Persona Non Grata: Yale Professor Who Defended Kavanaugh Is Reportedly Sanctioned Without Notice Or Explanation

Professor Amy Chua was by all accounts a popular and accomplished teacher at Yale Law School.  Chua’s life (and standing) however seemed to change dramatically in 2018 when she published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Kavanaugh Is a Mentor To Women.” She reports that she instantly became a pariah at the school and in the academy.  Now, Chua is alleging that she was subject to the removal from small first-year classes in an action that lacked the most basic guarantees of notice and due process.

Chua’s allegations has received little attention outside of conservative sites but they raise very serious questions about the basis and handling of claims made against her. Indeed, Chua has alleged that the core allegation is demonstrably false.

Chaua alleges that material from her personnel file was leaked to a student journalist who knew of her punishment before she did.  In a rebuttal memo, Chua pointed out what see said were glaring errors in the Yale Daily News article by Julia Brown. The article began with the announcement:

“Law professor Amy Chua will no longer be leading a first-year small group at the Yale Law School next year after students raised allegations that she is still hosting private dinner parties at the home she shares with her husband, suspended law professor Jed Rubenfeld, despite having agreed in 2019 to cease all out-of-class hours interactions with students.”

In her memo to the whole faculty, Chua recounts how she was shocked by the article and the inclusion of non-public information. She objects that “Confidential information about my agreement with Heather has been disclosed to students or the press.To this day, ten days after I was removed from next year’s Small Group roster, I still have received no explanation whatsoever from the Dean’s Office about why this decision was made.” She denied having a federal judge at her house for a party or having any such parties with students during the pandemic.

When Chua reached out to Law School Dean Heather Gerken, Chua says that the Dean confirmed what was in the article on her punishment and confronted her on these claims.

If true, that would seem a curious approach of any school, let alone a law school. Chua insists that she was never given an opportunity to refute the allegations and that non-public facts (and the punishment) were leaked to the media before she was informed of the decision.

Chua says that the article conflated and misconstrued core facts. It specifically alleges that Chua violated an agreement in a 2019 letter to cease drinking and socializing with students outside of class. This was tied to a two-year suspension reportedly imposed on her husband, Professor Jed Rubenfeld, for alleged verbal harassment, unwanted touching and attempted kissing of students — allegations that Rubenfeld has denied.

Chua claims that Gerken repeated the false claim in the Zoom meeting that she had hosted a federal judge at her home and other parties. She says that the claim is “insane” and never happened.  That would seem a material fact that a law school might want to confirm before imposing such a sanction, let alone before someone improperly leaked the information to the press. Chua wrote:

As I wrack my brain to try to imagine what “dinner parties” with students they could possibly be referring to, I can only think of a few possibilities—all of which I not only stand by, but am proud of. As many of you know, there were a number of serious crises for our students in the last few months, including a student sending racist and terrifying violent messages to other students (and then disappearing), accusations of racism at the Law Journal, and most recently the outburst of anti-Asian violence that’s been in the news. In the midst of these events, a few students in extreme distress reached out to me, feeling that they had no one else to turn to, many of them feeling that the law school administration was not supporting them. Because we could not meet in the law school building, we met at my house, and I did my best to support them and console them. One of the students had received death threats; another student was sobbing because of violence directed at her mother. Jed was not present. On my own time, I’ve responded to students’ cries for help and tried my hardest to mentor and comfort students in times of crisis when they feel hopeless and alone—and for this, it appears, I’m being punished and publicly humiliated without anything remotely resembling due process.

It is impossible to judge the merits of these allegations from such statements in letters or articles. However, that is the point. There is no indication that Yale bothered to confirm these facts with the full participation of Professors Chua and Rubenfeld. The leaking of the story and inclusion of non-public information further shows evidence of animus against Chua.

The actions against Chua also seem in sharp contrast to other faculty like CNN analyst and Yale lecturer Asha Rangappa who was accused of doxing a student critic. Other Yale professors have engaged in equally controversial commentary like declaring Trump guilty of genocide. The concern of many conservative or libertarian faculty members is that any claim or alleged error will result in investigations and sanctions. A type of zero tolerance environment for any controversies involving faculty with opposing views. Yale, like most top law schools, has few conservative or libertarians on its faculty.  Intellectual balance at most of these law schools seems increasingly to run from the left to the far left.

The main concern however is not ideology but clarity in how such cases are handled. One high-profile Yale professor was recently terminated but her case actually raises similar issues on the lack of clarity over standards applied by the university.  Dr. Bandy Lee, a former faculty member in the School of Medicine and Yale Law School, spent four years violating the “Goldwater Rule” by offering faux diagnoses of President Trump from afar.  Neither Yale law school nor its medical school made any objection.  However, after receiving a letter from Alan Dershowitz about her similar diagnosis of his mental state, Lee was finally let go. There is no explanation of the standard applied and why it did not apply during the prior four years when Lee was one of the most high visibility faculty members at the law school. Even though I wrote numerous columns criticizing Lee for her unethical conduct, I remain concerned about the unclear grounds for her termination and the implications for free speech. There seems a lack of notice and clarity on the governing rules for faculty engaging in public debates outside of the school. Like the Chua case, it all seems dangerously improvisational and informal.

Professor Chua has demanded an investigation and, in my view, the entire faculty should support that demand. Whatever is found to be true about the merits, there is little question about the abusive process. The lack of notice and due process is chilling. When combined with the leak, it is hard not to see this action as hostile and retaliatory.

198 thoughts on “Persona Non Grata: Yale Professor Who Defended Kavanaugh Is Reportedly Sanctioned Without Notice Or Explanation”

  1. In fact, there were many different revolutions, but I think the turning point was the French Revolution, a fact that would be hard to dispute, really. So I can say for myself that it is better of course to go straight to the profile materials about this and you can read this information https://studydriver.com/french-revolution-essay/ from reliable sources. Besides, these essays are very well written, I even took them for my thesis.

      1. Soros especially hated it that a lady from Harvard dared to question his methods of global chaos and mastery.

        They have been out to get her for a long time.

        Her book “Tiger Mom” was hated by the Left too, because she dared to advocate teaching children with srong discipline.

        Globalists all want us weak and stupid, so that was a no-no.

  2. Someone at Yale wore a hat with the initials WPMT. His tee-shirt said White People Matter Too!

  3. antonio, in your 3:38 PM comment, you’ve plagiarized copyrighted material from Taki’s Magazine. Expect Darren to delete it. If you want to repost SOME of it, you’ll also need to abide by fair use.

    1. Credentials: Yale 1968. DKE. Friend of George Bush. Final word: Yale has really gone to hell. Woke Yale.

      1. Acromion – Did George “Grecians” Bush regale you with stories about his trips to Mexico, blacking out from al k, and all those friendly senoritas he spent time with?
        What about all the time he spent at the coke machine? When he was Governor, he is believed to have spent many of his woke hours playing video games – fortunately, due to his cranial horsepower, George could conduct the (rich) peoples’ business even while playing Mario.
        His intellectual prowess was exceeded only by the business acumen he used to get sweetheart business deals – some of which were lucrative e.g. Texas Rangers.

  4. Do you think Joe or Hunter Biden could be considered for a position on the court? I’m sure they’d have plenty of great character references.

  5. It’s simple really. At this point, civil war in the only viable option. Liberal vs conservatives. And by war, yes, I mean real war.

    1. @anonymous

      It may well come to that but all I will say is that I prefer an amicable divorce and peaceful separation. And if we “deplorables” are so hopelessly evil, leftists should be glad to be rid of us.

      antonio

      1. It’s interesting that you keep characterizing yourself as a deplorable, antonio

        Here’s what Clinton said:
        “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.
        “But the “other” basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and – as well as, you know, New York and California – but that “other” basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but – he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.”

        Are you saying that you’re “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic” (or some non-empty subset)?

        I gather you don’t consider yourself in the other half, “people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they’re just desperate for change.”

    2. Declaration of Independence

      “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

      1. Thank you

        I am not expecting a civil war per se.

        First outside of the politically connected military leadership – the majority of the military has no reason to get invovled.

        The left has alienated much of law enforcement throughout the country, much of the military – aside from the politically connected leaders.

        I think one of the reasons that Jan 6 scares the $hit out of the left is because even though it was disorganized and chaotic it came far to close to accomplishing meaningful change.

        What more would have been needed to prevent congress from certifying the election ?

        What if protestors had occupied the capital – as protestors did to the wisconsin capital in 2012 ?

        What if protestors had been armed but peaceful ?

        Do you think the capital police or the national guard are prepared to fire on middle aged armed protestors peacefully occupying congress ?

        We are not likely to see a civil war in the traditional sense.

        The big problems are that the left is far better at messaging – and the media is sock puppets for the left.
        The next problem is that the left is much better at infiltration and disruption.

        Antifa seems to be capable of making anything that they know about turn violent.

        I think a successful 2nd american revolution need not be very large today – so long as it has clear and modest goals.

        Such as the restoration of limited and constitutional government.

        What happens if half a million people descend on the mall, demand a series of already popular constitutional amendments,
        An end to mailin voting, secure in person elections counted in public and immediate new elections of the entirety of congress.

        I would further note that there can be two different “revolution” vectors.

        The first as above is something like the tea party of a decade ago.
        The 2nd is more chaotic. The tactics of the left are quite easy to use against them.

        If you really beleive the 2020 election was lawless and fraud ridden – it may not be possible to “fix” that through normal methods.

        But the very fraud and weaknesses in the election can be just as easily exploited by the “anti-left”.

        You can listen to the experts who testified about how they would go about detecting fraudulent ballots in the 2020 election.
        This is fascinating and their skills and techniques are pretty remarkable.

        But they are also painting a roadmap for disrupting the fraud of the left.

        Regardless, the point is that revolution can be accomplished by demanding order be restored.
        It can also be accomplished by sewing chaos and bringing the system to its knees.

        The reddit gamestop insurrection was instructive.

        The point is that the opponents of the left have many approaches to thwart the left.

        Leftism is inherently weak and fragile. It is not hard to cause it to fail much faster than it would naturally.

        One way to restore order is to demostrate how leftism leads to chaos.

        Our founders engaged in one of the first guerilla wars

        A 2nd american revolution need not be fought with guns.

      2. You think an evenly split Senate and a closely split House, combined with President you don’t want, is “absolute Despotism”?

        Hahahaha!

        1. No – but activist government without supermajority public support is despotism.

          You are not free to restrict the rights of individuals by force without justification.
          A simple majority is all that is necescary to increase individual freedom.
          But a supermajority is one of many requirements to decrease individual liberty.

          We can not as an example in a criminal context – take away a persons life, their liberty and in many instances their property without due process – proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the unanimous decision of 12 jurors.

          That is the standard required to restrict individual liberty.
          When your policies have that kind of support – you may impose them by force.

          Doing so without that support is DESPOTISM.

    3. No!

      I am neither, and I have friends and family on both sides. Civil war far too often leads to the rise of a despot.

      1. If Biden doesn’t stop the storming of the border, you can be sure that something is going to happen. The percentage of foreign born immigrants reached its height in 1915 at 15% of the population; we are soon to exceed that which sets the scene for mega-instability.

          1. I am not inherently opposed to immigration.

            I think a credible argument can be made for “open borders” – immigration similar to what we had in much of the 19th century.

            But that does not mean we must accept criminals and terrorists, and even during the most unfettered periods of US immigration – you had to be healthy.

            Nor does that mean that just because you have crossed a US boarder that you are entitled to anything from the rest of us.

            A man said to the universe:
            “Sir, I exist!”
            “However,” replied the universe,
            “The fact has not created in me
            A sense of obligation.”

            Even citizens should not be entitled to more from government than “the rule of law” – our retirement, our healthcare, …. are each of our individual responsibilities. But accepting the entitlements system that we currently have – it can not be extended beyond citizens without bankrupting us all.

            When the left is prepared to eliminate government entitlements – or restrict them to citizens, as well as to shed minimum wage laws and the like – then we can have a discussion about open borders.

            In the meantime – we enforce the laws we have. President Biden has sworn to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land.
            That includes the current immigration laws. Failure to do so is a violation of his oath of office.

            Those on the left or right that do not like the laws we currently have – can pass legislation to change them.

            1. It’s a sin that we have thousands of homeless veterans, yet if you can make it illegally over the border, Joe Biden will put you up in a hotel room, feed you and then have you flown to wherever you want. The American people deserve better. Illegal aliens are taking advantage of our country and citizens. This will not end well.

              1. “if you can make it illegally over the border, Joe Biden will put you up in a hotel room, feed you and then have you flown to wherever you want.”

                That’s not true.

                    1. Only 2% of families with children are being deported. Yes – criminals are shown the door ASAP (assuming AOC isn’t advocating for them to remain.)

                    2. Yup.

                      But the link was to point out that Anonymous was once again LYING.

                    3. Most of the posters on the left make claims – either from the top of their heads or that some talking head fed them.
                      They never bother to ask – does this make sense ? or to check the facts.

                    4. Biden deported about 2300 people in March. Last I heard there were something like 170,000 detained border crossers in march alone.

                      Deportations are 1/5 of what they were under Trump and border crossings are something like 5 times greater.

                      “Since it’s not true for most, and part of it is not true at all, it’s not true.”
                      Logical error.

                      The converse is true – if it is not true for any – then it is not true for some.

                      You said “None are “flown to wherever you want.””
                      That is false.

                      https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/biden-is-now-flying-illegal-immigrants-to-their-relatives-in-the-us

                      Trump did put illegal immigrants into motels while holding them awaiting deportation.
                      That stopped when ordered by a federal judge.

                      Biden is doing it again – but he is NOT holding them for deportation – as noted, deportation is DOWN by a factor of 5.

              2. just to be clear – those coming north to america are not asking for hotel rooms.

                They are trying to break into the “land of opportunity”.

                I do not have a problem with that. They are little different from those who made the country in the first place.

                The FACT that illegal immigrants are coddled and swaddled is the responsibility of the idiots on the left.

                I fully support nearly open borders – but NOT until we end enough of the entitlements system such that immigrants are coming for freedom, not a free ride.

          1. @anonymous

            And when the 2nd great wave of immigrants came to the US between 1880 – 1924 there was no welfare state, official bilingualism, multiculturalism and anti-majority propaganda. Immigrants were expected to adopt to the majority culture and society. Many could not, in fact about 1/3 returned to Europe for various reasons. It is a fallacy to assume to that because immigration may have been good at an earlier time, it will always and forever be so.

            BTW – my family were born outside of the US; had to adapt and gladly did so. English is my 2nd language.

            I suggest you have a look at http://www.numbersusa.com or https://cis.org/ but you won’t. You’ll just call me a racist. Hate to break it to the left but I need no one’s guidance on how I am allowed to think.

            antonio

            1. I do not think the current times inherently make immigration bad.

              But as you note – current entitlements make large scale immigration unsustainable.

            2. “you won’t.”

              I did. You’re very bad at pretending to read my mind or predict my behavior.

              “You’ll just call me a racist. ”

              You keep lying about this. We’ve interacted a bunch of times, and I haven’t called you a racist. Your choice to repeatedly lie about me is one of the reasons I consider you a troll.

              “I need no one’s guidance on how I am allowed to think.”

              You’re allowed to think whatever you want, as is everyone else. You can have whatever opinions you want, as can everyone else. People may disagree about which opinions are good or wise. You can also have false beliefs about factual matters (not opinions), as can everyone else.

              1. You do not seem to grasp that all the things you say people are free to do,
                They are not actually free to do, the moment that you decide that you can impose your will on others by force.

                We have 3rd graders being taught wokism and critical race theory in 3rd grade math classes

                How is it that you expect real freedom to survive forced indoctrination and propaganda ?

          2. According to the United Nations the US has the largest foreign born population – and no other country comes anywhere near the US.

            There are currently 48M foreign born amaericans. The next closest country is Germany with 1/4 as many.

            The left has more recentlhy been gaming the measures of diversity – because by any normal measure of diversity the Anglosphere is just about the only non-monoculture in the world – the the US as the most diverse country in the world.

            1. “the US has the largest foreign born population”

              The US has the third largest population in the world. Only India and China have larger populations. Given the widely ranging population sizes of different countries, it makes more sense to compare %s, not absolute numbers.

              “by any normal measure of diversity the Anglosphere is just about the only non-monoculture in the world”
              “the the US as the most diverse country in the world.”

              Claims for which you’ve provided no evidence (and no, having the largest foreign born population does not in itself make it the most diverse population).

              1. Anonymous to John Say: “Claims for which you’ve provided no evidence (and no, having the largest foreign born population does not in itself make it the most diverse population).”

                You disputed John’s claim which if isn’t correct is close to correct because there are so many ways of measuring the claim. What anonymous has done is to criticize another argument which is reasonably true, but anonymous provides no counter argument or data. That is akin to trolling and is destructive to reasonable discussion. It is a way for one without much knowledge to make himself appear significant. Done once or twice is understandable but when a rapid fire poster does that from morning to night, one knows the poster is intentionally being uselessly provocative without benefit to anyone.

                1. There is a very good reason for not measuring diversity by percent of population.

                  And that is because there is no real standard for what constitutes diversity. Nor is it measured uniformly.

                  As I noted – numerous statitics list Canada is the most diverse country in the world – because the population is largely english and french.

                  In other words – mostly two different white groups. Not to Piss on Canada – they take large numbers of immigrants from arround the world – but not nearly the numbers or percentages that the US does.

                  All of the “anglosphere” is more diverse than the rest of the world.

                  China as an example has over 100 ethnic minorities – but Hahn Chinese make 95% of the population.

                  Regardless, every single person in the US is descended from immigrants – even the Indians arrived about 9,000 years ago (and murdered and drove out those who were here at the time).

                  Further very few americans can trace their ancestry to the founders and even less to slave holders.

                  Even at the time of the revoltion – the country was made of Germans, and dutch, and english and scotch and french.

                  Regardless by the start of the 20th century most americans descended from people who immigrated after the revoltuion.

                  Most sites that claim the US is low on diversity – pretend that all europeans are a monculture – only when measuring diversity in the US,.

                  The reason for not using percents is the sites that track that data do so badly and without standards and in a deliberatly biased fashion

              2. I am deliberately NOT comparing “percents” – because as is common in the past decade the left has taken over wikipedia and many other sources and cooked the books.

                Canada as an example is considered one of the most diverse countries in the world – because it is made up primarily of french and english descendants, the actual meaningful diversity is low.

                This of course ignores the fact that almost everyone in the united states descended from immigrants from countries across the world.
                Most white Americans are NOT of English descent. They are Irish, and Polish, and french, and Italian, and more recently eastern European. Further only 62% of Americans are even white.

                While you are correct that diversity would be best measured as a percentage of the population – we do not have a source that provides that data in a trustworthy fashion.

                I noted the artificial inflation of diversity in Canada – Absolutely Canada should get credit for managing a large english/french split.
                But that is just not the same as the US were 40% of the country is not white, and even the whites come from everywhere.
                Russia is also being credited for high diversity – because there are lots of eastern european immigrants in russia.
                That is just not all that meaningful.

                The fact that 48M americans were not born here and that about as many more are first or 2nd generation immigrants is actually meaningful.

                1. “While you are correct that diversity would be best measured as a percentage of the population – we do not have a source that provides that data in a trustworthy fashion.”

                  Then just say “we don’t know what country is most diverse” instead of saying “the US as the most diverse country in the world.”

                  1. Anonymous to appear significant you are a nit picker.and a broken spoke in a wheel. There isn’t much use for either.

                    John Say provided information of substance. You did not.

                    1. It is not just nit picking – it is really bad nit picking.

                      It takes very little to grasp that a country that has for most of its 250 years had more foreign born than native born, and that those foreign born came from different places in the world at different times.

                      I am a 62 year old white male of scotch-irish descent – with germans, jews, and vikings in my ancestory. But no english, no french, no italians.

                      My earliest american ancestor was irish and arrived just before the Civil war (and fought in it).

                    2. “My earliest american ancestor was irish and arrived just before the Civil war (and fought in it).”

                      John, my family is from two different hemispheres arriving quite recently where many were immigrants. My wife is an immigrant who literally fought her way here. The horrors she left along with her journey make one shiver. Her gift by the school system was a set of flash cards to help her learn English. That is it. The rest was up to her.

                      She has looked at a few of the comments by those on the left and she called most of the people writing them fatuous imbeciles. She is right. Most have been given one of the best gifts a person can get, American Citizenship, and they throw it in the toilet.

                    3. Life is not fair. Some of us win the lottery of life and through no merit of our own are given the priviledge of US citizenship.

                      Those on the left rant about white priviledge – In SOME places in the world this does exist, but the impact is inconsequential in comparison to the priviledge of US citizenship.

                      Regardless, each of us has myriads of priviledges.

                      Intelligence is a gift, not a right – though it can be wasted.
                      Athletic skills are a gift.
                      There are a wide variety of talents that are all gifts.

                      We do not earn these. We do not deserve them – we are priviledged to have them.
                      Those who do not are disadvantaged.

                      Life is not fair. Railing that is so is railing at the wind.

                      The value of the priviledge of US citizenship is enormous.

                      My daughter was born in china, our adoption made her a US citizen. Her life would have been radically different but for that.

                      I am very conscious of that.
                      At the same time that brings with it the awareness that even my own citizenship is the happy accident of being born here.
                      It is a priviledge. My life would be radically different – almost certainly much poorer if I was born elsewhere.

                      I do not see the immigrants – legal or otherwise trying to get into this country as inherently different from myself – except they do not have the same priviledge or citizenship I do.

                      If I could I would give the entire world that priviledge – that advantage.
                      But I can not.

                      Again life is not fair.

                      further we can not make it fair.

                      Allowing anyone to become a US citizen as things currently stand would destroy the priviledge. It would harm those fortunate enough to have it.

                      While it may not seem fair – we do not have the legitimate power to diminishes the priviledges of others.

                      Are we free to hamstring superior athletes – so they are equal to others ?
                      May we lobotomize the intelligent.
                      Break the fingers of talented musicians ?

                      Despite the fact that life is not fair and priviledges are not doled out anywhere close to equally – we have no right to take them from those who have them. Nor in most instances can we give them to those who do not.

                      I would further note that while the priviledge of US citizenship is incredibly valuable – poor americans are better off than the media in the rest of the world. All priviledges are not of equal value.

                      When we look at statistical outcomes by race in the US and regress for the quintile of your family, or completing HS education, or chosing not to commit crimes or choosing the get a job before getting married, and get married before having kids we find no statistical difference in outcomes between whites and blacks.

                      BTW we can look at other “priviledges” and get similar results. For women overall when we regress to compare apples to apples women are paid about 0.03/$ less than men for similar jobs. But if we group by age we find that older women more significantly underperform men, but that outside of STEM fields women under 40 outperform men today.

                      Whatever white priviledge is – it is nowhere near the value of the priviledge of US citizenship.
                      Whatever Male priviledge is – it is small and gone within younger cohorts.

                  2. “Then just say “we don’t know what country is most diverse” instead of saying “the US as the most diverse country in the world.””

                    Because we DO KNOW. The fact that the idiots reporting percentages can not even report those using the same consistent methods, does not mean that we do not know.

                    If we ignore a few tiny island nations – the US has 15% of its population RIGHT NOW that is foreign born.

                    While that is the same as Europe as a whole and a few other places in the world, the picture diverges sharply when we look at 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants.

                    The US has had numerous waves of large scale immigration since its Jamestown and Plymouth.

                    Even the claim that the US is 62% “white” is deceptive – those Whites are germans, poles, Irish, Italian, english, swedes, even hispanic caucasions.

                    In germany 15% of the population is foreign born – the rest are GERMAN. The same in France.

                    The anglosphere as a whole does far better than the rest of the world – The UK, Canada, Austrailia, New Zealand – even Hong Kong and Singapore not only have lots of recent imigrants – they have a multi century history of immigration.

                    Absolutely the US has Xenophobic elements – today and in the past. But much of the rest of the world has ALWAYS been Xenophobic and continues to be so today.

                    In much of the world being born there does not confer citizenship.

                  1. It is not that Anonymous is a nit picker – it is that he is wrong.

                    While he is occasionally correct – not often, about his nits.

                    They have little or nothing to do with the debate.

                    This debate was about diversity – and the US is inarguably the most diverse country in the world.

                    My personal background provided in a different post is white – but it is not English.

                    I sometimes get Peeved at the left’s “white priviledge” nonsense.

                    I am 17% jewish – the left seems to think that jews are children of priviledge.

                    The largest part of my makeup is Celtic.

                    It has not been that long since the Irish were 2nd class citizens.
                    Anti-Irish predjudices date back to the greek times.

                    And I recall the speculation that Kennedy could not be president because he was catholic.

                    Joe Biden is only the 2nd catholic president in US history – and the 2nd of Irish descent. Even though catholics have been here in large numbers since before the founding. There have still been no presidents of Italian descent. There have been no jews.

                    The US had an american indian vice president in 1928 – a Republican.

                    1. “It is not that Anonymous is a nit picker – it is that he is wrong.”

                      It is both. You provide him a large target with a lot of facts so his answers are forced to deal with many specific details providing ample opportunity for him to be wrong. He doesn’t disappoint and seems to be wrong more times than he is right. He will also nit pick and does that quite frequently to waste the time of others. He wants to be significant but fails.

                      He loves LINKS even when those links don’t pertain to the discussion or prove him wrong. You are correct in another post. His education was very deficient.

                      He is not credible and has no principles.

                    2. Michigan court found the Sec States guidance regarding signation matching was unlawful. That she neither followed Michigan law, nor the requirements necescary to create a rule based on the law.

                      Without further inquiry – which is unlikely to happen, there is no means of knowing how many illegal ballots were counted in michigan.

                    3. Joe Biden has single handedly caused some of us to reconsider whether or not maybe there was something to all that anti-Irish bias after all. LOL

          3. Marvel tried to wrap Jordan Peterson in a Red Skull albatross. Peterson is flipping the tables and transforming the meme.

            Red Skull “Clean your room” Tshirts are on the way.

            Clinton made a stupid remark framing half the country as “deplorables”

            It is irrelevant how Clinton defined Deplorables – it is also stupidly wrong.

            What is relevant is that many not on the left took both offense and ownership of the “deplorables” label.

            Clinton’s defintion of deplorables has been lost. No one cares.
            The deplorables have defined themselves.

            Antonio is one of those who has embraced the deplorables label – and HE gets to decide what it means – not Clinton, not you.

      2. I understand your fear of a despot. That is a real fear and a legitimate danger.

        But I mostly trust that America is actually different. The original american revolution did not lead to a despot.
        While the french revolution slightly later did.

        I would further note that – though I think we are still inside the window where it is best to stay inside the law – even if the left does not.
        We must all recognize that is NOT permanent. The left has made clear they will get their way by any means necescary. Eventually, fire must be fought with fire.

        Next I would note that it is not likely necescary to do anything.

        Leftism fails naturally. It is a stupid self contradicting ideology that makes enemies fast and naturally fails just as fast.

        It may be sufficient to just allow the left to fail.

        Biden has a horrible mess at the southern border right now. It is the natural consequence of his own policies.
        We can expect to see much more of that.
        Trump was elected because Obama was a failure.
        Biden is already off to a far worse start.

        Government is supposed to be small and isolated from the market specifically because government is the one institution that we do not want to fail. But I have accepted that I can not stop much of the disasterous failure the left is bringing.
        but I can ride it out, and prepare to rebuild after the wreckage.

        Failure is a natural part or markets – it is how we learn.

        Finally – the form of any coming revolution need not mirror past ones.

        Look more to the collapse of the USSR – specifically east germany for an example of what may happen here.

        I do not think we will see a civil war. but I do think one way or another we will see a “revoultion”.

        1. John Say,
          “But I mostly trust that America is actually different. The original american revolution did not lead to a despot.
          While the french revolution slightly later did.”

          How is America actually different?

          The French Revolution had a strong element of ideological possession or the guillotine would never have been developed.

          If we are not careful we, in our willful ignorance or arrogance, could slide into despotism because of an erroneous notion such tragedies could never happen here. We are Americans. We are different. In our ideals, yes, we are different. Through enough hearts do these ideals flow? I hope in this long solitude people have had time to learn and time seek wisdom and time to reflect on their blessings and their values. Without sufficient wisdom and temperance, I fear we will be bent towards tyranny.

          1. “How is America actually different?”
            That is a very important question. Trump’s campaign centered on the slogan “Make America Great Again”

            Little inspired the IRE of the left more than that. We have two radically different competing visions of what the united states is.

            As to how America is actually different – One recomendation would be to read “The Ugly American” – it is an excellent depiction of the difference between the picture that the US government presents of the US to the world, and that the american people present of themselves to the world.

            Right now we see a massive number of people trying to get into this country legally and otherwise – from China, from india, from south and central america. More people globaly wish to come to america than currently live here.

            While I support “securing our borders” – I also support very large scale legal immigration – contingent on the changes to laws and entitlements that are necescary to accomplish large scale immigration sustainably.

            Regardless, the left is fighting for a version of the europeanisation of amercia. This despite the fact that Europe significantly underperformed the US in the 20th century, and as a result the working class in the US lives better than the middle class in europe.

            My bet is that america IS still different. Trump’s MAGA movement generated incredible numbers and energy – despite a relentlessly hostile press that presents everyone with a MAGA hat as a racist neanderthal.

            “The French Revolution had a strong element of ideological possession or the guillotine would never have been developed.”

            Absolutely. The current woke revolution has resemblances to the french revolution, though the connection to the Chinese cultural revolution seems stronger to me.

            The cultural revolution failed – but it took years to do so. But the cultural revoltuion took place in China with all power consolidated in Mao, who was content to allow it. Any opposition faced the power of the state.

            While much about the woke revolution mirrors the cultural revolution – there are enormous differences between the US in 2021 and China in the 60’s.

            One huge factor as noted in another post is that it is the Democratic party that is actually fragile – not Republicans.
            I am not personally a “trumpist” or even a “tea partier” I am at odds with many of Trump’s policies. But there is no contest between the republican vision and that of the left.

            A major issue for democrats during the campaign was uniting the majority of moderate “liberal” democrats – with leftist progressives.
            The “fight” to get Biden, was to avoid fracturing the party. Democrats openly lied to both wings of their party – and both wings knew they were being lied to – The “left” was going to get their “woke revolution” but without Sanders, Warren, …. While liberals were going to get Biden – a more traditional Democrat who would not disrupt the status quo merely ending the (left caused) chaos of the Trump era.

            Democrats elected Biden – and the Children are running the country, and they have no idea what they are doing.

            I am not personally that worried. Leftism is a self punishing act.
            I am not at all concerned that the Biden era will be short lived – it is even possible that it could be VERY short lived.
            What scared the $hit out of the left on Jan 6. is how little would have had to have been different for protestors to have succeeded.
            All they asked was a delay and an audit of the election.

            There is much talk of civil war right now. There is zero possibility of anything like what occured in 1860.

            But other models are highly possible – Something like Solidarity in Poland, or East Germany in 1989 or Tianamen square.
            Tianamen square failed – because the protestors wanted change, but they did NOT know what change was. Chinese education had been so destroyed that protestors did not know what to ask for.

            “If we are not careful we, in our willful ignorance or arrogance, could slide into despotism because of an erroneous notion such tragedies could never happen here.”

            I am not making predictions – because things are so unstable that nearly anything is possible.

            The one prediction I am certain of is that the left will fail. Probably dramatically, and possibly quickly.

            And absolutely there is good reason to fear that the failure of the left could lead to the rise of a despot. That has often happened historically. But I have little control over that, and can merely hope that does not happen here.

            “We are Americans. We are different. In our ideals, yes, we are different.”
            We agree.

            “Through enough hearts do these ideals flow?”
            The current “cultural revoltution” in the US is as such things always do – eating its own.

            How long before the woke come for Turley ? Derschowitz ? Liberal democrats ? Even the woke themselves.

            Police in CA just drug a radical left blogger from his home in handcuffs. He tweeted criticism of an AOC interview on midest peace where AOC was uncharictaristically muted and moderate. But AOC has her minions trolling her twitter feed and the world for apostates and policy criticism was repainted as death threats – there were no actual threats of any kind, and the miscreant was arrested.

            “I hope in this long solitude people have had time to learn and time seek wisdom and time to reflect on their blessings and their values. Without sufficient wisdom and temperance, I fear we will be bent towards tyranny.”

            I do not expect what solitude there is to be long.

    4. Anyone who chooses Civil War now is just as traitorous as those who chose Civil War in the 1800s.

        1. You have it backwards. Those who were pro-slavery were the ones who tried to secede and started the Civil War.

          1. You wrote: Anyone who chooses Civil War now is just as traitorous as those who chose Civil War in the 1800s

            BOTH SIDES in 1865 chose war; takes two.

            1. The CSA seceded legally and constitutionally.

              “Crazy Abe” Lincoln started an unconstitutional war of Northern aggression against a sovereign foreign nation.

              Nothing done by Lincoln or his successors was or is legitimate, to this day.

            2. ONE side chose to secede in the 1800s. Don’t try to portray the two sides as equally at fault.

              1. Today one side seeks to impose their will on the rest of the country by force.

                Do not try to pretend the two sides are equally at fault.

                Slavery was morally wrong in 1860.
                The slavery light of the left is no less wrong today

          2. And today’s racists are on the left.
            And today the people seeking to constrain the liberty of others by force is on the left.

            I would further note that nearly the entire country is red.
            Democrats live in highly populous city enclaves in small parts of the country.

              1. Such foolishness.

                If we deal with the Clinton Trump election we see a bunch of disjointed areas across the country that have no continuity. They are areas of the very rich capitalists and corporatists along with a large number of poor and others supported by the government.

                The money is generated by the ‘capitalists’ and the rest are slaves to be used by the ‘capitalists’ to do the menial tasks they are unwilling to do. This is the socialist paradise that people like Nancy Pelosi envision. The Nancy Pelosi’s have the guns (‘private police) to keep the other groups in check. Those other groups are not permitted to own guns

                That is not socialism. It is closer to serfdom(ism) and slavery(ism).

                The Trump map is full of working people that actually move a nation forward where people actually believe in doing their fair share because they benefit based on their merits.

              2. ““today’s racists are on the left.”

                Your opinion. Not a fact.”
                Nope, pretty much a fact. Actually listen to the things that you and the rest of the left SAY.

                You are quite literally the defintion of a racist – atleast until you made idiotic changes to the definition.

                You make decisions about people based on their race. You seek policies that favor people based on race.

                Heck, The left is actively pushing “reparations” – you are planning to steal from people who had absolutely nothing to do with slavery, whose ancestors were mostly in foreign countries during US slavery and give to people who are 5-7 generations removed from slavery – and are often more white than black, and quite often as strongly related to slave holders as the actual slaves.

                Ignoring the problems about – what you are seeking to do is blatant racism.

                “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
                Martin Luther King.

                Those who judge people based on their skin color or their sexual orientation, or their sexual self identification are racists.

                Your ideology is inherently racist.

                That is not an opinion it is a fact.

                ““nearly the entire country is red.”

                Only if by “country” you’re talking about the land and not the people. If you’re talking about the people. ”

                No, i am talking about by the political orientation of people in a given part of the country.

                If we are looking to divide the country politically – People are going to keep the land they own.

                I would further note – the left makes a big deal about the difference in GDP.
                But fails to note that cost of living is much lower in the red parts of the country.

                Further, the blue parts of the country produce high priced luxuries for the nation and the world.
                The red parts produce necescities.

                Several people are referencing the civil war – where the nation split geographically based on slave vs free states.
                If the country split red/blue – even by state – Democrats would starve, die of thirst, run out of gas, freeze to death, and run out of energy all very quickly.

                The red parts of the country very efficiently produce the NEEDS of this country – as well as parts of the rest of the world.
                Many of these can not be acquired elsewhere.

                I would note this is also why the electoral college exists.

                The wants and needs of those who live in cities are not the same as those who do not.

                If you live in Philadelphia. New York. Los Angeles, Baltimore, …. you are free – if you can get the consent of people living there to build the high speed rail, metro systems, etc. that you want. No one is stopping you.
                But you are NOT free to demand that the rest of the country pay for what you want.

                Today only a tiny portion of americans are farmers – but they feed the entire nation.
                Without the electoral college – farmers would have no voice in government.
                They are already subject to stupid regulations concocted by idiot children in DC who have no clue how to produce food and would starve if they had to feed themselves.

                The left has a fixation on experts – experts who are quite often highly educated but with little or no real world experience, and no real responsibility for the decisions they are making.

                All the assorted trappings of our constitutional system that deliberately destroy majority rule are critical to the survival of the country.
                It is never a good idea when the majority tells minorities how to do THEIR jobs.
                Central planning does not work – we have more than a century of proof.

                1. “Nope, pretty much a fact.”

                  Nope, definitely your opinion. Some people agree with your opinion, and other people don’t. But it’s an opinion, not a fact.

        2. Slavery must have been eliminated through advocacy, boycotts, divestiture and multiple other legal and constitutional means.

          “Crazy Abe” was a criminal, totalitarian, despotic dictator.

          He planned to compassionately repatriate feed slaves but somebody changed his mind at the last minute.

          I guess crime doesn’t pay after all.

      1. @anonymous

        If the Confederates were traitors, so were the “rebels” of 1776 and the men who lead the 1916 Easter Revolt. One’s man “traitor” is another’s hero and martyr.

        I suppose by 2020’s “woke” standards, the 34th President of the United States and WW II Supreme Allied Commander, Dwight D. Eisenhower was an enabler of “traitors” since he kept of picture of Robert E. Lee in the oval office.

        antonio

      2. Why ?

        Why do you think that any conflict today will be the same as that ?

        I have ZERO expectations that we will see armies of the left and armies of the right battling it out at gettysburg.

        In East Germany in 1989 the government collapsed because millions of people took to the streets and refused to obey, and the military and police refused to intervene.

        There are numerous ways that we could have a “civil war” in the near future – without firing a gun.
        And many more that would not have any resemblance to 1860 that would involve firearms.

        I would ask you – if 100,000 citizens with AR-15;s marched on the capital tomorow – do you think the National Guard would fire on them ?

        If they did – how long do you think it would be before ALL states recalled their national guard units ?
        Outside of the top brass – do you think the US military will allow itself to be drawn into a political conflict ?

        Waco and Ruby Ridge were disasterous for the US government.

        Lets imagine that some group of 300 people decided they were not going to comply with Biden’s gun edicts.

        Are you going to send in the FBI, ATF ? The Texan stand at the Alamo was instrumental in the independence of Texas.
        How well do you think it will go over nationwide – if the left actually manages to get the military, national guard and law enforcement to actually obey their orders – which it should be self evident at the moment they are very fearful of, and slaughters several hundred americans who refuse to surrender their rights ?

        Obama lost his duels with the Bundy family. How well do you think it will go with people not quite so fringe ?

        I would remind you the only homocide on Jan 6 2021 was by the government.

        The likelyhood of the left controlling the narative again is small.

      3. We have a president of dubious legitimacy.
        yo
        We had lawless elections – that is self evident – but since you fixate on courts – there have been atleast 4 court decisions in several states that have found specifically that todate.

        You still do not seem to grasp how weak the legitimacy of this government is.
        Democrats have been pressing their luck . they are also acting in desparation.
        They are trying to pass significant legislation that reshapes the country – without the public support necescary to do so.

        They are rushing because even democratic pubdits are predicting that 2020 is not repeatable in 2022.

        One of the problems the left has with nearly all its machinations is that – you only get one shot at violating norms.
        Democrats got rid of the 60 vote requirement in the Senate for judicial and cabinet appointments – The benefits were shortlived.

        As the left behaves now – you can expect the same from republicans when they return to power – and they will.

        You ran a lawless election in 2020 – that will not be repeatable – either the rule of law will be restored in elections accross the country – or a few republicans will exploit the serious flaws in lawless elections to at worst create chaos and at best obliterate the democratic lawless advantages.

        You do not seem to understand that if you refuse to ensure secure trustworthy elections – there will be only ONE election in which inscure lawless elections benefit only one party.

        You do not grasp how easy it is to game the lawless election scheme you pushed on us.

        California adopted stupid election laws allowing ballot harvesting – Republicans got obliterated. In 2020 they learned how to ballot harvest on their own – and retook most of the seats they lost.

        Dem ocratic game playing is a oneshot deal. You had your shot. 2020 is passed.

    5. The war on “conservatives” ie normal Americans has been in motion for decades.

      It is “low intensity conflict”

      It only begins as a civil war, when conservatives develop organizational competence and structures which allow them the ability to act collectively in self defense

      We are not there yet but we are getting closer all the time.

      Until we are so organized, it is a turkey shoot, and they are weakening us all the time, collectively.

      1. You are partly correct.

        The opposite of conservatism is rapid poorly thought out change.

        That inherently alienates people.

        There is actually no such things as majority rule – it is impossible.

        All majority rule MUST degrade to tyranny.

        As an example – if you have 10 issues. Each of which is supported by 60 % of people, vigorously opposed by 10% with 30% non-comittal.
        But for each of these issues the vigorously opposed 10% are unique – either they do not overlap or the overlap little.

        But the time you are done you have 100% of people opposed to government.

        voting itself is one of the weakest means to establish preference.

        I was recently listening to an interview of democratic pollsters on the rising about how democrats got 2020 (and 2016) so wrong.
        They noted that there appears to be a 4% democratic bias in all polls and so far no good explanation for the cause or how to correct it.

        But one of the things they noted is that exactly how you ask a question matters.

        One of the reasons it matters is that polling is inherently binary, but preferences and values are NOT.

        In a free market – you make choices. You trade what you have produced for what you want. With every single trade you are signally not only your values but their strength.
        When you buy a burger for $4 – you are signaling that burger is worth the amount of effort you had to put in to make $4.

        So the free market as a whole is a dynamic voting system that very accurately measures our values and preferences.

        Elections and polling are binary. Further – polls have little cost – even voting only has slightly more.
        Polls and voting do not measure peoples values anywhere near as accurately as the free markets.

  6. An ad hominem attack against an individual, not against an idea, is highly flattering. It indicates that the person does not have anything intelligent to say about your message.

    Nassim Nicholas Taleb

      1. My behavior does not need adjusting.

        I make arguments all the time.
        You rarely if ever address those arguments.

      2. Do you ever think more than at the surface before you post ?

        One of the differences between us is that you think that it is an insult to refute your arguments – with facts, logic and reason.

        I frequently call your arguments stupid – because they are, and I do so AS I TEAR THEM APART WITH FACTS, LOGIC, REASON.

        I sometimes call you stupid – because someone who makes stupid arguments over and over is self evidently stupid.

        Regardless, I always or nearly always make actual arguments.

        You don’t. You offer little more than fallacies – usually ad hominem.

        And you act as if it is a personal insult to counter your arguments.

  7. I regularly deal with leftists on a professional level and think most would be surprised if you pointed out their double standards when it comes to intolerance of other opinions. They love seeing themselves as the most tolerant people in their world and are oblivious to their own intolerance for anyone or viewpoint which does not correspond with their own.

    http://securetolerance.com/what_is.htm

    “However, is unlimited tolerance admissible? What is tolerance without restrictions…on racism, anti-semitism, extremism in any form and so on? Can there be no restrictions on migration processes that have already reached global proportions?”

    “Of course, not.”

    So what this means in plain language is that societies and governments should not tolerate the expression of speech or ideas which do not promote their version of progress (i.e. we don’t tolerate “intolerance.”)

    This is the idea behind all forms of censorship (private or otherwise) and hate speech laws. And they are coming to a location near you.

    antonio

    1. “They love seeing themselves as the most tolerant people in their world”

      Moral narcissism.

  8. “Persona Non Grata: Yale Professor Who Defended Kavanaugh Is Reportedly Sanctioned Without Notice Or Explanation”

    – Professor Turley
    ______________

    “[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

    – James Madison
    _____________

    5th Amendment

    No person shall be…deprived of…property,…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________

    The right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute.

    Owners are the separate and sole individuals which may “…claim and exercise…” dominion over private property.

    No official has any power to nullify an Amendment to the Constitution in any fashion or aspect, or to any degree.

    1. That applies to government not private parties. There might be a case to be made if a school gets federal funds, but this is getting in the weeds.

      1. Absolutely the first amendment does not apply to private parties.

        But the moral foundations of the first amendment do.

        Further Yale – like nearly all colleges has published policies, and codes of conduct,

        According to FIRE – Yale has publicly established one of the strongest public commitments to free speech of any US university.

        Policies such as these are legally binding. Student choose the schools they attend, based on their policies, they pay schools for an educations and treatment consistent with those policies, When professors accept offers of employment – the policies of the university are a factor in that decision and a part of the commitment they are receiving from the university – as well as a part of the committment they are making TOO the university.

        In the event you are clueless – there have been several major lawsuits that major universities have lost, that hinged on whether they followed their own policies.

        With respect to government funding – government has no business funding colleges and universities. We should not want government funding of higher education – specifically because we do NOT want government dictating policies to universities because those universities have accepted government funds.

        If Yale as an example wishes to become “Woke U” – it is free to do so – so long as it honors its pre-existing commitments to current students and faculty. If Yale wishes to shred is policies committing itself to free speech – it is free to do so – and future students and professors will know what they are getting into when they consider Yale.

        I would note that the same issue exists with Social Media – they created their monopolies enticing users with promises of uncensored speech. The entire purpose of Section 230 of the DMCA which social media companies lobbied for – was NOT so that they were free to censor as they pleased without keeping the commitments they made to users, but to provide them legal protections so that they could allow their users the greatest possible free speech.

        Regardless, IF Twitter wishes to become the “Woke Social Media Company” – it is free to do so, But not without working out how to honor the committment to free speech it made to the users that made it into the giant it is today.

        1. “to honor the committment to free speech it made to the users”

          What commitment are you imagining?

          Quote Twitter (the company) making a commitment to free speech.

          I think you’re imagining things again.

          1. “What commitment are you imagining?

            Quote Twitter (the company) making a commitment to free speech.

            I think you’re imagining things again.”

            There is no “again” when I speculate – I make it clear.

            This is ONE story from a Twitter exec in 2012 – it should be noted that the actual quote is from DORSEY – and Dorsey has confirmed that.

            I would further note – this is a SALES PITCH.

            ‘We are the free speech wing of the free speech party’ – Tony Wang – Twitter UK General Manager – quoting Jack Dorsey.

            https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/mar/22/twitter-tony-wang-free-speech

            I would also note that as late as 2019 DORSEY publicly committed that Twitter would NOT censor political speech.

            1. “quoting Jack Dorsey.”

              Jeez, read more carefully. Tony Wang said “Generally, we remain neutral as to the content because our general council and CEO like to say that we are the free speech wing of the free speech party.” He claimed that they liked to say that, but he wasn’t quoting them. Was Wang accurate? We don’t know, unless you can find a quote of Dorsey himself saying that. Wang also said “There are Twitter rules about what you can and can’t do on the platform,” so clearly he’s not actually committing to free speech in the 1st Amendment sense, since Twitter’s rules are narrower than the 1st Amendment.

              “I would also note that as late as 2019 DORSEY publicly committed that Twitter would NOT censor political speech.”

              Maybe he did. You again don’t quote him. Either way, that’s not a commitment to free speech, since free speech extends far beyond political speech.

              1. Dorsey has confirmed the quote repeatedly.
                Did you bother to check before you speculated ?
                In fact Dorsey has taken ownership of the statement under oath in house and senate hearings.
                I have personally heard Dorsey say it.
                You asked for proof I provided you ONE of the myriads of times Twitter has publicly expressed not just that Free speech was a value – but that it was THE Core value of Twitter – atleast at the time.

                I would further note that your argument is stupid on all levels. Tony Wang is Senior Twitter management – even if Dorsey had never made the statement – Wang was speaking for and as Twitter.

                I would note this is not the only representation from Twitter or Dorsey – the very fact that they have continuously revised their TOS is actually evidence that the new terms are a change from their prior expression.

                Further – you asked for proof, I gave it. There is more, this is just one of the most famous instances.

                And your idea of context – only makes this worse for you. Yes, Wang is quoting Dorsey – as well as the Twitter Counsel.

                In fact he is going further than quoting, he is asserting that this is a statement of principle for Twitter.
                What you call “context” – makes things WORSE for Twitter – not better.

                The legal strength of a single statement from Dorsey is far less than essentially a motto that Wang states is a commonplace expression within Twitter management.

                The Wang/Dorsey statement is for twitter the equivalent of “Black Lives Matter” – it is a statement of core values.

              2. “Maybe he did.”
                Nope, he did,
                As did wang,
                And wang quoted Dorsey,
                and Wang (and Dorsey) expressed this as atleast A core and arguably THE core value of twitter.

                “You again don’t quote him.”
                What I provided was a quote from Wang – Quoting Dorsey AND the Twitter Counsel AND expressing this as a fundimental core twitter value.

                “Either way, that’s not a commitment to free speech, since free speech extends far beyond political speech.”
                Logic eludes you

                The statement is a statement of principle. It is not a narrow statement about political speech – there are several statements by Dorsey committing to protecting free political speech – atleast as recently as 2019.

                Regardless, Political speech is a subset of free speech. Commiting to free speech is committing to free political speech.

          2. “I think you’re imagining things again.”

            I just love it when you engage in stupid and disproveable speculation like this.

            Do you exist in the real world ? Twitter (and Facebook and ..) has been severely criticised by the “woke” for failure to censor.

            This debate/discussion has been going on for a long time.

            The claim that Social Media was improperly censoring primarily conservatives is extremely old.
            There are myriads of instances in which leading conservatives voices met with social media executives who reassured them that Social Media companies were strong advocates of free speech.

            Conservatives backed off efforts to legislatively or competitively confront Social Media – more than a decade ago because of those commitments.

            Personally I do not think that suing social media platforms for breech of contract is the best approach – though it is much more important with regard to colleges and universities.

            Dealing with social media is really pretty trivial – it just requires Republicans to adopt two technologies that they have been reticent to.

            Peer2Peer and Crypto.

            It is not all that difficult to develop a P2P social media platform. Doing so would entirely gut the DMCA and bypass section 230.
            Because a P2P social media plaform could NOT be centrally controlled.
            The fundimental problem is that it is much harder to make money in P2P – there is less incentive for a company to develop a P2P social media platform.

            Crypto is important because it shuts of the ability of the financial community to censor payments and contributions.

            Regardless, I strongly suspect both will come. It is only a question of how quickly.

            “The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.”
            John Gilmour

            But you probably do not know who Gilmour is.

    2. @george

      Two useless things mainstream “conservatives” (i.e National Review, Heritage Foundation followers) love to say but have no effect on public discourse:

      1. We just need to “go back to the constitution”. The left has different definitions for concepts such as fairness, equality (i.e. equity), free speech, freedom of religion, sex, etc. Appealing to a document which the two sides have little agreement as to meaning will not overcome the current political and cultural divisions. This also refers to well meaning, patriotic people on blogs such as this who like to quote the founders. The founders are irrelevant to the left as far as public policy or how the country should be run.

      2. Democrats are the “real racists”. This is a favorite of “conservatives” such as Dinesh D’Souza and Jonah Goldberg. Giving a platform to black conservatives or entertainers to recount the role of Democrats in creating the Ku Klux Klan or fostering racism is useless and stupid. Such gestures reflect the playbook of Leftists who discredit one’s individuality by appealing to his race as a motivator for political action. Whatever southern segregationists may have done (or not) 60 years ago is ancient history. Might as well be referring to the War of the Spanish Succession or the Seven Years War.

      antonio

      1. “Two useless things mainstream “conservatives” (i.e National Review, Heritage Foundation followers) love to say but have no effect on public discourse:”

        False, these are both useful and have had a clear effect.

        Antonio, your remarks is like saying – conservatives like vanilla ice cream best – but that is useless and has no effect on public discourse – because I like chocolate.

        The meaning of the constitution, and the makeup of the courts have been critical conservative issues for decades – and they have been very important to many conservative voters who have worked for decades to flip the courts.

        Suddenly – when conservatives finally succeeded – the left has taken great interest.

        Regardless your claim that these are both useless and ineffectual regarding public discourse are belied by the vociferous public conduct of the left.

        They are quite important to you (suddenly).

        “1. We just need to “go back to the constitution”. The left has different definitions for concepts such as fairness, equality (i.e. equity), free speech, freedom of religion, sex, etc. Appealing to a document which the two sides have little agreement as to meaning will not overcome the current political and cultural divisions. This also refers to well meaning, patriotic people on blogs such as this who like to quote the founders. The founders are irrelevant to the left as far as public policy or how the country should be run.”

        This is a fundimental debate about the nature of government – the social contract. You are free to hold whatever position you wish.
        But the legitimacy of our govenment requires that a super majority of people accept the social contract that defines the powers and limits of government. Without that agreement your choices are anarchy, dividing the country or accepting the minimalist government that we can all agree to. The choice you do not have is imposing YOUR view by force.

        “2. Democrats are the “real racists”. This is a favorite of “conservatives” such as Dinesh D’Souza and Jonah Goldberg. Giving a platform to black conservatives or entertainers to recount the role of Democrats in creating the Ku Klux Klan or fostering racism is useless and stupid. Such gestures reflect the playbook of Leftists who discredit one’s individuality by appealing to his race as a motivator for political action. Whatever southern segregationists may have done (or not) 60 years ago is ancient history. Might as well be referring to the War of the Spanish Succession or the Seven Years War.”

        I am 62 – sixty years ago is no “ancient history”. Regardless, the left constantly refers to everyone they disagree with as Nazi’s.
        The Nazi’s came into being about 90 years ago. If you are going to bandy about ad hominem from the past – then we would be wise to actually know something about Nazi’s. Like leftists today – they were socialists. Like leftists today their ideology fixated on a hierachy of victimhood, and race. All that is fundimentally different from the modern left is who they identify as victims and which races they place highest in the heirarchy.

        Further if we do not know history we can not learn from it. Socialism has never worked anywhere. Not even socialism lite.
        There is no good reason to beleive this time is different.

        Past progressive democrats – with inarguably racist motives pushed the same policies as allegedly non-racist democrats today.
        We are fighting over the minimum wage right now – we were 90 years ago. Then racist democrats sought a high minimum wage to assure that employers favored higher skilled whites. And it worked incredibly well. So why do you think it will not have the same impact now ?

        If the left does not wish to be identified as the racists they are – then quit being racist. It is that simple.
        When you are seeking to find White Supremecists under every bush, and accusing everyone you disagree with of being a racist white supremecist – you are being racist.

        Inherently when you make false claims of racism – you are racist. 3

        1. @johnsay

          Tell me please what mainstream “conservatives” actually conserve. You have “conservatives” such as David French making the case for homosexual “marriage”.

          What you say is admirable and well meaning; we would probably agree on many issues but the colorblind “conservatism” we were told to embrace by the William F. Buckleys of the world has been an absolute failure and has “conserved” little.

          And mainstream “conservatives” are not likely to win a national election in a few cycles more due to demographic change alone. Trying winning a national election after Whites become a minority. Sorry, limited government and lower taxes just aren’t going to appeal to many who disproportionately reply on big government.

          And despite outliers like myself, I can assure you that in the aggregate Hispanics in the United States are not natural “conservatives”.

          antonio

          1. “Tell me please what mainstream “conservatives” actually conserve.”
            The status quo.
            Conservatism is NOT an ideology – libertarianism is – one that works.
            Conservatism is a common sense value – do not rush from what currently works even with flaws to something new and untried willy nilly.
            Most change is NOT improvement.

            Just to be clear – I am libertarian. I am not republican. I am conservativish – the future is always change, but we should proceed slowly.

            “You have “conservatives” such as David French making the case for homosexual “marriage”.””

            Government has no business in marrage at all. It is a contract between two people. The role of government is to enforce the contract – as with all other contracts – not to decide who can contract.

            Outside of government – you are free to treat marraige as you wish. If your church refuses to marry people of the same sex – that is your business.

            “What you say is admirable and well meaning; we would probably agree on many issues but the colorblind “conservatism” we were told to embrace by the William F. Buckleys of the world has been an absolute failure and has “conserved” little.”

            I am libertarian – not a Buckley conservative. As I stated before – conservatism is a value – not a principle, not an ideology.

            “And mainstream “conservatives” are not likely to win a national election in a few cycles more due to demographic change alone.”
            I do not know what a “mainstream conservative” is.

            The republican party has numerous factions and sub factions – it has enormous political diversity. While democrats have become incredibly homogeneous. Democrats are currently dividend between the woke left and real liberals. People like Turley.
            The democratic party is highly unstable and is incredibly likely to fracture any minute.

            Conversely, Trump has altered the political landscape. He has remade the Republican party as a blue collar friendly and he has driven out the neo-cons. He has also made it significantly more minority friendly.

            “Trying winning a national election after Whites become a minority.”
            This argument has been arround for 100 years. The Irish were supposed to be a permanent democratic voting block, and then the italians and the jews.

            Presuming that you beleive Biden actually won in 2020 – he did so from two groups – the couch potato vote, and young (mostly white) adults. I would note these groups have huge overlap. It is yet to be seen if those under 35 will continue to vote without mailin voting.

            Conversely Trump expanded the GOP vote in all minority groups substantially.

            “Sorry, limited government and lower taxes just aren’t going to appeal to many who disproportionately reply on big government.”
            True – but government dependence has actually been declining for some time. Minorities are increasingly prosperous – not rich, though many minority families today are better off than my upper middle class parents were in the 60’s.

            Further minorities have endured the failures of the democratic party for decades. The worst problems that most minorities face right now – are local – not federal. They are failed schools, and failed local government. Republicans did not cause the problems of minorities and minorities are waking up to that.

            DeSantis was elected in FL as a result of 300,000 single black mothers who would have lost the charter school education of their kids if Gillium had won.

            “And despite outliers like myself, I can assure you that in the aggregate Hispanics in the United States are not natural “conservatives”.”
            Maybe not, but they are also not naturally democrats and certainly not naturually progressives.

            I do not think post Trump republicans have a demographic problem – but Democrats do.

            At this point – and for the foreseable future – “Trumpism” is the dominant GOP faction or ideology. I am not happy with that – I would have prefered fiscal conservatives or libertarian republicans. But the Tea Party has morphed into Trumpism and they are calling the shots.

            I expect neocons to leave the party – for the democratic party – and good riddance.
            I am not sure what the Kasich’s and Romney’s and others of what I guess you would call “establishment” republicans will do.

            The woke left is not friendly to ANY republican faction – except possibly neocons.

            Regardless, aside from some political jockying the GOP is stable for some time to come.
            The democratic party is NOT. And that is a really big deal.

            The “left” can not win dog catcher without the “liberals” (real liberals), and the liberals can not win anything without the left.
            And the relationship is extremely uncomfortable.

            We see myriads of lefties here attacking Turley as a “crypto conservative”. He is not. But I can not see real liberals staying with todays democratic party for long. They may not become republicans, but they are not sticking with the left.

            I would recommend reading the time article about how the left won the 2020 election – as analyzed by those on the left.

            Like must left wing political tactics – it is NOT sustainable. Either the Republicans will directly thwart it in the next election, or they will adopt democratic tactics and destroy their advantage as they did with Ballot harvesting in CA.

            The most fundimental problem with this cycle of republicans one step behind democrats in tactics – is that it is slowly destroying “the rule of law” – and that is very dangerous.

            I would further suggest looking at the ranting of the left – it is a reflection of what they are afraid of.

            It is necescary to paint republicans as racists – because otherwise they would bleed minority votes even faster. But republicans today are less racist than democrats.

            You noted David French’s defense of gay marraige – those fights are over. The republican party as a whole is gay friendly and minority friendly.

            All the tactics that we lament about the left right now – the cat calling, the intolerance, the cancelling, the censorship the propogandized press – these are absolute necescaities for democrats to remain in power.

          2. I am careful about predicting the future at the moment.

            I think we are in the most unstable moment in our history since the revolution – including the civil war.

            The Civil war had two clear sides, What we have now is far more complex.

            One of the most accurate comparisons I have seen is to the cultural revolution – the parallels are incredible – atleast on the left.

            What is different is there is no Mao, and there is a very strong political counterforce.

            I do not beleive the left culktural revolution is sustainable in this country – but we are in the middle of it. And I do not know how it will fail.

            Separately – the policies of the left are guarenteed failures. While I personally expected Obama to fail worse than he did – his presidency was still a failure and the reason that Trump was elected. Biden will with certainty fail much faster, and ultimately he will not be protected by the press.

            One of the other weaknesses of the woke cultural revolution – is that we have something resembling a free market.
            While Colleges can marinate in wokeness for some time to come, the media can not. Attacking Trump was profitable – wokism and capitalism converged. But fawning over Biden is not. the Woke press will not survive if they are not willing to treat Biden critically – people do not read the news to hear how great everything is – especially when it isn’t.

            As noted before – I do not know what liberals will do, but I can not see them tolerating the woke for long.

            Then we have the right. Biden threatening gun owners is a huge mistake.

            One of the laws of politics in the 20th century was you can talk about alot of things – but you can not actually do them – atleast not consequentially. Abortion is one of those things you could talk about – left or right, but not actually do much
            Gun control is another. Making hundreds of thousands of law abiding americans criminals is a huge mistake.

            We are also slowly developing a massive case of Covid fatigue. Despite vaccines we are seeing high infection and death rates.
            But people are going back to their lives – they do not care. Even democratic governors are unable to enact another lockdown.
            More and more of us are resuming our daily lives. Nearly half of us are vaccinated – and we are not far from a mask revolt.

            Ultimately I am expecting a Covid political backlash. We are starting to realize how stupid our leaders were and how much we were lied to. Trust in government is already at an all time low.

            I do not think we will see a civil war – like 1860.

            Change happens slowly – except when it happens fast. I think we are in a moment where we will likely see sudden change fast.
            And I do not know exactly what that change will be.

            Remember East Germany collapsed in weeks.

        2. The LEFT needs to control the courts, because they can’t get a majority of the population to go along with their nutty, illiberal policies. It’s that simple.

          1. The RIGHT needs to control the courts, because they can’t get a majority of the population to go along with their nutty, illiberal policies. It’s that simple.

            1. What is generally before the courts? Leftist desires that are unable to be passed legislatively based on the Constitution. What does anonymous consider ‘right control’ over the courts? When the SC determines actions or legislation unconstitutional.

              Take note the SC was not supposed to be this visible. It is only this visible because of the left using it to pass legislation the left is unable to pass in the legislature.

              Example: ObamaCare. Where in the Constitution does it say that government should provide healthcare for all its citizens? The States have a right to do a lot of these things based on their Constitutions, but not the federal government.

          2. The left does not understand that this nonsense of 40, 50, 60, 10,000 courts found there was no election fraud or whatever, is NOT something they should be bragging about.

            The near complete capitulation of the courts – while it gave Biden the presidency – undermined the election.

            Restoring trust in the election and govenrment did not require deciding for Trump but it did required the courts to conduct serious inquiry.

            They failed miserably – and in doing so erroded trust in government and the legitimacy of the election even further.

            I personally beleive the courts were kowtowed and terrorized by the BLM riots of the summer – they expected nationwide mass violence if they even gave Trump a chance to make his case – and they were likely right.

            We are seeing something similar with the Chauvin trial. Everything I am seeing has the wheels coming off the prosecutions case.

            But are the jurors going to be able to vote for innocence knowing that will result in violence and deaths accross the country ?

Leave a Reply