speak in public spaces.
So Bill Maher, Anne Coulter, and Yiannopoulos were completely free to walk onto campus and start speaking out loud to anyone that would listen.
But they wanted to be PAID, and they wanted a venue complete with sound a system, lighting, seating, and all the staff (staff they did not provide) as well as sufficient security.
All so they could make a profit peddling their shit products.
“It is a paid performance. Thus they CAN decide not to provide the venue.”
Did you forget who actually pays the speaking fee and associated costs after the grants from the ASUC? The issue is that they “decide” who they want speaking there. I bet if Snoop Dog was asked by the DAAP, the red carpet would be rolled out.
Last time I checked, the First Amendment is binding on both state and local government entities. That means that such entities must be evenhanded, politically, in the speech they endorse. Inviting or approving a speaker constitutes an endorsement.
UC-B is a public university – a state university, to be precise. It thus falls under the same restrictions as the rest of the CA state government with respect to the First Amendment.
I know you leftists don’t like it, but the First Amendment applies to conservatives too.
Many really don’t think that it does, Hondo. Unfortunately, many ordinary Americans still do not grasp that the left will do anything to squelch the free speech of those with whom they disagree because they do not feel that any speech other than theirs IS free.
Not if a contract has been signed, they can’t. Not without getting sued.
We’ve already seen that Lars wasn’t serious when he swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Does this come as a shock?
No. No, it does not.
It is more of a shock to realize that I have blindly consumed all eight pieces of turtle cheesecake that were in the freezer, since I bought them two weeks ago and now, I have no cheesecake. I am sad.
None for us?
Uh…. I’m sorry, ex-OS2. I ate them all. They were smooth, creamy, just the right amount of tartness to offset the sweetness, and the caramel sauce was so-o-o-o smooth….
How about pasta carbonara instead?
Since you twisted my arm, yes please. 🙂
My wife calls strawberry cheesecake my mistress. I remember one time we were talking to some people from church and my wife said “We got to go pick up my husband’s mistress”. The look on their faces was priceless.
Does she put strawberry preserves on top before she gives it to you?
I spent time in Berkeley starting around the late ’60s, and remember thinking at the time it was odd how many of those caught up in the counter culture weren’t actually in it for the politics, but more for the social aspect. Marching and carrying a sign being a fine way to have a chance to rub up against hot hippie chicks who didn’t wear brassieres.
Maher’s description of Berkeley as the “cradle” of free speech, something repeated endlessly for the past 50 years, also tends to ignore the reason why UCB got the title in the first place. Things started when Mario Savio and Jack Weinberg, a former graduate student, got hassled by the campus cops for setting up a table in Sproul Plaze to collect money for a civil rights group. The table was apparently in violation of university policy which did not allow solicitation by outside groups on school property.
This apparently caused Savio to go full drama queen by climbing on a patrol car and giving a tear jerker of a speech about how students should throw themselves on the gears of injustice. Or something. The cops, who apparently didn’t appreciate some clown climbing on their roller, then hauled Savio’s ass off to jail.
Point being, and excuse the mini-history lesson, that what originally triggered the free speech movement actually had little to do with free speech. Savio could have climbed on a soapbox and gone off about po’ black sharecroppers in Mississippi, and nobody would have thought twice. The real issue, at least it seemed to me from Savio’s original speech, was who should ultimately control UC Berkeley. Should it be the administration, or should it be the students who pay tuition or provide support via their parents taxes?
Sort of like asking all the inmates if it’s a good idea for the inmates to run the asylum…
The idea that Berzerkely is the cradle of free speech is utterly insane and incorrect. Philadelphia PA was that for us, back in the 1770’s.
Berzerkely is possibly the cradle of childish behavior, irresponsibility, and stupidity though.
Good point. Boston might also be a contender.
Still, Berkeley sometimes gets called that because it’s where Savio started the Free Speech Movement. Seems like the left there has always been big on grandiose titles for goofy political groups. Remember the Symbionese Liberation Army?
Turns out that Berkeley is infested with BAMN and its progeny ANTIFA, a couple of groups that espouse violence to get their way.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2017/02/15/bamn-by-means-necessary-home-grown-terrorist-group/
Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin is a member of BAMN.
ANTIFA is run by a nut, Yvette Felarca,
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/06/radical-berkeley-anti-milo-protest-leader-no-regrets/
who is most recently known as the “Antifa Girl” or moldylocks. She tried to play the victim on an interview with Tucker Carlson because she was caught on video getting punched out, yet she had no visible damage the next day, and copious video from the riots showed her swinging a wine bottle at people. Felarca, as spokesperson for ANTIFA, openly espouses violence against “fascists” broadly defined as anybody who does not talk or vote the way they want.
http://www.ibtimes.com/what-antifa-anti-fascist-group-behind-violent-berkeley-protest-against-milo-2485217
I hold the mayor responsible for this nonsense. Berkeley has a reputation for allowing this kind of nonsense to happen, in the same way that San Diego has a reputation for NOT allowing it.
They are not “infested”.
There are far more young republicans in Berkeley than there are people involved with both BAMN and ANTIFA combined.
Berkeley has the largest college republican chapter in the country.
Very few Berkeley students are involved with either BAMN or ANTIFA. Less than a fraction of a percent. Literally a handful.
And I find it interesting how much fear mongering the right tries to drum up over BAMN. It is small group that has been around for 3 years and remained small over the years.
ANTIFA is a legit national movement. And it growing fast and is in direct response to the increase in fascist and neo-fascist political rhetoric and fascist political activism. And if you do not think there is an increase in fascist politics then you don’t know that the fuck fascism is.
So if you want to be scared then curl up with your blankie about ANTIFA.
But if you are not a fascist political activist or not part of the proud boy movement then they are just a nuisance for you to whine about.
The numbers don’t matter. If I have a single rattlesnake in my house I can and will consider it to be infested. Don’t care whether you like the concept or not.
“It is small group that has been around for 3 years and remained small over the years.”
A few years huh, 1995 is about 22 years.
Lars has demonstrated on occasion that he’s even worse at math than he is at history or logic.
I stand corrected. Should have googled their history.
They are not growing much was my main point.
Their affirmative action position will always limit their membership numbers. And they have largely lost that fight in UC system. The UC system abandoned affirmative action in admissions decades ago.
They are tapping into larger national civil rights issues, police brutality, and anti-Trump sentiment right now to increase their profile. But when it comes down to it their membership will always be driven by those that wish to support affirmative action.
And it is them tapping into the larger national issues in recent years that made me think they have been around only for a few years. Before few people paid much attention to them.
Bullshit. Those two groups promote violence and have said so publicly.
Try getting your head off your own ass, just once, Piuperdink,
No they ain’t. They are a bunch of simpering children in adult bodies who don’t to conform, and act responsibly. They are the nasty hippies of this era, same as the hippies of the 1960’s.
Seriously Lars, where the hell do you come up with this trash?
Stating the obvious here:
Hitler started with a small group.
So did Lenin and Trotsky.
Robespierre did likewise.
Need I mention Pol Pot?
Don’t forget Castro, Uncle Ho and Mao…
Yes, indeed. And Che. Let’s include Che in that list, too.
Zampolit,
You were doing so well onother recent threads. I wa genuinely impressed. Then you reverted to “spazz” and kinda got lost in the weeds.
What did -I- say that was not true? Is the “shut up or get head busted” actions of leftists not very similar to the “shut up or get head busted” of the SA? The Facists were -infamous- for doing just that, and started out small, until they were scary enought to be unopposed. Then they started turning opponents into air polution in the KZs.
Not here. Not on my watch.
You are proud of your Alma Mater, but are seemingly blind to the cancer that is growing in our midst. (Note: I said -nothing- of your school, just some bad actors who are not limited to it.) They will get around to busting your head, when they are done with mine.
Because you cant shut up any more than me, and deep down, you know that “Black Block”, the “RA” of my post, are the enemy of Liberty, for they tolerate -no- dissent.
If you genuinely cannot see that, do please look again. Then, look in the mirror and ask yourself,
“If -those- are my allies, what have I made my enemy?”
I do not think we should be conflating people protesting paid performance with people shutting down actual speech.
There are dozens of conservatives that speak at Berkeley every semester. With no issue at all.
These are paid performances that thrive off of drawing and driving controversy. It is literally their business model and HOW they make the money they make.
It is bullshit when they whine about the controversy they intentionally generate for profit.
It is not bullshit that protestors do not want universities PAYING these profiteers or providing the venue, seating, sound systems, technical support, security, lighting, and staff so they can peddle their shit products for profit.
And Berkeley is not the ONLY university with these protests against paid shit speakers peddling shit products.
It is just the primary university that the right loves to whine about.
Both liberal and conservative speakers are being disinvited at campuses and have been for years.
Liberals do it about twice as often according to the databases of disinvited speakers kept by watch groups. You can google them.
Okay then, name some liberal speakers that were either disinvited or barred from speaking at your school and tell me about the Conservative mobs that showed up threatening and assaulting their supporters and attendees while rioting, looting, burning and smashing things like the intolerant little liberal maggots did.
Bill Maher is a liberal. But that is not what you are asking for.
However, absolutely nobody was rioting or looting at any of these speaker protests at Berkeley.
The “smashing things” was a tipped generator light. The fire was caused by the fuel after it was tipped. It was a small fire. Like a beach bonfire that flared up when lit and died down soon after. Campus police and fire did not even try to put it out because it was not a risk to any of the campus facilities or any people around it. They did assign an officer to stand near it while it burned out through consuming all the fuel.
I count that as smashing and setting a fire to a thing. Not “things” as you described in you exaggerating claim about what is happening at these protests.
Yes, liberals are more likely to protest than conservatives. But that has a great deal to do with the difference between liberals and conservatives cognitively. Like literal hard wired differences. Numerous studies have shown that liberals and conservatives are literally WIRED differently with respect to how they interpret and process the information and environment around them. BOTH have a valuable place in the history and development of society.
It should be remembered that our founding fathers were the LIBERALS of their era and their tendency to challenge and protest the status quo was hard wired into their cognition.
Most of the conservatives on this board would have been Tories in during the build up to the revolution.
Are you insane or just stupid? I guess a generator tipped over on that police car and smashed it’s windows? I guess those people that showed up to hear a conservative speak just fell down a flight of stairs and did not get the hell beat out of them by the snowflakes?
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Blind and impotent, perhaps?
Ok, you win. I just read the report on the damages.
What I saw was a yawn fest of peaceful protestors and a small fire.
But apparently other shit happened that I did not see before or after I left.
I did not watch it on the news so I did not see as much as the cameras or reporters may have seen.
According to the campus police none of those that committed violence or vandalism were students at the university.
According to the UC police dozens of masked agitators rushed through and instigated chaos. Then all but one dispersed leading to one arrest. there were 5 minor injuries due to that incident.
The police say the protest was peaceful before and after that incident.
I did not see that happen. I did see a few masked protestors but they were not committing violence or doing anything much when I saw them.
Think about how happy many would be if you would just disappear like me.
I vote stupid…..
I would also like to add that because speech is being performed for profit is is essentially a product in the marketplace. These speakers generate that profit by constructing a product that generates the most controversy and conflict to draw the most attention to their speech and most profits. If their business model is to attempt to generate the most profitable controversy they can, then they should recognize how the market is responding to their product and adjust accordingly. If they generate so much conflict that it impacts their revenue then their product is not what the market is demanding. Or the venue is not the right venue for their product. I am not saying this is how it SHOULD be. I think speech should not be profit driven at all. And if it is then it should not be regarded as necessarily something that institutions of higher education should be providing venues for. But is someone is going to try to be a paid provocateur than they need to respond to the market and recognize where and when their product sells.
I guess the non-conservative speakers on the circuit do it for free.
Bill Maher is a liberal. And like other controversy profiteers he makes his money by selling the controversial shit he says.
He does not say it for free. And sometimes he picks the wrong venue to peddle his product.
If you are going to try to profit off of generating controversy and conflict then you need to make sure you are selling your shit product to the consumers that want to buy it.
The BCR wanted to listen to the speakers they paid to hear.
Compare it to you going to CVS to purchase your Depends and when you leave, a thug bitch slaps you and grabs them, runs away while screaming “You cant have these because Prevail Boxers for Men are better”
If you really were confident of what. You say you wouldn’t be endlessly babbling like you are right now, DO look and think for yourself versus perpetually babbling the imbecilic dogma you get spoon fed by your profs who likely have no real experience outside of the confines of a college campus.
Really, most professors are quite pissed off at the students disrupting these speaking engagements. This is what one of my favorite former professors had to say about my position on this issue when I shared it on another venue that he reads. He is one of the most influential people in my life. He also served in the Isreali Army…
“Lars, you’re being disingenuous (but not necessarily intentionally so). Bands perform music. These speakers perform politics. And, coincidentally or not, it’s always the same kind of politics that gets banned and the same kind of politics that doesn’t get banned. So here’s my proposal to “fix” your metaphor so that it falls apart, in two steps. First, let’s assume that the bands that always get banned are all jazz bands. Because that’s what the loudest (and most violence prone) majority on campus happens to consider “shitty” right now. Jazz is always banned. Even before the get a chance to play. Just on the mere suspicion that they might perform jazz, they’re banned automatically. Would that be cool? All rock is always welcome. All jazz is always banned? Not cool.
Now, a second twist. Imagine that the music that is always banned is also political: it’s ethnic music by native groups that’s always banned. Rock music? Welcome. Heavy metal? Welcome. Indigenous musicians from the Andes? Always banned. Not cool. It’s no longer about preference in music or taste. It’s no longer systematic discrimination. It’s political discrimination. If a Southern University did this to radically liberal speakers you and I would join in screaming to high heaven. We are closing ourselves off to opinions we find distasteful. And we label them as “dangerous” in the hopes of getting away with it. Shameful.”
Hey PUTZ, do try and tell me again how often we’ve heard about mobs of Conservatives threatening and assaulting those they think who dissent with their agenda. It is crowds of sniveling snot-nosed liberals that are going around threatening and carrying out acts of violence against those they think who dissent with them JUST LIKE Hitler’s SA (“The Brownshirts”) did in the days of Nazi Germany. I still see them sticking to liberal locales when they pull their shit versus locales I’m States where concealed carry is legal.
Poodle, you should listen to your former Professor. He’s got his head screwed on far more straight than you do.
He understands, at least partly, the principal issue here. I’d prefer he explicitly raised the issue of UC-B being a public institution, though; private entities are free to do exactly as he posits. (Freedom includes the freedom to be stupid.) But other than that, he “gets it”.
In contrast, you don’t seem to understand the issue whatsoever.
Free speech includes all forms of legally permissible speech – even speech the majority finds offensive. It has to.
Otherwise, at some point in the future the speech YOU prefer will become the kind that’s verboten. Then you’ll be the one always looking over your shoulder.
Your problem is that you don’t know the difference between a classic liberal and the current variety. They are two very different things. The Founding Fathers were of the Classic bent but were also a lot of other things besides. Trying to make the two the same in an excuse of the closed minded intolerance is disgusting. Not a one of the current variety of Liberals could hold a candle to the Founders and to try and conflate the two, well, you should be ashamed of yourself but as a committed leftest you have no shame.
I do understand the difference. But you do not understand that the difference between the ways liberals and conservatives interpret information is not based ideological differences whether they be the classical spectrum, or contemporary US, or the contemporary European spectrum.
The actual ideological preferences shift and change. But how people fall on the spectrum of their era has a great deal to do with how they re cognitively wired.
Most of you would be conservatives then just as you are now. It is not ideological. Your political preferences would shift to the conservatism of your era.
yeah, yes I do having a degree in Political Science but I do not feel the need to flaunt it like you do on a constant basis.
Political beliefs have nothing to do with “cognitive wiring” to suggest such a thing is to say people are genetically predisposed one way or the other and I reject that notion. The left always wants to push it because then all behavior just isn’t their fault, they couldn’t help themselves.
I could teach a course on the differences between classical and modern conservatism/liberalism.
I regard myself as a classical liberal.
Think about the way most of the people on this board view the world…. it is quite Hobbesian isn’t it? Always fixated on security threats, corrupting influences, crime, swindlers, and people behaving badly…
You know damn well they would be classical conservatives no matter what era they lived. And a Hobbesian conservative in the 18th century would sure as shit have been a Tory.
No, you’re an idiot. A dyed-in-the-wool nunch with no purpose in life at all. That’s your biggest problem. Your other biggest problem is that all you want to do is pick fights with strangers so that you can be the only one who is right, when your percentage of ‘right’ vs. ‘wrong’ is .5% right to 99.5% wrong.
And it also pisses you off no end that other people don’t kowtow to you and salaam in front of you.
If you want respect, you have to earn it. So far, you’ve done nothing but pick fights.
“Respect and loyalty both are two-way streets.”
Richard Marcinko (CAPT, USN (Ret.) Founder of USN SEAL Team Six
You could teach a course in smug condescension. I will agree on that point
10 points for that one!
Speech is speech. Shutting someone down by mob action, or threat, because you dislike their message is wrong.
SHutting down paid speakers is wrong. You would be doing backflips if the shut-down folks were BLM, or the CPUSA, or NOW. Right?
“Destroying stuff” is still violence, especially as it is intended to convey “you are next”.
Open your eyes. You are apparently saying “It is OK to intimidate ‘wrongspeach'”, and defining ‘wrong” as ‘paid’.
This is how we got the SA, and their buddies with the KZs.
Stop. Now. Open your eyes to what is using you.
Lars is a committed fellow-traveler. He *wants* to be used. He yearns for the chance to prance around in a snazzy black Hugo Boss jacket with a pair of angular “S”s on the collar.
I think it goes beyond that, TOW. He stayed -how long?- in the Army then was told ‘bye-bye’. Now he has nothing to do, and he’s too indolent and self-involved to have enough initiative to use his vast free time to some kind of creative work, or even volunteer for a worthwhile thing such as the USO or helping vets out at the local VA medical center, because it won’t get the kind of HUUUUGE attention he wants that gives him a wizz in his nether regions.
Bill Maher is indeed a liberal but is one of the few on the left that have no time for those that would shut down free speech. The late Alan Combs was another of them. The left if it ever want’s to regain seats would be wise to emulate them and not the insane wig from CA or Pocahontas Warren.
I disagree wth both of those folks, on a whole bunch of topics, but I very much respect them on principle, the one about how everyone is free to speak otherwise no one is.
And they both -call- their -allies- on that hypocracy, damn the cost.
Indeed. I disagree with about everything Maher says and did not agree with Combs but I listened to his show on occasion. Combs actually had thought out positions and would let the other side talk and then argue.
I’ve never been a big fan of Alan Dershowitz, but I’ve always respected him on the free speech issue. I’d think he’d fall into the same boat as Colmes and Maher…
This string of comments alone shows the insanity of the left. The same song and dance is repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and…
I could be very wrong on this. The fact that I see this speech as a profit driven product rather than a genuine attempt to contribute to the public discourse is a big part of why I fall on a different side of this issue than I would expect of myself if I viewed this merely as political speech.
Quit bouncing around and make up your mind, Babbles McButthead!
“Profit” is not a dirty word, Zampolit. If you think so, if you think the one who earns profit has sinned and may be supporessed, you are much, much further along that Marxist spectrum disorder than you admit. You are so welded to faulty premises. So blind to what lies beyond your tight-shut eyes. There are people on this board, that you seem to have cursed and reviled, that would put their lives at risk to protect the speech of others, of those whose words offend greatly. The Left? Call the Facists and bash them! Quite the difference between “Fuck off, we wont be silent!” And “If you don’t shut up, those similarly oddly-dressed thugs will beat the crap out of you.” If you think Trump folks are “Facist”, you haven’t even read the basics of the writings of the Facists. Note: “Facist” doesn’t mean “Anything to the right of a hard-core communist”. It means a highly-authoritarian state, controlling most means of production. No freedom exists in it, as clearly stated by its poster-child Mussolini “All within the State. Nothing outside the State. Nothing against the State”. That hardly sounds like Republicans, or Trump. But is this sure starting to sound like some of their political opponents. And you may recall that the evil of Fascism was going mostly nowhere, until it was adopted, and metastasized, by a charismatic Socialist with a goofy mustashe. Whose followers bashed anyone who spoke against Socialism. Prior to murdering more than 10 million civilians for being against the State. Yeah, count me as conserving the USA against a repetition of that mess. Open your eyes. Look at the objective reality of what has metastasized witching the US Left. They mean to -destroy- our society, and replace it with an authoritarian one. If you do not clean house, if you continue to ignore the obvious, there will be no turning back from the coming firestorm, as those of us who see will -not- submit, will not surrender, and will -not- forgive the ones that help light the match that burns it all down. Open. Your.… Read more »
^^^^THIS^^^^
We do not live in an era where “speech is speech”.
We live in an era where money is speech and speech is usually for profit.
When people say what is most financially profitable for them to say we can no longer trust what they have to say. They are performers. And while their performance is protected by the first amendment it is not something that public universities have an abolition to provide a venue for.
If a political profiteer wants to make money off of a performance that generate controversy and conflict because that is the most profitable business model for political profiteering right now then they have every right under the 1st amendment to peddle their product in the marketplace.
But universities do not have an obligation to provide a venue, seating, sound systems, lighting, technical support, security, and staffing so these profiteers can peddle their product.
This is a very different form of speech then we historically recognized as political speech in the country. This is more profiteering than politics. Peddling a product for profit. Not sharing political ideas.
It is no coincidence that the majority of these speakers generating these protest incidents are controversy peddlers. Both liberal (Maher) and conservative.
While those liberal and conservative speakers that want to share their ideas or theories come and go on campuses day after day year after year and nobody makes a fuss.
Obligation not abolition.
Do you really think that Fox, CNN, MSNBC, ABC and newspapers nationwide are in this for the “free speech”?
Oh, my GOD!!!!! You can’t take that back. Your brain fart ‘abolition’ is EXACTLY what you meant, you DODO!
Babbles McButthead strikes out yet again!
Poodle: the issue is not whether the speech is paid or offered for free. Profit (or lack thereof) has not a damn thing to do with it.
The issue is that an entity of the government of California is effectively censoring speech based on political point of view. The mechanism they are using to do so is falsely claiming to be unable to provide security (a basic function of government) for those with whom they disagree.
That this is a false claim by UC-B is shown through their abject failure even to attempt to enforce law when speech or protest is agreeable to their worldview, but violence occurs. Such speech is not banned a priori; it is allowed, even when past experience shows violence is likely.
In both cases, the UC-B administration has the ability to enforce the law and require order. They merely choose to claim the inability to do so when the speech in question is disagreeable to them in order to “justify” banning that speech based on content. In contrast, when the speech in question is to their liking, they don’t ban it; they instead allow it – even when it comes with a high likelihood of associated violence.
A private entity has the right to pick and choose which speech they allow within their venue based on whatever criteria they choose to use. They may ban all political speech with which they disagree. They don’t have to give anyone an explanation regarding why.
A governmental body cannot do that. That, dipstick, is the fundamental issue: a governmental organization here is censoring speech based on political point of view. And that, toolbox, is prohibited by the First Amendment.
Hondo. Taylor’s essential claim is that speech is not subject to 1st A protection from government infringement if the speaker is paid to speak. The speaker is not even a speaker to him but a lesser being, a performer whose speech is a performance. That is a most ludicrous assertion, and his word games are simply ridiculous. His copy of our Constitution must read differently than yours and mine. Ours doesn’t qualify speech as paid or even political. I wonder where he got his copy.
Not sure where, 2/17. But I believe it’s printed in Cyrillic, and has the byline “Stalin, Mao, and Pol, ed.”
A public, government-run University has an active, affirmative obligation to be content-neutral in its decisions of which speech to permit and which to not permit.
As a part of the government, it cannot limit the speech of people, paid or otherwise. The First Ameendment -absolutely- protects us against arbitrary content filtering based on “I don’t like that”.
Paid or not doesn’t matter. There is a great deal of Supreme Court precedent to that point.
If free speech only protects what locals like to here, then it isn’t really free speech, is it?
Ann Colter is only provocative to people who don’t like what she says. Some Marxist asshole is provocative to those who don’t like Marxist idiocy. The First Amendment doesn’t say “except where someone finds this annoying, offensive, or otherwise provocative”.
Good lord, the founders spoke against the foundation of organization of 18th century Western Civilization: the DIvine Right of Kings. Their CJ chosen speech was regularly punished by horrific deaths. Now tell me that they didn’t mean to protect minority and irritating viewpoints with the First Amenedment. They fought a war against the greatest power on Earth to get to where they could write it.
You said something about I would be a conservative in any era? Seriously? Did you really mean to imply that people are born to think a certain way, and would not rationally choose their path, or change it? We are just all pre-programmed, pre-determined robots?
You cant seriously believe that nonsense, right? That would truly be epic stupidity.
So by getting paid to speak takes away your First Amendment rights to free speech? That is the dumbest fucking concept to come from you yet, Lars. I’d love to see you present that interpretation to the SCOTUS… and how quickly most of them would laugh your ass out of the room.
I wonder what Madison, Franklin, Washington and the others would think about that, if they were still alive?
Commisar, 1) I believe that you are trying to make the claim that if someone is being paid, their speech would be what is called “commercial speech” and therefore allowed to be more restricted than non-commercial speech. However, commercial speech “has been defined by the Supreme Court as speech where the speaker is more likely to be engaged in commerce, where the intended audience is commercial or actual or potential consumers, and where the content of the message is commercial in character.” Coulter’s speech clearly does not meet the definition of “commercial speech.” Although she may sell books at the event, there is no indication the primary reason for the event (speech) is commercial in nature, It is therefore “non-commercial” speech which has full protection of the Constitution. You are trying to make an exception to the First Amendment that the courts have dealt with and have firmly rejected. 2) UC- Berkely is a state institution whose actions against speech must be examined with strict scrutiny. The problem here is two fold. First, the college allows speakers all the time that student led groups bring to campus. Therefore, the actual speech (as an event) is also protected because the school allows them. If the school wants to say “we are going to ban all outside speakers,” they can do that. But that is not what they have done. In fact in several statements in the past they have claimed that speakers brought onto campus serve to “further the marketplace of ideas.” (There is also the problem that the Young Republicans’ contract for the facilities, the time and the date was approved by the UC-B administration. That indicates they had no initial issues with Coulter nor characterized her speech (the event) as you have tried to do.) 3) There are two reasons the school could be wanting to cancel the speech and neither of them is Constitutional. First, they could be cancelling the speech on the basis of what they believe Counter would say. (We won’t even get into the unConstitutional rational of prior restraint on that idea.) However, content based… Read more »
Don’t try to confuse the lad with those pesky and irrelevant things called “facts”, gitarcarver. Der Poodle is infallible and omniscient; the world is a he says, reality and facts be damned.
What gets me is how frequently he asserts as fact that which is not. I don’t know whether he “bon jours” his facts or just makes them up himself. He has no grasp on con law, whatsoever, which is amazing, given his choice of studies. It really is stunning how ignorant he is and how clearly opposed he is to enlightening himself with a modicum of effort. Con law can be tricky stuff but not at the level we are discussing.
Yeah. You’d think that someone with a degree from the “prestigious” UC-B would be smart enough to (1) comprehend at least the basics of constitutional law, and (2) willing and able to research the points he doesn’t immediately know.
Apparently he’s neither. Or, alternatively, perhaps he’s deliberately dissembling.
Oh, please, AirCav/Hondo. Der Poodle still has false notions about himself that, because he WAS an ossifer, it somehow made him superior to everyone around him when he wasn’t. He also falsely assumes, based on zero evidence, that he is THE only person with any kind of degree who posts comments on TAH.
He’s a pseudo-intellectual snob with a false sense of his place in the Universe, a disdain for everyone he meets unless they flaunt their creds in his face, and a strange need to quarrel with anyone he can find over nothing. He doesn’t want debate. He wants to be The Only One, ergo, no facts or backups are required.
At the same time, he’s desperate to find company and while I’m guessing about this, I’d say he’s annoyed so many people by now that no one wants to talk to him about anything.
When I was in school, there was someone like him who would park himself at a table where a bunch of us were studying between classes, and disrupt the peace and quiet by trying to stir up a conversation, followed by a quarrel. He did this even if our table was full and there were others that were empty or only partly occupied.
It’s pathetic when you run into people like this, because they want company, but at the same time they repel the very company they want.
Hondo,
Sometimes I write to try and convince other people. Sometimes I write to inform others. My response was a bit of both.
I see far too many cases of free speech abuse. At the same time, not every case where someone is told to keep quiet or banned is a first amendment issue. (For example, how many times have you seen and heard people say “I have a First Amendment right to post on this website!” (They don’t.))
Lars / Commisar is out in left field on this issue and that is easy to prove. I believe it also serves a purpose to give people facts to fight against First Amendment abuse by governments and government run institutions.
The more informed people we have in the First Amendment fight the better.
Take care.
Understood – and I agree. Take care yourself, amigo.
I found this rather smart comparison of the ‘isms’:
Communism, Socialism and Fascism ARE ALL THE SAME. The subtle differences between them are minor things that make hardly any difference. It’s like me asking you whether you would like to die by lethal injection or by having your head cut off. Either way you’re dead. Don’t let the process towards dictatorial, totalitarian tyranny fool you. In the end it is tyranny. – Figueroa
They’re all exactly alike. Their only goal is to crush freedom and creativity, destroy innovation and progress. If that weren’t so, the Soviet Union would have an established and working lunar base way ahead of the US. Their Germans weren’t better than our Germans. They were just working under the gun of the Soviet government. If it weren’t for traitors like the Rosenbergs and John Walker, they’d never have gotten nuclear weaponry as quickly as they did. And neither would Mao Tse-Tong’s government.
Now since the Piuperdink doesn’t seem to know how things work, ANY AND ALL speakers invited to appear at a scholastic campus are paid to do so. They get A FEE, plus expenses. Yeah, they do. It’s part of the institution’s budget. The sole purpose of crapweasel groups like antifa is to disrupt anything they don’t like – they’ve SAID SO – and at the same time, they destroy as much property as they can, as we have already seen.
I think the Piuperdink’s real problem is that – well, geezo Pete, he was an ossifer in the US Army, probably the ONLY paying job he ever had, that gave him something to do besides stare at people with a real purpose passing by the coffee shop window, and now he’s bereft of even that. So he picks fights, because that’s the only thing he knows how to do.
They are not all the same. Not even close.
But you are a waste of time.
Pot Meet Kettle
No, Sir…she is not.
Simply put, you’re just an asshole.
Be useful to society and go away…and stay away.
It must be incredibly difficult for him to realise that he has no authority at all, and no one gives a crap what he thinks. But he is the butt of many, many jokes.
That is a sad statement about a mostly nonproductive lugnut.
IMHO he’s more like a stripped out gearbox on a shop floor that’s been replaced. No longer productive and wasting space but even a broken part like that can sometimes be useful as a salvage source of nuts and bolts and has some scrap metal value afterward. On the other hand I DO occasionally see Babbles McButthead as a source of laughs, just when I think he just can’t get anymore babble-headed he proves me wrong, he’s like a real life incarnation of a Leslie Nielson movie or Monty Python character!
Lars seems like a good approximation of how Doug Niedermeyer in “Animal House” would’ve turned out, had he not been fragged by his own troops in Vietnam.
He is one of the Less brothers. I just can’t figure out if he is Use or Worth. Or maybe he is the combined love child of the two of them.
To borrow a term from Star Trek TOS (The Ultimate Computer) – Commissar should rename himself as Major Dunsel…
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Dunsel
…..ouch…
Oh, and unfortunately for Commissar, those three -isms I mentioned (see above) are all the same, because they all have the same goal, complete control of the populace by the government, a point completely lost on him.
Capitalism, on the other hand, promotes self-reliance, enables setting goals and standards for oneself, and gets out of the way of the individual. Success is, therefore, entirely dependent on the efforts of the individual. You sink or you swim. You succeed or you hit the middle, or you fail and start over.
I’m in my retirement and keeping myself very busy. By the good grace of the gentleman who runs this blog (what IS his name, again?) I’m given access to post articles here and you guys are free, of course to wallop or laud what I say. I also have my own blog, and I have books in process. I know others of you have plenty to do that is productive in YOUR retirement or spare time, too. I know that I’m in good company, even if I piss of half of you and really irritate the other half.
But what does Commissar do with his time? Nothing. Unless he shows us otherwise, he hasn’t even finished his grad work. Seriously, LARS, go finish what you started.
” … are all the same, because they all have the same goal, complete control of the populace by the government … ”
Ding! Ding! Ding!
In theory, Poodle, they are different. In practice, not so much.
In practice, there is precious little if any difference between Fascism and Communism. With the possible exception of religious communities, when implemented both Fascism and Communism universally lead to an absolute authoritarian dictatorship with no concept of individual freedom or individual rights. Under each, the state is paramount and the individual is irrelevant.
Socialism has been termed “Communism-lite”. The characterization is apropos. And it should also be noted that the most extreme accepted form of “Facism” – Nazism – was in fact the result of a Socialist political party having a combination of (1) extreme nationalistic views, (2) warped and evil racial beliefs, (3) ambitions of empire, and (4) a charismatic leader which devolved into an autocratic police-state dictatorship after attaining political power. That same description also describes the Soviet Union under Stalin and later leaders.
So, enlighten us – briefly, if you can. In practice, what the hell is the difference?
They are exactly the same thing, they all have ONLY ONE PURPOSE which is DICTATORSHIP AND TOTALITARIANISM.
You are a major source of dumbfucking amusement to people who show up here. Aside from that, you’re a cloistered, neutered idiot.
As several of us have said more than once, yeah, there are some subtle differences, but those differences only matter to the proponents of any of them. The differences are irrelevant to the rest of us.
Sure, many of us “learned” all about that crap and retained it long enough to pass a few exams. What variety of tyranny a lefty espouses just doesn’t matter to the sane among us.
Meanwhile, kudos to Bill Maher for retaining some sense about him instead of falling over the hypocrisy cliff.
I’m not in the mood for that Taylor guy. He’s like one of those talking dolls. Pull the string and blah, blah, blah. His words do change but his message is a constant. He IS the smartest guy in the room.
Lars wouldn’t even be the smartest guy in the room if he was alone.
But what if he and SoMeOnE wHo ShAlL rEmAiN nAmElEsS were the only two in the room?
If they were alone in the same room, they’d pick a fight with each other.
That, dear lady, is a given. But it doesn’t answer my implied question. (smile)
Well, let’s see: Witless ‘n’ Wandering is a chronic drunk as well as a perpetual antagonist, per the reports of those who knew him in Vietnam.
The Poodle is not a drunk (as far as I know), but he does have issues that, per his own report, require psychotropic/chemical additives, as well as a need to find someone with whom to pick a quarrel over nothing.
I’d say once they got started picking at each other, they’d kind of blend together at the molecular level, form a mini-singularity and implode, leaving behind a very small but visible gravity wave which could be used by NASA engineers to test the warp engine they’re working on.
Otherwise, like Chronos with his children, they’d swallow each other and disappear.
LOL! THAT is funny!
At times like this I see him as a Medieval Court Jester. By some accounts Jesters in that era many times were mentally handicapped types that the Royalty would laugh at and at times like this I see Commisar displaying his idiocy as entertaining. Every time I tend to think he can’t get any more harebrained and imbecilic the SCHMUCK proves me WRONG and I usually laugh at his latest blither and babble!
Bill Maher is a cocksucker but props for pointing out the obvious.
Lars has his panties in a bunch over this, poor little buddy. I imagine he has retreated to his safe space drooling and mumbling how he gets no respect over at TAH. He may sneak out around 0243 and post a few larsfact rebuttals, slurp down some goat milk, choke down his meds and then pass out until 1400 tomorrow. It must suck ass to be Lars.
If Lars would simply STOP GUZZLING THE KOOL-AID and truly look at reality…
As if…. zika-commie takes his meds with Kool-Aid.
I’ll throw this out since it hasn’t come up so far:
It’s not hard to imagine there’s a wuss factor going on at UC Berkeley which causes the administration to be somewhat schizophrenic. On one hand it wants to be groovy by supporting free speech and a range of political views; on the other, it’s terrified of litigation and the prospect of having to explain to some geeky undergrad’s parents how he got curb stomped at a Leather Lesbians for Hillary rally.
Which means it winds up trying to create a carefully crafted political atmosphere that attempts the oxymoron of being “nicely radical.” Sort of like when you hear the Rolling Stones in an elevator, or the relation of a real jungle to the ride at Disneyland.
I’m taking up TAH donations from any compassionate members. I’m going to buy Lars a new keyboard. Surely his is broke as fuck after this comment thread.
Oh, he can have my old one. I bought a new one a couple weeks ago.
I can visualize you giving him your keyboard. But I don’t want to trigger him with jokes about keyboards upside the head.
Can’t we just bring slam dancing or moshing back so these kids can just get it out of their freaking systems somewhere more contained.
I mean that’s really what this is about, right? They’re just tarting it up with politics now.