Bulletin To African-American Activists, Progressives And The University of Missouri : Racial Biases, Slurs, Insults and “Microaggressions” Are Immutable Facts Of Life, And Nobody Can Make You “Safe” From Them In A Free Country

It is clear now, as I initially expected, that what the black student tantrum that brought down the leadership at the University of Missouri wanted is encapsulated by the first gesture by the school’s new puppet regime. This:

Police email

Ah, what a wonderful wonderful world it would be, the race-grievance mob believes, if we could arrest and punish anyone who doesn’t like us, looks at us with a stink-eye, sneers at us or calls us ugly names!  That would make them love their neighbors! The entire Missouri fiasco was nothing but a Kafka-esque satire on this dream. It is one that is constantly fertilized by social justice warriors who increasingly favor totalitarian methods, and who maintain that “hate speech” is immune from the the First Amendment.

The new tactic, apparently, as I read the head-exploding memo above, is to leap right past “hate speech” to banning “mean speech” and “not very nice speech.” Rather than teaching their delicate and misguided students to learn what fat kids, ugly kids, flat-chested girls, 90 pound weakling guys, people with stutters or birth defects,  people who are weak, or not very smart or obnoxious or poor,  people who look different or wear strange clothes or have accents or smell different or who have handicaps or Asperger’s, or infamous parents, or old (my mother complained constantly about the “microagressions” she got from young people)… or, from the other side, those who too smart or too sexy or too articulate or too rich… have to learn in order to become self-sufficient, confident and not to be at the mercy of bullies, assholes and fools all their lives, the University of Missouri (and Yale, and many institutions to come if we can’t successfully humiliate those schools into rationality) are joining with the growing authoritarian wing of the progressive movement to advocate the suppression of free thought and expression. They think this will end racism. They think it is possible to make human beings “safe” from cruel and unjust social interactions.

Not in a free country, it’s not.

If that’s the social change they’re after, not only are they not going to get it, they are going to lose the support of a lot of citizens sympathetic to their plight.

Sorry, but it’s true: a hurled epithet, yes, even “nigger,” is protected speech, and should be. (Side note: anyone with well-developed rhetorical skills should be able to be far more hurtful using well-constructed derision without using any epithets at all. Go ahead…try me. “Nigger” just means “I am a bigot and don’t have the brains to say anything substantive.” )

OK, such words are uncivil, cruel, hurtful and wrong, and anyone not raised in a barn shouldn’t get out of third grade without knowing as much. But they are not a punch and it is not like throwing a rock. “Microaggressions” are just physical manifestations of emotions and thoughts. These are also outside the power of any legitimate authority to forbid or punish.  The protests at Missouri demanding that the school do something to prevent random verbal assaults could only be a demand to chill speech and punish people for what they think and say, or worse, force them to change their biases and preferences because those in power, rightly or wrongly, think differently. If the leadership at the University of Missouri was competent and inclined to teach rather than pander, this would have been a learning experience. The lesson: In the U.S., you have a right to sound and act like a jerk.

Instead, the school is trying to model the only kind of society that could make the students feel “safe” from jerks: one that protected their sensibilities with jackboots and threats, and defined “hate speech” by whatever arbitrary standards its favored constituency demands. Let MSNBC provide its list of coded slurs, like “resilient,” “urban,” and “articulate.” Presumably the new regime also understands that hate speech—call in those descriptions and license plates!—is also to express an opinion based on facts rather than the self-serving lies of a criminal regarding Ferguson, the initial narrative or Trayvon Martin’s death or, presumably, the deification of President Obama.

“Safe” does not mean “insulated from words, ideas and people who annoy you.” Indeed, the protesters’ definition of safe is directly contradictory to their definition of diversity, unless their real definition is “diversity that makes me more comfortable, regardless of what its other effects may be.”

Which, of course, it is.

The Missouri fiasco has exposed the ethical and logical weakness in the civil rights movement’s latest mutation, which is to eradicate racism by fulfilling the worst paranoid fantasies of racists, and demanding special race-based privileges by government mandate. This damning revelation has panicked some progressive pundits into hysteria, like Salon’s Amanda Marcotte and Fox’s designated race-baiting black woman, Lisa Durden. (Fox uses silly people like this to make all progressives and black activists look bad. It’s a despicable tactic.)

Here’s Marcotte on Salon:

“No doubt there are some instances where young people, puffed up on self-righteousness and still sloppy about politics, go way too far with the P.C.-policing. But Monday’s resignation of Tim Wolfe as the president of the University of Missouri system in the wake of a wave of racial ugliness on campus should be a reminder that while a few loudmouthed lefties who overplay their hands may be annoying, young people—particularly young women and people of color—are less victimizers than victimized. All this chatter about “trigger warnings” and the supposedly over-coddled young has served to cover up the real story: Young people are under assault from reactionary forces and most of their grievances are not about imagined slights, but about very serious problems they are facing, on and off campus.”

  1. No doubt!
  2. Hearsay accounts of a shouted slur from a car, one racial epithet from an unidentified individual, and a swastika in feces that is not a clear racist statement and may well be a hoax (as I suggested in two earlier posts) is a wave. Who believes that?
  3.  Using extortion and a suicide threat to hijack the school’s leadership and force resignations doesn’t victimize the targets, as much as hearing about three unrelated incidents makes the students victims.  Good thinking, Amanda.
  4. “Under assault from reactionary forces” means “can’t get everything they want.”

Marcotte goes on to equate health insurance policies and university relations with Planned Parenthood with racial slurs, and proclaims political correctness a myth. I guess her theory is if you make enough random noise and protest enough, everyone will forget want really happened, and ignore that mythological note from the police.

The University of Missouri incident is revealing the deep, anti-free speech, totalitarian strain in the progressive and civil rights movement, and that our universities are nurturing it. The e-mails says it all: it is  re sipsa loquitur.

The only ones who won’t admit the dangerous philosophy this exemplifies are those who are lying to themselves, or to us.

 

106 thoughts on “Bulletin To African-American Activists, Progressives And The University of Missouri : Racial Biases, Slurs, Insults and “Microaggressions” Are Immutable Facts Of Life, And Nobody Can Make You “Safe” From Them In A Free Country

    • She is the reason I stopped reading Slate. (Well, that and Mickey Kaus leaving, David Plotz not writing anymore due to his editorial duties, Matt Yglesias becoming a progressive drone in a Krugman-lite way, Plait’s obsession with global warming and vaccines instead of astronomy…)
      But yeah, promoting Marcotte outside of her XX safe space was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

  1. I was called “Sir” today while getting my coffee at DD. The person in front of me was in his 20s and he was not called “Sir.” WTF! I am 71-years-old! Maybe this is just subtle ageism and it is nothing more than just what is on the surface. No doubt the young lady who offended me has some deep rooted issues with seniors. Almost took that dollar tip back. Maybe she was just polite and respectful? Naw….it was HATE SPEECH!

  2. Well Jack engaged in microaggressions in his post- he use a post-agricultural anti-ruralist dog whistle when he said “anyone not raised in a barn”.

    That was a very offensive implication about our farming and ranching brethren.

    I know this because I wrote a thesis on it for my doctoral work in Pre-post-modernist ante-millenial suburbane gender and socioeconomic Studies at CUNY.

    I’m currently unemployed so I’m going to go find a protest somewhere to join.

  3. I remember when a group on my campus demanded that the University put each student’s race on their student ID to ensure “that people can’t claim the benefits and privileges of a race they don’t belong to”. Now, you might think that this was some South African Apartheid group, but it was the Black Action Committee and their counterparts BAMN and the LGBT alliance. They were insisting that the student group for each race be allowed to determine who and who didn’t get to be a minority on campus. They were very upset that some conservative voices on campus (such as the head of the conservative alternative student newspaper) were allowed to be called ‘black’.

    Now, being able to be ‘black’ was very important. They wanted to make sure he (and people like him) didn’t count as black so couldn’t get any scholarship reserved for a minority (all scholarships at my school had a minority requirement). If you didn’t have the opinions of a ‘black person’ you shouldn’t be allowed the rights and privileges of a black person. This was also important because being black meant you could access the Black Student Lounge. Each officially recognized minority group (too bad if you’re Jewish) had their own minority lounge that excluded everyone else. This is required because all minority members need to have a safe place to decompress after a hard day in the oppressive world of the white man. The whole purpose of these lounges would be undermined if ‘oreos’ were allowed in who would bring differing opinions.

    This was 20+ years ago. What has happened is that those same activists are now college faculty studying ‘how people identify with Lady Gaga’, news reporters, college presidents, and Democratic politicians. You can’t reason with them. Arguing with them does no good. They may soon be a majority in this country due to their control of education and the media. Jack sometimes wonders how people can be opposed to things like gay rights. There are a lot of people who oppose not the principle, but the language, the agenda, and the worldview of the progressive which is on full display at Mizzou and in the media coverage of this incident.

    • They may soon be a majority in this country due to their control of education and the media. Jack sometimes wonders how people can be opposed to things like gay rights.

      Of course, if the media were hostile towards gay rights, almost all people would be asking how anyone could support gay rights.

        • it is! There’s definitely a correlation between intolerant attitudes and intolerant media, but that’s a chicken/egg observation. Up until very recently LGB acceptance wasn’t a majority opinion, even though it was definitely the way the media was steering us. I often wonder how tenuous our tolerance is, and whether an unfriendly media could turn back the clock.

  4. Payton Head wrote on His Facebook post about the racial slur. Now, he could have written, “Someone shouted nigger at me. Probably went home to his momma’s basement to jack his meat while watching kiddie porn.”

    Instead, we get this ramble .

    WARNING: EXPLICIT LANGUAGE: I just want to say how extremely hurt and disappointed I am. Last night as I walking through campus, some guys riding on the back of a pickup truck decided that it would be okay to continuously scream NIGGER at me. I really just want to know why my simple existence is such a threat to society. For those of you who wonder why I’m always talking about the importance of inclusion and respect, it’s because I’ve experienced moments like this multiple times at THIS university, making me not feel included here. Many of you are so privileged that you’ll never know what it feels like to be a hijab-wearing Muslim woman and be called a terrorist or a towel head. You don’t have to think about being transgender and worrying about finding a restroom where you can go and not be targeted for violence because you don’t fit into the gender binary. You’ll never know what it feels like to see Memorial Union every day and enter the side like a second class citizen because after 90 years, there’s still no accessible way to enter the tower. You’ve never been spit on walking down 9th street or mis-gendered at Pizza Tree because they called out your birth name. You’ve never had to experience people throwing drinks on you and yelling FAGGOT at you from the patio at Big 12 as you walk past on the street holding hands with your partner. You might never had to think twice about what you’re wearing walking around campus at night so that someone won’t think it’s okay to take ownership of your body because your outfit was “asking for it.” If your simple existence is not a political statement I’m really going to need for you to check your privilege. These are some of my experiences and the experiences of the ones closest to me. This is what I’m fighting against every day in boardrooms, conferences, meetings, classrooms, the Capitol, and in my daily life. This is my reality. Is it weird that I think that I have the right to feel safe here too? If you see violence like this and don’t say anything, you, yes YOU, are a part of the problem. It’s the reason why It’s On Us, Black Lives Matter, Trans Rights are Human Rights, and love is fucking love. If you want to fight for social change at Mizzou there are so many different outlets. Apply to be a Diversity Peer Educator, stop by any of our wonderful centers of social justice. Educate yourselves and others. Hold your family, friends, fraternity brothers and sorority sisters accountable. And if this post made you feel uncomfortable, GOOD! That means I’m doing my job. It’s time to wake up Mizzou.
    Your Nigger/Faggot Missouri Students Association President,
    Payton Head

    Payton Head comes across as a complete mangina. How could such a mangina ever get elected student body president?

    By extremely sharp contrast, here is a Facebook post about a woman whose hair curler was stolen. One might suspect she went into a rant whining and privilege and how life is so unfair for girls that not even their curling irons are safe because of the patriararchy or something.

    Instead, she wrote this:

    Someone smashed my window in last night but only stole my curling iron…. Burn in hell fucking retard

    What is it about Mizzou students that makes them such weenies and manginas?

    • 1. Thanks for this, I think.
      2. That’s pathetic.
      3. How does one person in a pick-up constitute society?
      4. “mis-gendered at Pizza Tree because they called out your birth name.” WHAT????
      5. “If your simple existence is not a political statement I’m really going to need for you to check your privilege.” And I’m going to ask HIM to call his shrink.
      6. He sounds just north of mentally ill to me. Who made him this way?

      • As for the second link, the lady has a Twitter account , but I did not link to it because Twitter has character limits. I compared Facebook postings because Facebook has a much longer character limit.

        It amazes me that someone whose profession is serving burgers from a food truck (that was the lady whose hair curler was stolen) can make more sense than two alleged scholars (Payton head and Amanda Marcotte).

      • [reply to Jack Nov 11 2:32 pm]
        3. Catastrophism, and catastrophizing, as described recently:
        http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/

        To summarize:
        One person in a pick-up = society.
        One incidence = tip of iceberg = proof positive of an enormous army of reactionary monsters lurking in every pick-up, in every vehicle, on every street, poised to perpetrate violent ambush.
        The slightest hint of opposition to the “correct” orthodoxy = existential threat = cause for universal alarm = provocation and justification to implement the most comprehensive countermeasures imaginable.

        5&6. He is an exemplar of the new normality for humanity in the U.S. Anyone who is not like him is deemed mentally unhealthy. Careful, Jack, with what you suggest about his mental health; his allies could be coming for you next, to lock you up and re-educate you.

      • This is all Fill-in-the-blank Studies gibberish these people are swimming in for years on end in college these days. The Missouri President was fired for failing his pop quiz which was “What does ‘systematic racism’ mean?” He’s got a business degree from forty years ago. But not knowing the current meaning of this term (I thought the term was ‘systemic racism’) got him fired. So we all sure as hell ought to brush up on our jargon pronto. …Or else! These people aren’t against free speech, they’re against common sense, which is what really gets my goat.

        • Not only that, it’s a loaded question. There’s no good way to answer it if you’re white that won’t anger the questioner and make the SJWs think you’re a racist.

    • There are about 10,000 thoughts going through my mind right now, all wanting to be typed immediately. Attempting that would be like a monkey trying to screw a basketball. My head hurts, I’m having sub-sternal, radiating chest pain, I feel nauseous, I smell toast, and my right eyelid is twitching. This whole post, starting with the notice about calling the cops if someone utters hurtful speech, to this reply, just shaved at least 4 months off my life, so I’m not going to waste any more time trying to articulate everything that’s so horrifying and enraging about all of this chattering detritus, so I’ll sum it up thusly; If one of these genetic misfires ever gets in my face and tells me to “check my privilege”, I’m going to flatten them. Hard. Soiling your drawers hard.

  5. Jack, I want to make sure you’re not saying that we should simply ignore “Racial Biases, Slurs, Insults and “Microaggressions”. While they may be an unfortunate fact of life, and protected speech (though I would argue that it isn’t, for the same reason that you can’t yell “fire in a crowded room” when there isn’t one) when such behavior goes unaddressed, and the university fails in its obligations to all students of any race, you get Mizzou. To simply blame a handful of students, ball players and faculty, or to look at what appears to be a longer term pervasive issue through the lens of the most recent incidents is not a complete analysis of the issue. Since the resignations/firings or whatever you want to call them, we’ve gotten photo journalists threatened by white and black protesters, as well as an arrest for threatening to kill blacks via the internet. The school appears to be out of control as it relates to issues of race. And it could have been avoided. The now deposed system president came from a corporate background. Surely he must have known that failing to act, or properly deal with “customers” can lead to your dismissal. His reaction was to blow off the students, and refuse to engage. The university isn’t without fault here either. They likely would have continued to back their president had their money not been put at risk by the football team. That’s the only reason we’re even aware of this situation at all. Until a sincere effort is made to address and solve these issues, instead of blaming the oppressed, little will change. And unfortunately, teachable moments capable of facilitating just this sort of change will be lost….

    • “Racial Biases, Slurs, Insults and “Microaggressions”. While they may be an unfortunate fact of life, and protected speech (though I would argue that it isn’t, for the same reason that you can’t yell “fire in a crowded room” when there isn’t one) when such behavior goes unaddressed, and the university fails in its obligations to all students of any race, you get Mizzou.

      Please elaborate on what duties you think the university had in this context. I mean, it is not like anyone’s curling irons were stolen.

      Since the resignations/firings or whatever you want to call them, we’ve gotten photo journalists threatened by white and black protesters, as well as an arrest for threatening to kill blacks via the internet.

      Crimionla threasts are the business of the police.

      The school appears to be out of control as it relates to issues of race.

      What specific acts of racial discrimination are the faculty and staff alleged to have done?

      • Please elaborate on what duties you think the university had in this context. I mean, it is not like anyone’s curling irons were stolen.- Any university has an obligation to address acts that offend or threaten students. If fraternity guys were making sexist comments to women on campus, the university would act, and they would go unchallenged. It’s also in their best interest to be as appealing as possible to as wide a variety of students as possible. And a stolen curling iron is SERIOUS business!!

        Crimionla threasts are the business of the police.-True. But a university atmosphere where threats and racial intimidation go unchecked puts them at risk.

        What specific acts of racial discrimination are the faculty and staff alleged to have done?- I’m not aware of any acts by faculty or staff, other than support for the students and ball players. If I suggested otherwise, my mistake. The head coach and many of the staff, were in complete support of the students. But I’ve also since heard that the faculty and staff had recent,y undergone cuts to some benefits. This might have played at least a small part in their perceived eagerness to take a stand against the administration. I really hope not, but nothing would surprise me.

        • Any university has an obligation to address acts that offend or threaten students.

          Yes on the latter. On the former, only if it was done by university faculty or staff, since their speech can be imputed onto the university itself via respondeat superior.

          If fraternity guys were making sexist comments to women on campus, the university would act, and they would go unchallenged. It’s also in their best interest to be as appealing as possible to as wide a variety of students as possible.

          If it stays at the level of comments, there is no cause for action by the administration.

          But a university atmosphere where threats and racial intimidation go unchecked puts them at risk.

          Unless the intimidation involves criminal threats, it is not the university’s business.

    • You know…. I don’t even. I read this and I felt really tired and frustrated after reading it. Your thought processes are so shallow. It’s like… You’ve recognized problems, but instead of thinking about them, you just copied the nearest bumper sticker and pasted them into comment form. I don’t know where to start… Maybe by suggesting that you copy the comment into word, separate the sentences, and then ask yourself “And why do you think that is?” After each line.

      This in particular bothered me:

      “I want to make sure you’re not saying that we should simply ignore “Racial Biases, Slurs, Insults and “Microaggressions””

      (Thank you squiggly red line)

      I think that’s a strawman, and unfair. I think it projects the idea that you think the choices are that we either ignore problems, or accept mob rule. Mindframes like that is why this process has gotten so messy. We might might address racial relations properly in the long term, but the process will be longer and harder than it needed to be.

      • I don’t like to imply and would rather be clear. I think I know Jack well enough that he wouldn’t dismiss out of hand, but the very title of the post could be construed as another way of saying “hey black folks, shit’s gonna happen, so shut up, give us your money and quit rabble rousing”. But i wouldn’t accuse Jack at first glance.

        And lets be clear about what got the administrators fired. The potential loss of revenue that would be certain if the football team refused to play, coupled with specific incidents of inaction or perhaps incompetence is what got heads rolling. I also believe that the entire team would have opted to not play, not just the black players. Hardly mob rule….

        • It is mob rule, UR. So far, no evidence has arisen supporting the story about the fecal swastika. So two unrelated instances of unidentified people using racial epithets, and what may be a hoax, prompted a sweeping accusation of racism against society, a hunger strike, a botcott by the football team, support by the faculty, the resignation of the president and the chancellor, two professors so far, and a threat from the police to chill free speech. Mob rules is when passion and mass overcomes reason to no coherent end. That’s exactly what happened here.

          As for the title: black students engaged in unjust angry and coercive tactics against those who couldn’t and can’t possibly solve the problem they were upset about, caused havoc and harmed people, and that is wrong. I addressed them as black student because the are, and described their mistake directly. “hey black folks, shit’s gonna happen, so shut up, give us your money and quit rabble rousing” is far from a fair characterization of what I wrote.

          • I was making a point, not accusing you of anything. Nor did I object to the use of black students in the title. A casual reader, fair or not, might react to the title different than you intended. And by the way, most African Americans know the facts of life all too well. The racial issues at Mizzou appear to go far beyond “two unrelated instances of unidentified people using racial epithets, and what may be a hoax,”. I read it more as a tipping point, and why I’m still not convinced it was mob rule.

            • UR, I read it as a tipping point as well, but not as far as the university goes. Is it too much to expect of putative adults to require them to be able to address clearly and substantively why they are protesting? I don’t think so. When the movement, mob, whatever you want to call it, starts defaulting to grad student insurance plans when you ask “what?” I can only conclude: “They got nothing!” When the first thing the hunger-striker alludes to is “Mike Brown’s murder,” when he was not murdered, I fairly conclude, “Well, this is all based on lies, distortions and political narratives devised to cause exactly these kinds of emotions.”

              That’s MY tipping point, UR. I’m a lawyer: I do not respect “my truth/ your truth” tricks. If the strike is about the racial injustice in Ferguson, which there was and is; if it is about systemic injustice, that’s important and fair—but don’t start with Mike Brown and his hands up. If the protest is really about the daily stresses and indignities of black life, don’t scapegoat Mizzou and its administrators, saying they should “do something,” when the only demands the protesters can come up with are boilerplate and eyewash that will do nothing.

              Protests are powerful weapons. I have written about that in many contexts. Protesters have an ethical obligation to be fair, clear, focused, and have an immediate purpose in mind. Otherwise they can be exactly like a child with a gun, power without responsibility. Can unfocused, unfair, emotional and excessive protests “do something”? Sure, and so can an angry kid with a gun.

              It’s a tipping point, I believe absolutely, because supporters of President Obama, primed by Obama himself since before he was even elected (“Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. “You know, he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name, you know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”) , cynically agreed that they would consistently attempt to increase his power and muzzle his critics by characterizing them as racially motivated. (And, critically, his supporters include most journalists.) If he had been even a barely competent leader, and he has not, by any fair assessment, this would not have mattered. But a group whose admiration, loyalty and identification with the first black President—and I understand that, because it is natural and human—have been told by that individual,because of his office and the history behind it, who symbolizes everything that white America is hostile to him…and thus THEM…based on color alone. After 8 years of this, no wonder they are angry and alienated. I would be, if, as Clarence Darrow in 1925 urged an all-white jury passing judgment on a black man, if I “made myself black for a moment.” Back in 2008, I predicted exactly this result, if the sick and cynical use of race-baiting didn’t stop…and here we are.

              A whole generation has been convinced by a political strategy that whites are hostile to them, hence an ignorant racist insult from some asshole is a stand in, according to a Missouri student leader, for society itself. He believes all whites are like that. If I blame anything on the university, it is being so ideologically imbalanced that he wasn’t taught otherwise.

              The tipping point is the product of Barack Obama poisoning race relations, maybe for decades, maybe forever, by being incompetent and arrogant, and for not having the character to accept accountability, hiding behind his race instead.

              When one’s hypothesis and analysis predicts a result, and that result occurs, one tends, legitimately, to see that hypothesis confirmed.

              Yes, its a tipping point, and has little to do with what happened or didn’t happen at Mizzou. A white university President, a Chancellor and two professors so far have lost their jobs because a far more competent President, or his supporters with his approval, decided to seed racial division and distrust for political gain.

    • “though I would argue that it isn’t, for the same reason that you can’t yell “fire in a crowded room” when there isn’t one”
      I’m curious what reason you think yelling fire in a crowded theater should not be allowed and how it relates to microaggressions. Justice Holmes used this analogy in an opinion upholding government censorship of political speech; specifically, upholding the right of the government to punish protesters who advocated against the draft during war time. It’s a decision that has been walked back repeatedly by successive supreme courts and is now seen as a low watermark for the rights of the people to protest since it was rendered. If your “same reason” corresponds to Justice Holmes’ rationale, then why not just give the government the power to decide what we can and can’t say and be done with it?

      • John, the first part of the sentence you’ve called out clearly accepts this as protected speech. The second part makes a side case for it being nebulous. I suppose we could go on about it, but given my initial sentence, I’m hoping we can leave it at that. The relationship to microaggressions is not as it relates to an individual, but to the effect that condoning such speech, free or not effects the university and its ability to continue being a place where students are free to express themselves, make mistakes, and grow from them. Offensive speech solely meant to harm is much different than offensive speech in the context of a debate. The racial epithets and waving of the confederate flag at a rally were clearly meant to provoke and intimidate. That type of speech, even if legal, is detrimental to the university, and it’s in their interest (and obviously the former leaders prior to being dismissed) to deal with it in a manor that doesn’t break the law, yet makes it clear that that sort of behavior is not acceptable. Universities can and should encourage a degree of civility on campus. The problem I have is that left unchecked, protected speech meant only to hurt can escalate into an incident that causes the university much greater harm. Ignoring this, or hiding behind the fact that it’s legal and protected doesn’t make it right or acceptable.

        • “The relationship to microaggressions is not as it relates to an individual, but to the effect that condoning such speech, free or not effects the university and its ability to continue being a place where students are free to express themselves, make mistakes, and grow from them. Offensive speech solely meant to harm is much different than offensive speech in the context of a debate.”

          You should re-read this. You’ve essentially implied that expression should be stifled so that students are free to express themselves.

          You assert that speech MEANT to ‘harm’ should be stifled while not stifling speech that unintentionally ‘harms’ such as something mentioned in a good faith debate. I’d submit that the line between the two is so gray that you cannot stifle “the bad” without stifling ALOT OF THE ‘good’. Nor can you trust the decision maker on what is acceptable vs what isn’t acceptable.

          You’d have a society even MORE on egg shells than before and a society incapable of discussing anything without fear of reprisal.

          Nope. Gonna just have to tolerate the assholes and grow a thick skin in order to be Free.

          • Assholes that don’t pose a threat are to be ignored or tolerated. Having a thick skin is fine. But at some point, the skin cracks and bleeds. Those that clearly say, “I intend to cause you harm” are no longer under the realm of protected speech, and should be dealt with. The role of the university is to protect itself from the potential disaster that comes when they fail to acknowledge or are tone deaf to such speech and the complaints that follow. Had Mizzou reacted early and with an interest in at least hearing what the students had to say, perhaps they would have taught them how to deal with the hate speech that occurred. Or perhaps the dialogue that would have grown out of such an effort would have limited the hateful speech. The intention is not to deny idiots from speaking their minds. It’s to make it clear what the implications of such actions are. They are not to be rewarded, and the university should seek to protect its interests.

            • “But at some point, the skin cracks and bleeds. Those that clearly say, “I intend to cause you harm” are no longer under the realm of protected speech, and should be dealt with.”

              Has there been any provable threats? Or just accusations with no substance? You see, in a just society, mere accusation isn’t enough. Evidence is required.

              “Had Mizzou reacted early and with an interest in at least hearing what the students had to say, perhaps they would have taught them how to deal with the hate speech that occurred.”

              Why on earth is it the job of a UNIVERSITY to re-teach something that should have been learned long ago? This is big boy house now – their task is educating complex and difficult concepts and skills. Not how to cope with interpersonal friction.

              This is a perennial problem in American education: the constant reviewing and reteaching of skills that SHOULD ALREADY BE MASTERED by the time one reaches a certain level.

              “The intention is not to deny idiots from speaking their minds. It’s to make it clear what the implications of such actions are. They are not to be rewarded, and the university should seek to protect its interests.”

              Wait…what?

              How is anyone rewarding jerks who say nasty things? Unless I presume you to mean that “not-punishing” equals “rewarding”…in which case, your 1st sentence and ‘solution’ is self-contradictory.

              • *This is a perennial problem in American education: the constant reviewing and reteaching of skills that SHOULD ALREADY BE MASTERED by the time one reaches a certain level.”

                Substance for a thread of its own, thanks.

              • Has there been any provable threats? Or just accusations with no substance? You see, in a just society, mere accusation isn’t enough. Evidence is required.- You men evidence like this? http://usat.ly/1SijpFM

                Why on earth is it the job of a UNIVERSITY to re-teach something that should have been learned long ago? This is big boy house now – their task is educating complex and difficult concepts and skills. Not how to cope with interpersonal friction.– Well because they’re college students and by definition, not fully formed. This isn’t big boy house. It’s kids playing and learning how to be big boys and girls. Hell, many of there parents are still calling professors to plead for grades and extensions to projects. (appalling) They’re learning and don’t always get it right. On either side. And we strive to all be life long learners. Expecting mastery of others on topics that you hold dear, or know well is a recipe for as Jack would say “exploding heads”.

                How is anyone rewarding jerks who say nasty things? Unless I presume you to mean that “not-punishing” equals “rewarding”– A poor choice of words on my part. The jerk who says nasty things should not simply be allowed to say them without consequence. Even if it’s a “shut the hell up”, ignoring the comment, which only works with some for so long, or as a last resort, fisticuffs. But that has other consequences…

        • “Offensive speech solely meant to harm is much different than offensive speech in the context of a debate.” But we’ve clearly demonstrated our continuing inability to distinguish between the two. Terms like “microagressions” are pretty good indicators of this.

          • Joe, you don’t understand…’microagression’ (there’s HT’s squiggly red line again)is when I hit somebody with a molecule.

            • I thought microagressions were those little cuts I get when I shave my head with a cheap razor, but I’m getting a clearer picture. And I think you’re trivializing the matter; vaginal silicosis ( sand in vagina or mangina) is no small matter. It’s the epidemic of the future. I suggest you ride the wave, and invest in topical corticosteroids and butt ointments.

    • Always a pleasure when you weigh in, UR. I wish we could debate more often about less raw issues. Replies….

      Be assured that I do not think we should simply ignore “Racial Biases, Slurs, Insults and “Microaggressions.” That’s what ethics are for. But biases are unavoidable: we address them with education and self-awareness. Slurs are uncivil and anti-social, but they are just words. They are never crimes, and they can only be punished according to specific legal limitations. Insults are no different, especially since they are inherently subjective. Micoaggressions can be intentional, accidental, reflex, or imagined. Some people don’t notice any social signals; others are hypersensitive. They are too easily manipulated,as shown by the recent video of the woman stopped by police for walking in the road. Her description of the encounter as “walking while black” harassment sis not fit what the camera revealed at all. Maybe she really felt the experience differently, but micro aggressions are too untrustworthy to be addressed. We all experience microaggressions. That’s the one item in the group that I would argue we should ignore, other than to resolve to try not to give off negative emanations to others.

      It all is protected speech. There’s no argument to make. It would be based on the theory that since race relations are so strained and volatile, a slur risks actual harm. That would only qualify in riot incitement scenarios, and that requires intent. By your looser standard, the conduct of the Mo. protesters isn’t protected.

      Ken White has written extensively on the Holmes opinion and its misuse–you’ll enjoy it. Here, and here.

      You are going to have to explain what substantively addressing periodic racial slurs would consist of that would not be oppressive. A statement that we should all be nice? People prone to racial slurs won’t be changes a bit; people who wouldn’t use a slur in a lifetime are just being insulted. What? Re-education camps? They hadn’t even identified who made the slurs. Jackie Robinson punched out an officer who called him a nigger, and that still seems as good a remedy as I’ve heard of, or just walking away.

      Yes, it could have been avoided—maybe—with deft and gutsy leadership. If a group’s position is that the school is racially insensitive for not endorsing “Hand Up! Don’t shoot!”, then I don’t think it was avoidable. A school has to teach critical thinking, not just follow mobs logic because students are caught up with it.

      “The now deposed system president came from a corporate background. Surely he must have known that failing to act, or properly deal with “customers” can lead to your dismissal.” Students aren’t customers. Not only isn’t “the student always right,” the student is there to be shown what he or she doesn’t understand. That model has pretty much destroyed higher education—weak standards, no rigor in courses, teachers desperate to please. If students are making outlandish demands, the duty of the leadership is to say: No. Back to class; there are students here who want an education. Ive seen attempted “engagements.” There is no give and take: either the administrator capitulates and grovels, or he is shouted down.

      “The university isn’t without fault here either. They likely would have continued to back their president had their money not been put at risk by the football team.” You’ll get no argument from me on that. Moreover, the leadership had to have noticed warning signs before this Fall.

      You say, “Until a sincere effort is made to address and solve these issues”—what issues? The students never identified issues, just three unrelated incidents. Their demands—more race quotas, more indoctrination on campus, scapegoating—those aren’t issues. The “issue” appears to be some imagined right to be “safe” from people who don’t like them and ideas and words they don’t care for. There isn’t one.

      Nor are these particular students “oppressed.” No student living on a college campus is oppressed; using that word cheapens real oppression, don’t you think? Butler, the hunger striker, is a rich kid and accusing others pr “privilege.” This was often the case in the Vietnam campus riots: rich kids who knew they had a safety net were doing the most outrageous protesting.

      The Mizzou episode trivializes serious efforts to address serious social problems, and for that, the students are 100% responsible. If there was ever a case where “pick your battles” says it all, this is it.

      • The Mizzou episode trivializes serious efforts to address serious social problems, and for that, the students are 100% responsible. We only disagree in that I feel the university has the ultimate responsibility to do the right thing. Many of these “college kids” still don’t have a fully developed brain. And I don’t mean that as an insult. But the adults and the leaders can’t fail to address this sort of thing, then blame the students for doing what students do. Sit in and civil disobedience on college campus’ is nothing new. But I’m not convinced that Mizzou has taken “serious efforts to address serious social problems-or campus problems for that matter. We also need to be willing to look beyond the three incidents that have gotten the media attention. The problem with microaggressions is that each individual slight can be trivialized, and the devils advocate can weigh in. But collectively they are quite harmful, and very legitimate. A failure to acknowledge this is nothing more than turning a blind eye. And lastly students are customers. Not in the traditional, strictly transactional sense, but they make a choice, and many of them have more than one option. And academia has become watered down, and administrators/teachers have capitulated and groveled. But certainly not in an effort to appease the student. It’s an attempt to preserve the cash. They sold their academic souls long ago. This could simply be another one of those chickens coming home to roost….

        • “We only disagree in that I feel the university has the ultimate responsibility to do the right thing.”

          Do we disagree on this? Or do we disagree on what “The Right Thing” is?

          • Ugh.

            It’s this type of response that bothers me alot. The implication that somehow the other side is the only one virtuous enough to be doing “the right thing” and that this side either is too lazy to care or worse actually fights against “the right thing”.

            When in reality, “The Right Thing” is far more complex than the typically stop-gap or misdirected “solution” that the other side insists MUST BE DONE.

            • It’s a cheap shot at discussion-ending by pretending to have the moral high ground. It’s ultimately a subtle well-poisoning.

              “Do we disagree on this? Or do we disagree on what “The Right Thing” is?”

              Is absolutely correct…the whole discussion is about finding “The Right Thing” not a discussion about urbanregor supporting the right thing and us opposing the right thing.

              • I originally read your post to mean that you were bothered by my comment…. I’m still not entirely sure you weren’t. I want to clarify that I had in fact meant that we need to have a conversation on what “The Right Thing” is before we start requiring people to do it.

              • I agree. Regardless of my personal feelings, I believe that the right thing on the part of the university, is certainly not to do nothing. When the football money was at stake, the “right thing” was done. Prior to that, I’d argue that the “right thing” to protect their interests was not done.

    • “…an arrest for threatening to kill blacks via the internet”? I don’t think such a threat is credible enough to warrant an arrest. Well, unless it really is possible to kill people via the internet, in which case we’re all in trouble.

      Sorry. I felt somebody had to do it.

  6. “If the leadership at the University of Missouri was competent and inclined to teach rather than pander, this would have been a learning experience.The lesson: In the U.S., you have a right to sound and act like a jerk.”

    Instead the learning experience is “In the US, you have the right to sound and act like a jerk if your politics are correct and you have the support of the media.” This means that any psychopath with a desire to do actual harm only has to make sure the harm is done under the guise of the current popular culture content.

  7. Which came first? Chicken or the egg? Intolerant media or individuals (or pack animals they be)? JMO – but the patient zero in this started with the individual who then choose to go into the media, community activism or any other niche when their behaviors were not only tolerated but expected. The idea is to place the rest of us on the defensive.

  8. The 911 operators or whoever takes the calls must be rolling their eyes now. “Mama, he said I was fat!” Come on! The police have better things to do like arrest the largely black criminals that prey on folks in black neighborhoods.

  9. First off, can we add “Do something” to your excellent list of rationalizations? It really seems like it should be on there, as it is often a precursor to, and justification for, unethical actions.

    Second, I find it amazing that for all their anti-cop rhetoric, they actually want to get the cops involved now. This amounts to an endorsement of crime, and guess what will happen when these young SJWs get arrested for abuse of the 911 system?

      • I think at this point, it deserves its own entry. Just as Jack has added other entries when a specific permutation of an existing rationalization has become pervasive enough, I think “Do Something” has become so ingrained in our culture that it deserves to be immortalized on its own. At any rate, I personally think the phenomenon is more closely related to the Barn Door Fallacy (attempting to solve a problem after the fact) than any of the rationalizations on the list.

        • “Someone Had to Do Something”

          or

          “Something Had to Be Done”

          or

          “At Least We’re Trying”

          or my ever favorite rebuttal by someone called out for proposing a gawdawful solution to a problem or a ‘solution’ to a non-problem is “Well, what solution to you propose?”

          Closely related to #13, 28, 31, & 40. Distantly related to #15, 22, 40

          Even more distantly related to #19a, 25, 37

          I agree now, I think it is worthy of contemplation and exposition.

          • The question is, is it a rationalization, or a genuine misconception? Sometimes “doing something” is vital. The only reason we didn’t have a revolution in the 30’s is that FDR was perceived as doing something, trying to fix the mess, even though it wasn’t working. But it was distracting and uplifting, or at least not dispiriting and discouraging.

  10. Freedom of Speech.

    1. A has a right to say “Nigger” – even though I don’t approve.
    2. B has a right to say “Microaggression” – even though I don’t agree
    3. C has the right to call out B for being thin-skinned – even though not being part of a genuinely put-upon minority, they’re somewhat clueless (and even though I think they’re still right in essence)
    4. D has a right to make this comment.

  11. Oh yes – more follow up to this debacle.

    http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6971

    ““If you don’t feel safe coming to class, then don’t come to class,” Dr. Brigham told his students. “I will be there, and there will be an exam administered in our class,” he continued, imploring his students to stand up to the bullies on campus. “If you give into bullies, they win. The only way bullies are defeated is by standing up to them.””

    Later

    ““The exam is cancelled. Our students will be able to take the exam at an alternate date with no loss of points,” Dr. Brigham told students. “No one will have to come to class today. And, I am resigning my position.”

    Student reactions

    ““His class was one of the most popular at Mizzou and he was the friendliest teacher I’ve ever had. It’s a shame that he’s leaving while Melissa Click stays,” the student continued. The student also told Campus Reform that campus was open and classes were being held, but “false KKK threats” caused a “panic” among students.

    Many Missouri students have taken to Twitter to voice their displeasure at Dr. Brigham’s departure, calling him “ the nicest guy,” and their favorite professor.”

  12. The bullies have indeed won.

    However, not all threats by the KKK and fellow-travellers are just words. If they were, the panic wouldn’t have happened. It only takes a 1% reality to make the 99% of hoaxes plausible.

    See TSA, Dept of Homeland Security, 2nd Amendment etc.

  13. I can see how these casual, trivial triggers — word, gesture, dashed expectation (i.e. hair curler not in place when hair-curling desired, or not invited to the ball even after hair curled; hairdo being called out as a wannabe ‘fro) — result in Posts of Fury, or how the responses to POFs which serve only to aggravate the poster’s vexation and disgruntlement can turn into micro-nano-femto-atto-zepto-yoctoaggressions.

    First of all, we know that a response to a POF that acknowledges the fury, that hits on all points, is calm, well reasoned, reinforced with proofs, and gives all benefit of doubt is most likely to get a fuck-you-and-your-political-leaning/education/espertise and the horse you rode in on . . . and a slam of the door as POFfer exits the blog.

    …Only to return some time later — depending on how fast his computer is or whether he stopped to finish the bottle, or bang his head against the wall — with counter-arguments quoted from the “expert” which he found on Google by running a search for “person with professional-sounding organization name who agrees with me.” There’s always one.

    We also know that calling out a POF by being argumentative, derisive, insulting, or picky (choosing one point in particular to rag on), or via Vygotsky-Banduran analysis simply invites more ffing defense of both original POF and responses to it. POFfers always make room for escalation.

    Then too, stealing a POF’s thunder with a longer, stronger post on the same sort of presumably unpleasant trivia, paranoia,or happening unattributable to any particular person, bias or cause doesn’t help either. The next POF will have added this to its arguments; the more the angrier.

    Of course, zero response would seem to do the trick. But it doesn’t solve the problem. (It’s also hard on the commenters who notice it, twitch about it, think it over, and finally realize they would be wasting time responding to it.)

    Naturally, POFs from Jack are Last Words, whether the poor poster who engendered it knows that or not, and no matter how long it takes to blog him into submission.

    After studying the blog themes and Comments for several hours, breaking down the minimalist whines into empirically proveable evidence, I have a solution. I am assuming — arguably, I admit — that POFs focusing on these minuscule aggressions might be the output, primarily, of lonely, poorly socialized, self-isolating, malnourished, easily startled people, frequently with impaired hearing or eyesight. My initial theory: Removing all at once the means by which they communicate their Fness — their electronic communication devices, envelopes and stamps, and access to all public computers or friends with such. This theory was abandoned as cruel, traumatic, complicated and probable theft (unless done by a hitherto loved one, in which case it becomes prime fodder for a family-centered POF).

    NO. The answer is to forcibly remove you, the POFfer, from the computer, temporarily, just long enough for a friend, relative or stranger (perhaps a homeless person who could use a sandwich) to be brought in to listen to the complaint first. You must speak, face to face with the speaker. Before a finger touches keyboard or screen, preferably in a standing position; ideally, outdoors by a noisy expressway or the zoo at feeing time. Now, explain why you got your labia in a knot over whatever it is. Add in all the information irrelevant to the initial complaint. If, for instance, the natural peanut butter you made went rancid because other dorm-dwellers left it out of the refrigerator for a month while you were on a natto-bean diet, and it was on purpose, because you’re an Irish-Inuit trying to get into the Other category to qualify for entry to swimming pool lanes on both Swimmers-of-Color day and regular days, and you lost your swim cap last Tuesday but saw one just like it while walking past an Asian girl you think is a SoC member reading a magazine that advertised peanut butter … well, try talking that all out vis-a-vis, explicating unto deep background.

    I guarantee you, the fury will abate. So will the desire to devise a post about it. If all goes really well, you will use any left-over energy to shell a new batch of peanuts and crush them, jar the sticky mess and label “Please Refrigerate” on each; and make a new jarful for each member of the SoC, letting them know that there might could be free high-protein pb in their futures on a regular basis . . . .

    Of course, the difficulty of carrying out this simple, brilliant scheme is getting someone to do the um-hmming, nodding, raising an eyebrow, looking upward without lifting the head, staring into the other’s eyes sadly while tightening the lips, chin raised slightly, and every so often opening the mouth as if to speak, but nodding a go-ahead to the speaker instead. All this without resorting to hands folded over nose and mouth in silent snarky smiling prayer.

    The problem is getting the Listener to leave his computer in the first place. You won’t get me from mine.

  14. The problem is really quite simple. These people want to live in a world where everyone pays them a basic amount of respect. Nobody’s disagreeing with that except the jerks who sparked this whole thing.

    That said, the powder keg exists because the people who are making demands don’t know how to move between paradigms, look around at how other people see things, then bring those other people back with them into their own paradigms. This skill is called empathy, and it is the individualization of interactions; the antithesis to rules. It’s not something that comes naturally to everyone, it takes finesse, it comes with its own dangers and limitations, and many people don’t seem to think it can even be done.

    The only alternative to empathy, then, is to impose semantic structures. If you don’t use their paradigm, they will impose it by fiat and by force, because they don’t know any other way to get people to use it, and they certainly don’t know how to change their own paradigm in response to critiques. These demanding people know how to move within their own paradigm just fine, and they know how to generalize interactions through rules; they’re just trying to generalize interactions that shouldn’t be generalized, and they’re using a bunch of junk axioms.

    The key to stopping this trend ultimately lies in all the mindsets, but the most prominent ones will be empathy, to connect with people and get them to listen; analysis, to dissect their paradigms and identify their flaws; and synthesis, to imagine better alternatives and offer hope so that people don’t feel so desperate.

    Also, I should definitely give a shout out to Prince Ea (a master of the three aforementioned mindsets, plus operation and no doubt others) for making an incisive and inspiring spoken-word video calling on people to eschew using or accepting personal labels. It can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0qD2K2RWkc

  15. This is a tangential question. I liked your phrase “[become self-sufficient, confident and] not to be at the mercy of bullies, assholes and fools all their lives”. I am writing because I never really learned to do this. I know you don’t have 10-15 years to teach through example, but if you were my dad, what advice would you give me to learn how to do this? Because I realize that those 3 groups are never going to disappear, they’re not just among one’s high school classmates, but everywhere from your work colleagues to your children’s friends’ parents to your fellow nursing home residents.

    How do you learn to fight back on their level? (or, a level they understand, or at any rate a level that protects you from being “at their mercy”??)

    Thank you.

    • My father, who was bullied badly as a child, taught me that the key was to make the bully respect you, Sometimes you do it by showing you are willing to fight back. Sometimes you do it by showing character in other ways. (And, he said, there are also vicious psychopaths that just enjoy hurting people, respect of not.”)

      I got good at the technique myself—I had an advanced sense of humor, and joked while being bullied, which the bullies appreciated. and I also outsmarted them. Two big guys used to snatch my clip-on tie (I know, I know) in the 9th grade and play keep-away with it, humiliating me. One day before the class change where this always happened, I went to my locker and switched ties to one that I had carefully rigged with about 20 sewing needles in the back. The first jerk grabbed the tie so hard it was stuck to his hand He screamed, grabbed it with his other hand to get the needles out, stuck THAT hand, finally threw it down, and then the other idiot grabbed it, and he was stuck, They were both bleeding so much they had to go see the nurse. About 20 students saw all this, and applauded. I carefully picked up the booby-trapped tie, clipped on the safe one, and bowed.

      I never had any trouble with the two boys after that.

      • We all know that’s the sterilized version. What really happened is you found out the boys’ addresses and one night, while they slept, you forced them into a car and took a trip to the nearby woods. Only you came back. then the next day at school the classmates applauded.

        • My dad was bullied because he kept having to move (The Depression) and in every school, the new kid was always a target, and the bottom of the totem pole. Bullying was far more common then, and considered something you just dealt with. In my case, it was being the smart, verbal kid in glasses who wasn’t much good in sports who was always talking in class and whom the teachers loved. Most of my Dad;s bullying was physical, being beaten up every day. I was never assaulted. I never really though of myself as being bullied, though by current standards, that’s what it would be called today.

          • I think, to an extent, EVERY child bullies. Naturally on a continuum, some bully more than others, several MUCH more so. Bullying is simply a component of the barbarism every child is born with that must be trained out of them by their parents seeking to turn them into Civilized adults.

                • Or inclusion. Believe it or not.

                  I have a sneaky suspicion that many bullies feel themselves near the omega status of any group and feel they can bolster their own non-omega “security” by picking someone else notionally on the “margins” that they can cow into omega status.

                  • Thanks Tex. I’ve been thinking a lot about bullying from my grade school days. One particularly involved me and my classmate (who is now a Reagan appointed U.S. District Court judge) literally running off a gay kid who appeared at our Catholic grade school by hounding him to his house one day after school and spitting on him in front of his mother as she opened the door. Just awful. The kid never came back and we were never even spoken to about it. What the hell was that all about? Were we just garden variety sixth grade savages?

      • With respect to the tie/bullying – perfect!

        Who has authority/power and how they use or abandon it at Mizzou keeps my head spinning. Kristoff in NYT opinion piece titled “Mizzou, Yale and Free Speech” said “students – especially football players – used their clout to oust the university’s system president. They used leadership …to rectify a failure of leadership.”

        Sounds more like extortion/bullying than clout/leadership.

        It will be interesting to see what happens at Mizzou in coming months – number of students transferring and teachers resigning.

        What do the students think they are accomplishing – forcing Mizzou to be a better space for everyone or destroying their school’s credibility/ability to function as a place of higher learning.

        What a complete mess.

  16. This whole issue is meaningless. I will take it seriously when Al and Jesse show.

    I was a small kid and a few bullies would pick a fight. My father had been a boxer and worked with me. I got the snot kicked out of me a few times, but the bullies paid a price. Find another target. But it did instill in me a sense of what is right and wrong in the social pecking order. I never hesitated to step in and by high school kids who could crush me would back off when I stepped in to someone being bullied.

    • Where are Al and Jesse these days? They seem to be flumoxed into silence by the Bureau of Land Management, er, the Black Lives Movement. Interesting, non?

      • I have a theory on that. The BLM won’t deal with them so they can’t deal with the BLM so they can’t turn around and go to their corporate extortion victims, er shakedown targets, er, clients and say they can protect them from the BLM. For a fee. It must be driving Al and Jesse NUTS. I can just hear Jesse saying to Al of the BLM kids, as he did our current President, “I’d like to cut their nuts off!” (How did he ever get a pass on that?)

  17. By sharp contrast, here is a Facebook post from Samantha Justine Rice, who makes a living flipping burgers inside food trucks (per her Facebook profile) after her curling iron was stolen.

    Someone smashed my window in last night but only stole my curling iron…. Burn in hell fucking retard

    How does a burger flipper come off with more common sense than an alleged scholar?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.