Rutgers Law Students Require All Student Groups To Hold Critical Race Theory Or Diversity Programs

We recently discussed the controversy at Rutgers Law School over the reading of the “n-word” from a state supreme court opinion.  Now there is a potentially serious conflict brewing over the right of the student government to demand that all student groups hold at least one event featuring critical race theory or diversity issues. The requirement (for any group receiving more than $250) presents some interesting questions in the conflict between free speech and diversity programs at such schools.On November 20, 2020, the student bar association on the Camden campus amended its constitution to add a section titled “Student Organizations Fostering Diversity and Inclusion.” The section mandates that if an organization “requests or receives $250 or more in total allocations,” they are required to “plan at least one (1) event that addresses their chosen topics through the lens of Critical Race Theory, diversity and inclusion, or cultural competency.”

That creates a direct conflict between free speech and diversity policies. What is interesting is that the language would seem to prevent a group like the Federalist Society from satisfying the requirement by “addressing” Critical Race theory or other mandates topics from an opposing viewpoint. Rather it states that the event must explore such subjects “through the lens of Critical Race Theory, diversity and inclusion, or cultural competency.”

Putting aside the clearly poor drafting of such a standard, it would apply to any group receiving as little as $250. So, as one of the listed groups at the law school, if the Rutgers Law School Softball Club asked for money for pizza after a game, it would have to hold an event on Critical Race Theory or other mandates topics.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has sent a letter to Rutgers University President Jonathan Holloway raising the obvious free speech concerns.

In 2018, the Supreme Court handed down Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___ (2018). That decision overturned Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and held that union fees required from non-union members in the public sector violate the First Amendment.  The Court held the “freedom of speech ‘includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.’”  The Court further explained:

Compelling individuals to mouth support for views they find objectionable violates that cardinal constitutional command, and in most contexts, any such effort would be universally condemned. Suppose, for example, that the State of Illinois required all residents to sign a document expressing support for a particular set of positions on controversial public issues—say, the platform of one of the major political parties. No one, we trust, would seriously argue that the First Amendment permits this.

Free speech serves many ends. It is essential to our democratic form of government . . . Whenever the Federal Government or a State prevents individuals from saying what they think on important matters or compels them to voice ideas with which they disagree, it undermines these ends.

We recently discussed an analogous problem of requiring contractors and employees in signing an anti-BDS laws passed in various states.

The poorly drafted and poorly conceived Rutgers provision crosses the line into compelled speech in my view. It is one thing to mandate anti-discrimination rules in the conduct of groups. However, this provision ties the receipt of any small amounts of support to holding events “through the lens” of approved viewpoints.

The University needs to rescind the provision in my view or face a legal challenge as a denial of free speech and associational rights protected under the First Amendment.

298 thoughts on “Rutgers Law Students Require All Student Groups To Hold Critical Race Theory Or Diversity Programs”

  1. Jonathan: All this discussion about Rutgers Law School and the controversy over critical race theory (CRT) is giving me a headache. Teaching about the history of racism in this country and how white privilege permeates almost every thing should not be controversial but it is among you and other right-wingers. My attention was drawn to your mention of the Federalist Society (FS) and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)–in particular because FIRE has been leading the fight against CRT. We all know about the FS. Last November FS held a teleforum to discuss the subject. One panelist said: “Critical race theory is self-consciously radically egalitarian, much more openly rejects liberal notions such as freedom of speech, of conscience, of property rights…So if … Nietzsche or Marx were to wake up in the year 2020, they would be very happy”. Another panelist claimed CRT training is an attempt to “foster racial resentment and division”. So these panelists think CRT is some sinister plot to impose Marxist thinking on unsuspecting students and undermine the belief in private property rights. This is apparently the lens through which FS views attempts to teach about racism. Now FIRE goes further than FS and actually wants to drown the baby in the bathtub. CRT has been around for years but has now gained a lot of adherents after the murder of George Floyd. Many public institutions and corporation are implementing CRT-like training to try to deal with systemic racism. So FIRE sees CRT as an existential threat that needs to be eradicated. It should be noted FIRE is funded by the Bradley Foundation and the Charles Koch Institute, among other right-wing groups, that seek to dismantle the alleged “liberal” bias in higher education. For years Koch has given millions to universities but it controls what is taught and who fills the chairs it has established. No “liberal” professor need apply! The Bradley Foundation has an overt racist agenda. In the 2016 presidential campaign the Foundation paid for billboards in black neighborhoods that depicted a black man behind bars with the words: “Voting Fraud is a Felony”–a not so subtle attempt at Black voter suppression. These same right-wing groups have led the effort in Republican controlled states to pass more restrictive voter suppression laws–aimed at taking away the voting rights of Blacks and other minorities. For FIRE and its funders voting, the ultimate form of “free speech”, should be confined to white people.

    Of course, the loudest critic of CRT was Donald Trump. As president he falsely charged that schools were spreading “hateful lies” to children by teaching about slavery and racism. Trump was particularly fierce in his attack on the NY Times’s “1619 Project”. He even created a commission to promote a rosier, more “patriotic” view of US history. Trump supporters in state legislatures are following up and defunding and dismantling CRT-like programs in schools. Idaho’s state Rep. Ron Nate (R) has complained that in public schools teachers are telling students our ancestors were “oppressors” rather than, as Nate claims, just “people who were risking their lives going across the oceans with their dream to find new lands.” Nate, like Trump, wants a more sanitized version of US history taught in public schools.

    So now you too have joined the FIRE echo chamber that sees CRT as a threat to the “marketplace of ideas” and the benefits of a “free market economy”, i.e., capitalism. For FIRE the ultimate goal is to force universities to hire more “conservative” professors and to require monitoring of the syllabi of “liberal” professors to ensure “balance” in teaching. The last thing FIRE and allied groups want is any discussion of how slavery and racism was and is the foundation of our “free market” economy. So CRT and similar programs to educate students about the real history of our country have to be off limits. In an episode in Netflix’s series “RAKE”, the principal character, an Australian modern day “Rumpole”, says to a jury in his closing statement about his client who is being prosecuting for revealing state secrets: “Isn’t it interesting that when people talk about freedom of speech they are usually discussing ways of limiting it”. That’s you and FIRE!

    1. Dennis McIntyre, +1000 That is exactly right. Notice how it is only conservative outfits like those you describe that are flooding media with such criticism. Your explanation of where the “Marxist” angle comes from makes sense. It shows just how quickly such information is disseminated and how some clearly just parrot what was said without really researching.

      1. Svelaz – CRT – as well as the rest of the nonsense you spout is not being judged based on the musings of “right wing” sites.

        You are being judged on your own words.

        As noted, parents are having a field day reading large sections of CRT textbooks – written by the purported leading lights of CRT in public at school boards.

        The 1619 project’s warped view of history is readily available for any of us to read.
        We can fact check it against reality. And it fails.

        1. John Say,

          “Svelaz – CRT – as well as the rest of the nonsense you spout is not being judged based on the musings of “right wing” sites.”

          Yes it is, Because the majority of the criticism and false narratives are coming from those sites. It’s the only reason why CRT is such a prominent issue with those on the right and how they are misinforming their readers who in turn parrot that misinformation just as you are. I’m willing to bet that you haven’t actually read the curriculum.

          Parent’s are having a field day simply because it doesn’t fit with what THEY have been taught as history. Let’s not forget that the whole point of discussing critical race theory is the sanitizing of our own history to avoid learning about the real atrocities that occurred as a result of racism. It’s an uncomfortable discussion and one that even esteemed scholars who have some criticisms of CRT agree SHOULD be had.

          You only see the 1619 project as “warped” because you are being fed that false narrative without really delving into the subject. I have been reading it and it is fascinating and does explain a lot of things. This doesn’t “reverse our history” or “makes all white people oppressors” as many wrongly believe. It’s about a part of our history that many want to deny simply because it is uncomfortable to acknowledge and there are those on the right claiming that it is being used to accuse white people of being accomplices to events that happened long before they were born. THAT is the nonsense that is permeating right wing thinking on this subject and there are actual racists promoting such thinking just so they can deflect from the issue. They don’t WANT everyone to discuss this. Because it will change the perspective of how we really treat blacks and minorities and why the lingering biases against them persist.

          If you really want to know what CRT really is about here is something you can actually read rather than paraphrase from someone who hasn’t.

          https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/beginners-curriculum-critical-race-theory/

          “We can fact check it against reality. And it fails.”

          It fails only because the facts have been either white washed or buried because they are unsavory truths. Give you an example, The Tulsa Massacre. I didn’t know about it until three months ago. It wasn’t taught in schools in Tulsa despite it being a major event, Most people outside Tulsa didn’t know it happened until a few months ago. It was buried and erased from their history books in schools. Precisely the issue that CRT discusses. This country DOES have a it’s roots on racism and it continues to this day. It’s an issue that has long been neglected because it is an uncomfortable reality.

          In Germany students are REQUIRED to learn about the Holocaust and how it came to be. Nobody is accusing Germans of being guilty of them simply because those who committed those atrocities are no longer alive. The importance in requiring them to learn about that uncomfortable history of their own allows them to change their views about why it was wrong and why it shouldn’t happen again. WE have never done that with slavery or racism associated with other minorities and this is what allows those sentiments and biases against them to persist. All you seem to do, or more broadly, those on the right is take things such as the 1619 project as a personal accusation, as being targeted “because you’re white”. That’s where the true nonsense lies.

          1. Please do not edit my remarks.
            You rant about nuance and context – and then destroy it.

            Regardless “Judged by” and “Judged based on” are not the same thing.

            Absolutely the right has properly judged CRT harshly – as have myriads of parents who have no connection tot he right at all.

            The judgement of the right – and of those parents rests on CRT itself – its own exegesis of its own values.

            Any person capable of critical thinking. Any person capable of more than shallow thinking would easily grasp the myriads of flaws in CRT.

            Truth itself is not subjective – despite human inability to perceive truth directly.
            The sun rose today. That and trillions of other things are FACTS. You can not wish them away.
            Your personal experience however significant does not change truth.

            Worse still – any system that personalize truth must create conflict, hate, and ultimately, chaos likely followed by tyranny.

            There is no magic elixir that makes individualized and subjective truth workable.

            Logic condemns CRT

          2. The reason that CRT is an issue for parents is they do not wish their children to be indoctrinated with racist nonsense.

            You say that CRT is benign – that is false. It is obviously false.

            We all know why it is important to parents that CRT not be forced onto their childern.

            Why is it important to you to force it on students ?

            The resolution of this conflict is trivial – do not teach CRT.

            This is a GENERAL means of resolving issues that the left is incapable of grasping.

            When there is significant opposition to government doing ANYTHING – then government should not do it.

            Our founders imperfectly created a constitutional system that made it extremely difficult for government to act without super majority support for every little thing it did. The left has over 2 centuries dismantled those protections so that it is not that difficult for government to do things that do not even have majority support.

            While sustained super majority support should not be the only criteria justifying government actions, it is still a requirement for government action.

            You do not have supermajority support for teaching CRT – you do not have supermajority support for anything you wish to impose on us all.

            Your actions are unjustifiable and immoral.

            “Because the majority of the criticism”
            It is irrelevant whether criticism comes from Hitler or Mother Theresa.
            What matters is the truth of the criticism.

            “false narratives”
            Please remove nonsense like false narratives from your arguments – the phrase is near meaningless.
            I have no interest in “naratives”.

            Demostrate that something is true, or demonstrate that it is false.
            Given your personal lack of credibility – my expections of the thoroughness of your support for your arguments will be high.

            “I’m willing to bet that you haven’t actually read the curriculum.”

            AGAIN, these parents are PUBLICLY READING from the ACTUAL curriculum.
            Could you possibly be more wrong about something ?

            “Parent’s are having a field day simply because it doesn’t fit with what THEY have been taught as history.”
            False and irrelevant – THEY are the PARENTS – the determination of what shall be taught to their kids is THEIRS.
            As the School Boards are not responding – these parents are petitioning to recall the school boards – and they are likely to succeed.

            Central to the democracy that you CLAIM to value is that PARENTS get to determine what is taught to their kids.

            “Let’s not forget that the whole point of discussing critical race theory is the sanitizing of our own history to avoid learning about the real atrocities that occurred as a result of racism. ”

            And yet as I have demonstrated repeatedly – from a public school education in the 60’s and 70’s that was a million miles from CRT I am personally far more knowledgeable not only of the racism that you rant about – but myriads of other examples of past racism.

            NO ONE denies that the human past EVERYWHERE has been racist and full of attrocities.

            One of the problems with the 1619 project (aside from serious historical errors) is that it presumes that a tiny part of history is ALL of history.

          3. For most of Human history Racial conflicts were addressed by open warfare. Nations had no racial, ethnic, or cultural diversity.
            The winners were presumed superior, and enslaved the losers. That is how things were for 150,000 years of human history.

            There is nothing special about what happened to Blacks in the colonies or the US.

            Even today – the successful diversity of the US is the exception NOT THE NORM throughout the world.

            The vast majority of countries exist (and have always existed) as homogenous ethinic entities or very nearly so.

            The concept of religious, cultural, racial and ethnic diversity is a WESTERN value.

            China tries to exterminate the Uighurs. In Myanmar they try to extermine the Christian and Muslim Karen.
            In Rwanda the Hutu tried to exterminate the Tutsi. In the Balkans each group sought to exterminate the other.

            Syria is fundimentally an ethnic conflict. Checknia is an ethnic conflict.

            From the end of the middle ages forward Europe has been embroiled in repeated religious and ethnically driven war.
            In fact all war in human history has been ethnic.

            In World War II the Germans sought “lebensraum” – more land for the german race.

            Currently throughout Europe nations that have recently taken in significant racial and ethnic minorities – France, Sweden, Germany are being destabilized and have racial supremacy movements occurring.

            What is unusual in the US – and to a lessor extent the rest of the anglosphere, is that we have attempted with some success to create a racially, culturally, ethnically and religiously diverse society.

            Absolutely we have had lots of problems.

            I would note that Abraham Lincoln’s expectation was that after freeing slaves we would transport them all back to Africa.

            Even today in the US when blacks make choices for themselves – MOST tend to self segregate.

            Whether you like it or not the United States is the laboratory of the world for diversity.

            It as CRT seeks to claim – we have failed – then the most obvious solution is segregation. That is what the world has done for 150,000 years.

            Regardless, it is not the right or these parents that are actually ignorant of history – it is CRT and YOU and the left.

          4. This is not Germany. Further american history is REQUIRED throughout the US.

            That history already includes all the blemishes and sins that you rave on about.

            I have more than aptly demonstrated that to you repeatedly.

            My 60’s and 70’s education demonstrates far more knowledge of not merely the past racial abuses of blacks – but of other racial and ethnic groups.

            While you are ignorant of both.

            Regardless, CRT is NOT about history – it is about ideological indoctrination.

            CRT is not a legitimate effort to mitigate racism – it is an effort to provoke racial violence.

            CRT is inherently racist.

          5. You are correct – no one is accusing todays germans of being guilty for past racism.

            CRT does assert that all whites today benefited from and are guilty for having done so of past descrimination.

            CRT also asserts that existing systems – which originated in racial monocultures with no thought of race – are inherently racist – which is just idiotic poppycock.

            There were few blacks in 10th century europe for the revival of the Justinian code.
            There were no blacks in England for the writing of the magna carte.
            Or when Henri de Bracton’s wrote “On The Laws And Customs of England”
            Or in 1482 when England published the first common law textbook.
            Or in 1611 when the first laws for the Virginia colonies was written.

            And on and on.
            It would be hard for a nation and culture that had few if any blacks, where an ordinary person saw no one of a different race during the entirety of their lives, where most people knew little or nothing of the existance of other races to have created a culture and legal system that was deliberately or even accidentally intended to disadvantage other races.

            1. Hey John…

              So if you could point to established writing in CRT that matches your quote here >> “CRT does assert that all whites today benefited from and are guilty for having done so of past descrimination.”…

              That would be awesome.

              1. Google is your friend.
                There is plenty of information on CRT from the creators and advocates of CRT available

          6. If you do not want people to treat what you say as a personal accusation – do not make personal accusations.

            When you concoct and ideology that irredeemably imputes guilt to all who are white – you should expect that to be treated as a personal accusation.

          7. Svelaz,

            Your arguments are ridiculous.

            They are tantamount to “we can level accusations at you – but you can not take note of the fact that you are being accused”

            You litterally contradict yourself within single sentences.

      2. You rant about “white priviledge” – my ancestors were Irish. They have been slaves in their own country – 600 years before the the first african slaves landed in america. They remained essentially in slavery long past the US civil war.

        The came to the US for freedom. My earliest ancestors arrived just in time to fight against slavery in the civil war.
        After they faced massive anti-irish descrimination. Right through the 60’s when the country elected the first irish catholic president

        Not one of my ancestors ever owned a slave.

        The minority branch of my family tree is Ashkenazi Jews – again about as remote as you can possibly get from black slavery. Though victims of incredible racial predjudice long before the first aftrican slaves in the US and long after.

        I am a straight white and male – the purported abyss to your intersectional hierarchy.

        Except that all your claims of white supremecy fall apart with me. Nor am I alone.
        This country is populated by other persecuted white groups – the italians and poles, or by white groups like swedes who never experience slavery nor “white supremecy” until very recently.

        The left is selling a narrative based on the purported sins of a few who died generations ago, and imposing it on anyone who is white despite having no connection to this idiotic nonsense.

        The direct descendents of Jefferson Davis have little connection to the conduct of their ancestors.

        Yet, you wish to paint the descendents of the OReilly’s the Gundersons, the Wolnska’s, the Bosetti’s, the silverstains all as white supremecist slaveowners.

        You are not merely ignorant of nuance.
        You are ignorant of reality.

        1. John Say,

          “You rant about “white priviledge” – my ancestors were Irish. They have been slaves in their own country – 600 years before the the first african slaves landed in america. They remained essentially in slavery long past the US civil war.

          The came to the US for freedom. My earliest ancestors arrived just in time to fight against slavery in the civil war.
          After they faced massive anti-irish descrimination. Right through the 60’s when the country elected the first irish catholic president

          Not one of my ancestors ever owned a slave.”

          Here you’re just trying to be the bigger victim in order to justify your criticism of CRT and badly I will say. If you “get” what your ancestors went thru then you should understand why CRT is important. But you clearly are just playing the victim card as I correctly pointed out before. This is why there is a problem. You don’t want to acknowledge there is a problem as CRT gives us the opportunity to address it. It should be debated in schools and forums such as this, But playing victim and claiming accusations of guilt by association are just ways to avoid it.

          Your ancestors were NOT slaves. They were indentured servants. This myth about Irish slaves stems from a meme not actual history. Clearly you have been taken for a ride, or you are being purposely disingenuous.

          “The claim that Irish people were enslaved in the British American Colonies stems from a misrepresentation of the idea of “indentured servitude.” Indentured servants were people required to complete unpaid labor for a contracted period.”

          https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/18/fact-check-irish-were-indentured-servants-not-slaves/3198590001/

          Indentured servitude and slavery are two very distinct categories.

          “The came to the US for freedom. My earliest ancestors arrived just in time to fight against slavery in the civil war.
          After they faced massive anti-irish descrimination. Right through the 60’s when the country elected the first irish catholic president”

          The Irish faced discrimination not because they were white, but because they were catholic. It was not about race. Discrimination against Catholics is no longer an issue, just religion in general thanks to evangelicals. That’s an entirely different issue.

          1. Have you ever heard of white slaves chained to oars in Muslim ships? The Barbary slave trade? They captured anywhere from 1 million to 1.25 million Europeans to enslave. Then there were the thralls taken by Vikings.

            During the Muslim expansion, Muslims took children as a blood tax on conquered territory. They preferred captured Europeans for harems. They took European men as slaves, forcibly circumcised them.

            Have you read about any of the British Navy accounts of battles with Muslim ships, in which they expressed such regret at firing upon them, knowing they would hit the enslaved rowers?

            I read an account once of how a British pirate was identified in court by the scars of his circumcision, from his time rowing a galley.

            The heck you say that his people were never enslaved:

            https://news.osu.edu/when-europeans-were-slaves–research-suggests-white-slavery-was-much-more-common-than-previously-believed/

            “Much of what has been written gives the impression that there were not many slaves and minimizes the impact that slavery had on Europe,” Davis said. “Most accounts only look at slavery in one place, or only for a short period of time. But when you take a broader, longer view, the massive scope of this slavery and its powerful impact become clear.”

            Davis said it is useful to compare this Mediterranean slavery to the Atlantic slave trade that brought black Africans to the Americas. Over the course of four centuries, the Atlantic slave trade was much larger – about 10 to 12 million black Africans were brought to the Americas. But from 1500 to 1650, when trans-Atlantic slaving was still in its infancy, more white Christian slaves were probably taken to Barbary than black African slaves to the Americas, according to Davis.

            “One of the things that both the public and many scholars have tended to take as given is that slavery was always racial in nature – that only blacks have been slaves. But that is not true,” Davis said. “We cannot think of slavery as something that only white people did to black people.”

            “Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland,” he said.

            Pirates (called corsairs) from cities along the Barbary Coast in north Africa – cities such as Tunis and Algiers – would raid ships in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, as well as seaside villages to capture men, women and children. The impact of these attacks were devastating – France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants. At its peak, the destruction and depopulation of some areas probably exceeded what European slavers would later inflict on the African interior.

            Although hundreds of thousands of Christian slaves were taken from Mediterranean countries, Davis noted, the effects of Muslim slave raids was felt much further away: it appears, for example, that through most of the 17th century the English lost at least 400 sailors a year to the slavers.”

            https://www.theburkean.ie/articles/2020/06/14/the-irish-were-slaves-deal-with-it

            Slavery in Ireland only really hit its height with the arrival of the Vikings. This warlike foreign force was fond of their thralls, slaves they took from the people they raided and conquered. Dublin served as a significant hub for the sale of Gaelic slaves both domestically and internationally. Such slaves were so prolific throughout the Norse world that a significant proportion of Scandinavian DNA can be traced back to Irish slaves. This goes especially for Iceland, where the DNA of the average resident is around 30% Gaelic.

            To say the life of a thrall was brutal would be a massive understatement. Both physical and psychological abuse was common for these slaves. In fact, it appears that, upon their master’s death, thralls were often ritually sacrificed in order to follow their master into the afterlife…

            Arab explorer and theologian Ibn Fadlan describes one such sacrifice in gruesome detail, writing that a female slave was raped by multiple men, stabbed, and finally throttled, before burning with her master and the rest of his grave goods. While such 3rd party accounts of indigenous traditions should always be looked upon with a certain degree of skepticism, the archeological record strongly supports Ibn Fadlan’s account. It is rather common to find beheaded bodies alongside sans any grave goods alongside the remains of an important Viking…

            From the early 16th to late 18th century, Barbary corsairs were a near constant threat on European shorelines. These pirates primarily traded in slaves, capturing unsuspecting people in coastal villages and selling them in their base cities of Algiers, Tripoli and Tunis. White slaves were of particular value to these pirates, with caucasian females often fetching far higher prices within the Ottoman trade compared to women of other backgrounds. Historians estimate that up to 1.25 million people of European descent were abducted and sold into slavery by these pirates.

            The Sack of Baltimore in West Cork is perhaps the most famous of these Barbary raids. Led by famous Dutch Muslim convert and pirate, Murat Reis the Younger, Barbary pirates abducted the entire population of mostly Protestant settlers in a single night. As a result, Baltimore was abandoned until the 18th century.

            The Barbary slave trade made up a small part of the much larger slave industry within the Ottoman Empire. Unlike other civilizations, the Ottoman Empire was truly built on slavery. Between a fifth and a quarter of the population of Istanbul at one stage were slaves, consisting of labourers, concubines, and even bureaucrats. Quite famously, a significant part of the Ottoman Empire’s military were made up of slave converts, taken from non-muslim families as boys and molded into the Empires most elite soldiers.”

            1. The above article does not considered an Irish indentured servant as a slave, even though the master could do pretty much whatever they wanted to him or her for 7 years. Many women were sexually abused under this system.

              Indentured servants could be beaten to death, raped, beheaded, branded, burned to death, or their heads put on a pike. It is assumed by some that all indentured servants willingly sold 7 years of their labor in exchange for passage, but that was not always the case, most especially where it pertained to the Irish. There was extreme prejudice against the Irish in the British Empire, as well as the Americas after the Revolution. After centuries of British Rule and true oppression, the Irish had a brutally short lifespan, malnutrition, poor education, and had unhealthy living conditions. The treatment of the Irish was truly deplorable, and it absolutely did descend to the level of forced slavery, including sexual slavery.

              “The practice began long before America gained its independence from England. It started during the reigns James II and Charles II and was encouraged by Oliver Cromwell. The first shipment of slaves, which arrived in the Americas in 1619, was composed of 100 white children. James II sold some 30,000 Irish prisoners to be used as slaves in the New World. In 1625 he issued a proclamation which required that Irish political prisoners be sent to the West Indies. By the middle of the 17th century Irish slaves were being sold to Antigua and Montserrat. So many Irish slaves were sent to Montserrat that they made up 70% of the population.

              Between 1641 and 1652 more than 500,000 Irish were killed outright by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Because of the slave trade the population of Ireland dropped from 1,500,000 to 600,000 in that one decade. Men were not allowed to take their wives and children with them resulting in a massive number of homeless women and children. England “solved” the problem by selling them off as well. In the 1650s more than 100,000 children between the ages of 10 and 14 were sold to slaveholders in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. Some 30,000 men and women were also sold. In 1656 Cromwell ordered that 2,000 children be sent to Jamaica as slaves for the English settlers.

              After the Irish Rebellion of 1798, thousands of Irish were sold to America and Australia. Abuses were rampant. One British ship dumped 1,302 slaves into the ocean so that the crew would have more food to eat.

              During this time slaves from Africa were just starting to be brought to the New World. As badly as they were treated, the Irish were actually treated worse. This was in part due to British anti-Catholicism but also because the black slaves cost more by a factor of ten. (Blacks were sold for 50 sterling while the Irish seldom went for more than 5 sterling. Mistreatment of the slaves, even if it resulted in death, was not considered criminal.

              The practice continued until the British decided to put an end to it in 1839 but that did not put an end to the mistreatment of Irish children.

              Many Irish orphans were rounded up and sent by train to agricultural areas to live with farmers. Few records were kept regarding the trains, but estimate run between 400,000 and 600,000 were relocated between 1854 and 1929.

              Young girls were often forced into prostitution which, although illegal, was usually ignored. In some cities it is estimated that as many as 75% of the men suffered from some form of sexually transmitted disease. In 1832, a group of women formed the American Female Guardian Society to take care of the girl prostitutes. The group soon started taking in both boys and girls and later established 12 industrial schools where children were taught a trade and skills to support themselves.”

              https://virily.com/culture/irish-slaves-in-the-americas/

              1. Karen S,

                It’s nice to see that for once you actually do some real research. I sincerely hope while you were reading thru those articles you came to appreciate why CRT is important. Did you notice how it isn’t well known about the Irish being treated as they are because of their indentured servitude? They swept that part of history under the rug. Just like what CRT. Now you say CRT is crap because it makes white people look bad. Guess what, knowing about the Muslim’s enslaving white people makes them look bad too. But it is what it is and it was done by people that are no longer here. YOU are John Say are not those people, yet the narrative that right wing think tanks and pundits keep hammering at you is that CRT is blaming YOU for something that happened over a hundred years ago. CRT is not doing that, but THEY want you to think it is. You should actually read CRT first before spouting the nonsense they are giving you.

                1. “It’s nice to see that for once you actually do some real research.” Ignorant ad hominem. I usually produce links.

                  It seems you are unwilling to research CRT, and are willfully blind as to the sincere, honest criticism, as well as the measurable deleterious effects of such. There is no reasoning with the willfully blind.

                2. Have you read your own nonsense ?

                  Indentured servitude was BAD – in most instances worse than slavery.

                  The ONLY advantage that indentured servants had over slaves is that if they survived their indenture – and only about 1/3 did, they were not only free, but usually got a bit of land and a horse.

                  That does make a difference – if you live.

                  But everything about the irish is NOT about indentured servitude.

                  Those who were in ireland were generally much WORSE off than indentured servants.

                  Remember indentured servants CHOSE indenture over remaining in ireland where things were WORSE.

                  Starvation was common place. More Irish died in a single famine than there were slaves in the US.

              2. Slavery in the US lasted from 1619-1865. 250 years.

                The irish were essentially enslaved to the british for almost 1000 years.

            2. Svelaz and those pushing CRT are completely clueless to the history of the world.

              My ancestors are primarily Irish and aside from a bit of terrorism in the 20th century that occured after my ancestors were well established in the US there is little egregious white supremecists conduct in my families past. What little non-irish heritage I have is Pennsylvania German – these did not own slaves, and 18% jewish – the miracles of DNA testing.

              But throughout the world we have 150,000 years of history of our inhumanity to each other.
              Slavery has legally existed in much of the world through the 20th century, and illegally to the present.

              What happened to blacks in the US was horrible – it was also commonplace thoughout the world – before and after.

              Further the premise of the leftist nonsense – that slavery is somehow the source of US wealth is complete idiocy.

              If Slavery had been economically successful – the south would have won the war. slavery always and everywhere has proven to weaken not strengthen economies.

              But then the left thinks that welfare works economically and that people do not respond to incentives – to work hard or to work little.

              Slavery requires force or the threat of force to produce – that makes it inefficient.
              This is also part of why government is inefficient.

          2. “Here you’re just trying to be the bigger victim in order to justify your criticism of CRT and badly I will say.”

            No. I am NOT a victim because bad things happened to my ancestors 100, 500, 1000 years ago. Just as blacks today are not victims of what happened to some of their ancestors 200 years ago.

            “If you “get” what your ancestors went thru then you should understand why CRT is important.”
            FALSE.

            Do you really want to go all the way back to caine and abel and re-adjudicate the entirety of the past based on moral standards today ?

            “But you clearly are just playing the victim card as I correctly pointed out before.”
            No I am pointing out the stupidity of playing the victim card based on events hundreds of years ago.
            I am also pointing out that Blacks were not consequentially unique in past victimization.

            “This is why there is a problem. You don’t want to acknowledge there is a problem as CRT gives us the opportunity to address it”
            Because it does not.

            Further CRT is not merely a distorted view of history, it is a ludicrously bad philosophy.

            You are constantly pretending that there are different truths for different people – that is a philosophical position that is also part of CRT.
            It is one that is not merely wrong, but actually evil.

            “It should be debated in schools”
            Nope, we should not be selling false history and bad philosphy to gramar school students.

            “and forums such as this,”
            Certainly – so far you have done an absymal job.

            “But playing victim and claiming accusations of guilt by association are just ways to avoid it.”
            CRT is LITTERALY all about playing the victim and guilt by association.
            You have absolutely no self awareness.

            “Your ancestors were NOT slaves. They were indentured servants.”
            False and irrelevant. My ancestors were Irish. The Irish in ireland for almost 1000 years were worse off that slaves. They had less freedom that slaves. And they were not indentured servants.

            While there were Irish indentured servants in the US that was primarily in the 19th century and those indentured servants were far better off than the Irish still in Ireland. Conversely the indentured servants in the 16th century were primarily poor englishmen and they were worse off than the slaves in the new world.

            “This myth about Irish slaves stems from a meme not actual history.”
            Svelaz – with every post you make it clear that you are ignorant about history.

            But that should not be surprising as CRT is a deliberate effort to destroy all of history but a distorted portion useful to those shilling for a minority victim culture.

            There are thousands of historical documents and histories you could read to find out about the conditions in Ireland for the past 1000 years.
            There are plenty of documents on indentured servants that cover conditions at different times.

            And I have focussed on the Irish – as they are my ancestors and I am familiar with Irish history.

            But you can look at other groups – the italians, or the chinese who have their own histories
            Others have noted that the “native americans” had slaves before the first europeans. Further many owned black slaves.
            Even free blacks in the US owned slaves.
            Conversely few whites at any time in US history owned slaves.

            And that is just US history. The english were pretty racist in most every colony. But quite often those they colonized were themselves racist. Indians still have a cast system that is very oppressive – and they had that before the english.

            Aside from the serious historical errors of the 1619 project and CRT, there is a major issue of blinders.

            Both suffer from tunnel vision – trying to recast the entirety of history and toss law and philosophy based on an obviously bad analysis of a small portion of history oblivious to anything anywhere else.

            BTW I have no interest in your recycled nonsense from USA today or elsewhere.

            I have no idea what your article says – but your regurgitation is completely FALSE.

            First when I refered tot he history of the irish as defacto slaves – I am specifically talking about the Irish in Ireland for 1000 years of british rule. Those irish were not indentured servants. They had no rights, no property, and lived in less than subsistance condictions. They would have envied the conditions of colonial slaves.

            T%he earliest indentured servants were not slaves, they were also english not irish.
            Their conditions were BETTER than those back in England, but they were WORSE that slaves at the time.
            While indentured servants had the prospect of not merely freedom, but a small amount of property on completion of their indenture – less than 1/3 lived that long. The mortality rate for indentured servants was higher than slaves. Slaves as an example received medical care – indentured servants received nothing.

            Irish indentured servants were centuries later – most AFTER slavery had ended. Their conditions were better than slaves. Better than most southern free blacks. and far better than the relatives they left back in Ireland. But still pretty crappy.

            “Indentured servitude and slavery are two very distinct categories.”

            They are. But catagories tell you nothing about actual conditions. All slaves were not treated equally – some were treated brutally. Most were not. For most slaves the worst aspect of their lives was that they were not free. Indentured servants were not free either, but they had some hope of freedom. None of these things were identical from place to place or time to time.

            Southern Slavery actually got much worse when the US prohibited the importation of slaves.
            Indentured servants conditions were horrible in the 16th century. They were much better in the 19th.

            “The Irish faced discrimination not because they were white, but because they were catholic. It was not about race. ”
            That is both false and irrelevant. Half my Irish ancestors were protestant. The Irish were not treated well if they were not catholic.
            Regardless, discrimination because they are catholic is somehow better ?

            “Discrimination against Catholics is no longer an issue”
            It has been a major issue in my lifetime. There was as much of an issue over election JFK in 1960 as electing Obama in 2008.
            “That’s an entirely different issue.” Yes, and that is the point – the 1619 Project and CRT are completely blind to anything that does not fit their meme.

            I would ask you are people beat up on the streets today because they are black ? Nearly all violence against blacks is by blacks.
            People are beat up on the streets today because they are jewish. People are beat up on the streets today because they are asian – and mostly by blacks.

            These are real issues of real racial violence TODAY.

            As to racial issues today – please familiarize your self with the facts.

            Being black is not in the top 10 of factors that will effect your future.
            Real factors that actually matter are those inside your control – white or black.

            If you want to do well:

            Finish high school.
            Do not join a gang.
            Do not commit crimes.
            Get a job – even a really bad one.
            Keep the job – come to work on time, do the work.
            Do not have children before you can provide for them.
            Do not get married until you are ready to form an actual family.

            Do these things and whether you are white or black and no matter how poor you start, you will be middle class by the time you are 30.

        2. John Say, Here’s why your claim about your “Irish ancestors is actually…BS.

          “On the 27 August 2019 the Democratic Party Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris marked the 400th anniversary of the first recorded importation of enslaved Africans to Virginia by calling for a reckoning with her country’s “history of slavery and institutional racism.”

          Two days later the frequent Fox News contributor and right wing author Janie Johnson (who has circa 210,000 followers on Twitter) tweeted a rhetorical response to Harris stating “What about the Irish the FIRST slaves of America?” the implication being that Irish people were enslaved in Colonial America before African people.

          In early August 2019 another “Irish were the first slaves” meme was created by Michael John Melton, a self-published author and ‘lizard people’ conspiracy theorist, and published on his Facebook page. As his followers shared it, the meme quickly began to circulate across thousands of users’ timelines.

          The misuse of the photo did not bode well for the historical veracity of its assertion. The image the conspiracy theorist used did not show ‘Irish slaves’ nor Irish children. It was taken on a beach in Holland by Igor Borisov for Vogue Bambini magazine in 2015 and all of the children in the picture are Dutch.

          This was preceded by a similar use of another “Irish were the first slaves” meme by the actor and far-right political activist James Woods on 17 April 2019. He shared the meme with his 2.1 million followers to help proliferate belief in the claim that Irish people were the “first slaves shipped to the American colonies” so as to deny or mock reparations for slavery.”

          Here’s what actually happened. “In 1619 one hundred poor English children (not Irish) between 8 and 16 years of age were sent to Virginia from London. This transatlantic transportation was in essence a radical extension of the English Poor Law (1601) where the children of English paupers were to be provided for by being bound out as apprentices:

          “for the setting to work of the children whose parents shall not, by the said Churchwardens, and Overseers, or the greater part of them, be thought able to keep and maintain their children.”

          Those that survived that journey were to be bound out as apprentices for seven years.

          In November 1619 the Virginia Company requested that another hundred children be sent from London but this time the minimum age was set to 12 years. They were to be bound to their masters in the colony until they reached the age of majority (21 years old), or if girls, until 21 or married. Upon finishing their service they were promised corn, some cattle, housing and twenty five acres of land “to hold in fee simple…to every of them, and their heirs.”

          But on this occasion, many of the children refused to go as on 28 January 1620 Sir Edwin Sandys, the London-based treasurer of the Virginia Company, complained to Sir Robert Naunton that “now it falleth out that among those children, sundry being ill disposed, and fitter for any remote place than for this city, declare their unwillingness to go to Virginia, of whom the City is especially desirous to be disburdened and in Virginia under severe masters they may be brought to goodness.” He thus requested “higher authorithie” to “transport theis persons” to Virginia “against their wills.”

          https://developmenteducation.ie/feature/were-irish-people-the-first-slaves-in-america/

          This is why you need to really research otherwise John you were taken for a ride about your “Irish ancestors”. OR you were just spouting BS.

          1. “John Say, Here’s why your claim about your “Irish ancestors is actually…BS.”

            Please learn some history.

            As to whoever it is you are pretending is somehow discrediting.

            No the Irish were not the first slaves – that occurred 150,000 years ago. And I have not claimed otherwise.
            What is TRUE, is that the Irish in ireland LONG BEFORE the the first african was enslaved in england or america were conquered and essentially enslaved for nearly 1000 years.

            You can not disprove actual history by whatever the nonsense it is that you are fixated on.

            Regardless, ideas such as reparations should be mocked. There is no means to hold anyone accountable for the distant past.
            It is s stupid idea – whether you are black, irish, chinese or jewish.

            As is the idea that some group was uniquely victimized. That is BS.
            As is the idea that some group is uniquely victimized today – or that past mistreatment has a meaningful current impact.

            “Here’s what actually happened. “In 1619 one hundred poor English children (not Irish) between 8 and 16 years of age were sent to Virginia from London. This transatlantic transportation was in essence a radical extension of the English Poor Law (1601) where the children of English paupers were to be provided for by being bound out as apprentices:”

            No that is NOT what actually happened – that is a small part of what actually happened.

            In the late 18th century Thomas Jefferson had indentured servants at montecello. George Washington had them at Mount Vernon.
            Indentured servants were cheaper than slaves, and they were generally treated worse. They were not given medical care as an example.

            Indentured servants continued in the US atleast through the end of the 19th century.

            “This is why you need to really research otherwise John you were taken for a ride about your “Irish ancestors”. OR you were just spouting BS.”

            Neither – you confuse tiny bits of history with all of history.

            1/2 to 2/3rd of all the people who came to the colonies came as indentured servants.
            This was not a few english orphans, it was a massive number of people – most of them adults.
            BTW according to PBS the first blacks to arrive in the new world in 1619 came as indentured servants – not slaves.
            The first slave laws were not passed until 1641.

            While I was NOT talking about a litteral irish slave trade to the new world – as James Woods refered to – it is not wise to bet against James Woods. His IQ is double yours.

            “The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

            From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

            During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.”

          2. I would note that your sources are no more trustworthy than those you attack.

            As I have noted the earliest blacks in the new world were indentured servants not slaves.

            Colonial Slavery did not exist in the new world until 1641.

            The Irish that so many of your source pretend were indentured servants – where the product of the english depopulating Ireland BY FORCE.

            These people did not choose to leave their homes. They were taken by force, transported by force, and were forced to work under appalling conditions. Their “masters” could punish them as the pleased, in many cases they were free to murder them without consequence.

            Most of your sources keep trying to call these people indentured servants – but there were REAL indentured servants in the same time period – these were actual englishmen. They were NOT taken by force – they agreed to be indentured, Their conditions were also brutal – though less so that remaining in England.

            The FACTS – whether you choose to beleive it or not is that conditions in the early new world were hellish for nearly everyone.

            Your “faux” historians keep trying to pretend there was only chattel slavery – and indentured servitude. That is FALSE.

            There were many arrangements. The Irish mostly taken by force by the english were subject to much the same conditions as african slaves. They were bought and sold, they were brutally punished and often murdered without consequence. And Families were broken apart. But generally they did not have some of the attributes of chattel slavery.

            At the same time – conditions for blacks in the colonies were not uniform either – as noted the first were indentured servants – like the english, not slaves. Nor were all black slaves in the colonies chattel slaves. Nor were conditions the same at different time periods.

            In the 16th century new world conditions were abysmal for nearly everyone except the wealthy. Though at the same time they were MOSTLY better than conditions were back in England (and probably Ireland)

            The worst period of black slavery in the US was in the decades immediately before the civil war.
            The end of importation of slaves from africa increased the value of existing slaves. It resulted in harsher conditions, and a dramatic increase in the destruction of black families which was unusual prior to that. Prior to this it was common for slave owners to free their slaves – sometimes at their deaths often before. But in the decades leading to the civil war southern states made it increasingly hard – even impossible to free slaves.

            While overall conditions for slaves were better than they had been 200 years earlier – the relative condition of slaves was worse.
            In the 16th century Nearly everyone lived in shitty conditions. By the early 19th century standards of living were higher – for everyone.
            But the improvement was less significant for slaves.

    2. McIntyre, you said that a billboard with the message “Voting Fraud is a Felony”–a not so subtle attempt at Black voter suppression.” That implies that black people engage in voting fraud, and that laws against voting fraud will make black people vote less. Do you think black people can’t follow voting laws? Do you think black people can only vote if they commit voter fraud? Why would any legal voter be afraid of voter fraud laws?

      You might be surprised to know that black voting increased in states where there is voter ID laws. This is because black people get photo ID just fine. They drive cars, cash checks, buy alcohol, buy cough syrup, open a bank account, get documents notarized, and engage in myriad activities that require a photo ID in the United States. When Nikki Haley was governor of South Carolina, she enacted a program that would provide free transportation to anyone who needed it to get ID. If I recall correctly, only a couple of dozen in the entire state ever took her up on her offer.

      Liberals have low opinions of the capability of minorities. It truly is uncomfortable to see.

      Academics have attacked the 1619 project as untrue and inaccurate. It also defies common sense why any group would form a colony expressly to preserve slavery when slavery was ubiquitous in human history, even among Native Americans.

      Russia and China promote propaganda to weaken the United States. This includes the propaganda that the US is a systemically racist country. This destroys the country from within, and induces its inhabitants to throw away their prosperity. Both these countries also promote socialist propaganda here. Nothing would destroy a nation’s economy faster than a swerve towards socialism. But socialism requires classes warring with each other. Socioeconomic class warfare won’t really catch on here, since anyone can make it. There are too many stories of wealthy people coming from nothing. Too many of us know immigrants who came here with nothing, and became middle class business owners within their lifetime. So they chose race warfare instead. The West was on the vanguard of abolishing slavery in the world. Slavery still commonly exists in African countries. But since we worked so hard to end slavery, most of us feel terribly that it ever existed on our shores, from colonial times to after the Revolution. That compassion was exploited.

      It takes pervasive ignorance to believe that a black person in the US is in poverty because of white oppression. I will say, however, that Democrat policies have made poverty and crime worse. For instance, Welfare financially punishes a woman who lives with the father of her children. This led to a sharp increase in single motherhood, which used to be quite low among the black community before the 1960s. Democrats keep pushing to defund police, yet blue cities have experienced enormous increase in crimes and murder. What did they think would happen when they pulled police back? Democrats excused Leftist riots, refused to put them down, refused National Guard help, and enabled them by bailing them out of jail or even refusing to charge them. The result is that many businesses burned or were looted until they closed forever. CA increased the felony theft threshold to $950. San Francisco DAs do not prosecute theft under that limit. The result is that 17 Walgreens are closing permanently in San Francisco, due to the incessant theft. You just can’t lose close to $1000 per customer who feels inclined to steal per day. Democrat policies create the vicious cycle of crime and poverty that they claim to oppose. This makes their platform of vote for us and we’ll solve all your problems so absurd.

      Black voters are beginning to take the Red Pill. Perhaps this is why they are ignored now in favor of illegal aliens, who have children here who vote Democrat, the party of amnesty and illegal immigration. Democrats may ignore black voters because they either take them for granted, or because they have a new target of voters in the bag which will replace them in critical importance to their hegemony.

      1. Karen S.

        “McIntyre, you said that a billboard with the message “Voting Fraud is a Felony”–a not so subtle attempt at Black voter suppression.” That implies that black people engage in voting fraud, and that laws against voting fraud will make black people vote less. Do you think black people can’t follow voting laws? Do you think black people can only vote if they commit voter fraud? Why would any legal voter be afraid of voter fraud laws?”

        You missed the point here Karen. The billboards were only put up in black neighborhoods not every neighborhood. The question you should be asking yourself is ” why were those billboards only put up in black neighborhoods?” You conveniently left out that important tidbit of information. Why weren’t billboards put up in every neighborhood? Why just black ones? Putting them only on those neighborhoods gives the strong impression that voter fraud occurs in their neighborhood more often or that “we are watching you” as a form of intimidation.

        “Academics have attacked the 1619 project as untrue and inaccurate. It also defies common sense why any group would form a colony expressly to preserve slavery when slavery was ubiquitous in human history, even among Native Americans.”

        That is not entirely true. Turley made the same claim and he was being misleading with his claim as well. He was talking about a group of Academics who had issues with a few of the claims made. What Turley didn’t divulge was that those same academics you speak of actually agreed on the idea of what the 1619 project sought to do. In fact they encouraged it as a meaningful discussion. Their objection was to one claim among many that they did not dispute and the agreed it were truthful.

        It pays to really research things Karen instead of parroting things you really don’t understand.

        1. You assume that the billboards were put up because of racism, without proof. Once again, ads against voter fraud should not give legitimate voters any unease. For example, I wouldn’t bat an eye at a billboard of a white woman getting arrested for voter fraud. Why would I? Even though I keep getting mailed ballots for people who have moved, and one person who passed away, I just throw them out. Repeatedly returning to sender has had no effect.

          Ads were put out against voter fraud in swing states. There were multiple videos taken of people admitting plans to commit voter fraud on a large scale, such as bussing in voters. Then there were public calls for Democrats to temporarily move to swing states in order to affect the vote. Then there were the affidavits of voter fraud, and video of irregularities at voting centers.

          Again, you are writing your opinions as if they were supporting facts.

          God forbid anyone put out announcements that voter fraud is a crime. Wouldn’t want to upset Democrats. They might burn down another city at the urging of Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi.

          1. Karen s.

            “You assume that the billboards were put up because of racism, without proof. Once again, ads against voter fraud should not give legitimate voters any unease.”

            They were only put up in black neighborhoods. The proof is on the intent of WHERE to put them up, ONLY on black neighborhoods. They were conveying a message TO blacks in a black neighborhood.

            “There were multiple videos taken of people admitting plans to commit voter fraud on a large scale, such as bussing in voters. Then there were public calls for Democrats to temporarily move to swing states in order to affect the vote. Then there were the affidavits of voter fraud, and video of irregularities at voting centers.”

            Karen, “There were videos of people admitting plans….” yet nowhere are you or anyone who has been claiming such provided any links or evidence of such videos. Bussing in voters is legal, especially if it involves the elderly. Did those public calls actually encourage massive amounts of people to move? NO they didn’t. Calls to move are NOT evidence of voter fraud.

            “God forbid anyone put out announcements that voter fraud is a crime.”

            Nobody is saying that voter fraud ISN’T a crime. But many are claiming that things that SEEM like a crime are being committed and nearly 100% of the time it’s just innocent errors or legally obscure procedures that are not well understood.

            1. Svalez:

              By your reasoning, the NBA is racist. The proof is in the composition of the mostly black teams. Due to the racial disparity, they’re obviously racist against Asians and white people. There could be no possible explanation other than racism for a racial disparity.

            2. Were the billboards put in voting districts where fraud was suspected?

              For instance, there were allegations of voter fraud and the mishandling of absentee ballots in Somali enclaves.

              Personally, I’m not threatened by billboards that proclaim drunk driving is a crime, domestic abuse is a crime, or voter fraud is a crime. When there is a blinking sign put up by Caltrans warning of the dangers of DUI, it barely registers.

              Yet you feel strongly that black people should be threatened by a sign stating the fact that voter fraud is a crime. What an interesting window that is upon your opinion of black people.

              “But many are claiming that things that SEEM like a crime are being committed and nearly 100% of the time it’s just innocent errors or legally obscure procedures that are not well understood.” Oh, I agree. For instance, it was widely claimed that the Georgia law was illegally keeping water away from voters, or that it was an attempt at denying the black vote. Nothing of the kind occurred. Water could be handed out by poll workers. Political activists could provide all the water they wanted, they just had to give it to poll workers to distribute. Voter ID is not associated with a decrease in black votes, and therefor is not voter suppression. Amazing how unsubstantiated gossip gets legs as if it were truth.

              Transporting legal registered voters is legal. Bussing in people who do not live in a district to engage in voter fraud is illegal.

            3. Svalez said, “Nobody is saying that voter fraud ISN’T a crime.” But stating it on a billboard is? Do you take issue with DUI billboards along highways where DUI are common? Do you feel that DUI billboards are personally directed to you, or any particular group of people? Or do you assume that DUI is considered a problem on that road?

            4. Svalez asked for videos regarding voter fraud. Frankly, he’s just going to ignore them, like he does all other supporting evidence, while clinging to the faith of his convictions.

              Joe Biden said, “We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.” Joe Biden is a doddering gaff machine, and the media rushed to explain that he really meant to say voter protection. I’m sure he didn’t mean to say fraud. Freudian slip? Senior moment? Just a gaff?

              I’ll let you look this up. You’ll find thousands of journalists rushing to save him. The guy did say he was running for the Senate in October 2020, rather than for the Presidency, so who knows how much he’s aware of when he speaks.

              https://freebeacon.com/politics/dem-gotv-group-caught-on-camera-endorsing-voter-fraud/

              A top official at a Democratic get-out-the-vote outfit working to reelect Sen. Mark Udall (D., Colo) appears to endorse voter fraud in a hidden camera video released on Wednesday.

              The video, released by conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe, shows Meredith Hicks, director of the political canvassing group Work for Progress, endorse the casting of fraudulent mail-in ballots for ineligible voters.

              “If they are not eligible to vote, and all these people are throwing out ballots, lets use those ballots to vote. So we can get as many votes as possible,” O’Keefe tells Hicks in the video.

              “Yes, definitely,” she responds.

              Work for Progress has received millions of dollars from a network of dark money groups in Colorado, Boston, and Washington, D.C., to canvass on behalf of Udall and get out the Democratic vote ahead of the November election.

              One of its employees is already facing voter registration fraud charges in Colorado after he allegedly registered voters who were not eligible to cast ballots in the state.

              In O’Keefe’s undercover video, Hicks suggests fraudulently filling out mail-in ballots that voters have discarded.

              “If someone throws out the ballot, if you want to fill it out you should do it,” she says. When O’Keefe notes that doing so could tip the balance of the Colorado Senate election, she replies, “I agree. You’re totally right.”

              Work for Progress is the primary contractor for a Democratic super PAC called Fair Share Action. That group’s 501(c)(4) arm, and a host of other organizations to which they are tied, are among the 180 organizations backed by Democracy Alliance, a secretive network of liberal donors.”

              1. Recently a 197 page PA Auditor Generals report of the Pennsylvania voter registration system covering 2017-2019 was made public.

                The Report was done by Auditor General DePasquale – a Democrat, who was term limited out in 2020, and was replaced by a republican.

                While this report is not specific to Fraud, nor to the 2020 election, it is a long litany of massive problems with the Pennsylvania Voter registration system.

                DePasquale’s random audit found that 70% of all voter registration records were likely invalid.

                Further, DePasquale’s report specifically calls out Bookovar and the DOS for failing to cooperate and for dismissing huge problems.

                As best as I can tell this report was HIDDEN from the legislature when it was crafting Act 77 in 2019 – the new PA Voting law. It was also hidden from the PA Supreme court when it made its idiotic and lawless decisions regarding the 2020 election.

                This report does not prove fraud, but it does prove massive incompetence – going back decades by the very people claiming to have conducted the safest most secure election ever.

                I am personally for entirely getting rid of voter registration – and instead allowing anyone with verified government issued voted ID to vote.

                We are unlikely to get this because it diminishes the power of political parties – how can you control primaries ?

                But the existing voter registration system is DESIGNED to create opotunities for Fraud, and Mailin voting is DESIGNED to take advantage of every flaw in voter registration.

                In PA it is 8 months since the election and there are still 270,000 more Ballots counted in PA than recorded voters.
                That is more than 1/4 of a million. And that is despite that possibility that there could be hundreds of thousands of recorded voters that are dead, ineligible or non-existent.

                It is likely that ultimately many of that 270,000 will be accounted for.
                But it is inexcusable that they are not.
                That was supposed to be a requirement to certify the PA election.
                Further it would not surprise most of us to know that nearly the entirety of that 270,000 ballots without voters is from two counties in PA.

                95% of PA precincts were able to square the number of ballots counted against the number of voters who voted within a week of the end of the election.

                This check is a critical sanity check against election fraud. The number of recorded voters should ALWAYS slightly exceed the number of recorded votes. No one is ever allowed to vote twice, but some people do not vote for some offices.

                We are not supposed to certify an election when we have more ballots than voters.

                For the left wing nuts out their – this is not absolute proof of fraud.

                But it is absolute PROOF that the results of the PA 2020 election can not be trusted.

                There are fraud claims – affadavits that over 100,000 ballots were “injected” into the vote count in Philadelphia.

                Squaring the number of recorded ballots against the number of recorded voters is one of the important safety checks against ballot injection.

                It does not detect all forms of election fraud but does detect some particularly dangerous ones by election officials.

                And I would note that several PA election judges from Philadelphia over the past several years have plead guilty to feeding the same ballot over and over into voting machines. We already KNOW this is part of the culture of elections in Philadephia.

                Democrats are absolutely terrified of the audits currently going on – and justifiably so.
                While there is the real possibility that the large scale fraud in the presidential election may be uncovered. The more important and near certain result is the destruction of the leftist nonsense that there are no problems in our election.

                The Windham audit was unfortunately cut short before looking into actual fraud – because MOST of the discrepancies in Windham were explained by innocent machine error.
                But the error detected was consequential. The AccuVote machines were found to have an error rate of about 60%.
                More importantly they had a reproduceable error caused by ballot folding that would trigger overvotes and under votes depending on the exact voting on the ballot being counted. That error in Windham amounted to an error rate of 3.5% for all ballots. Worse still the error was not random – even though it was innocent – i.e. the error all went in ONE DIRECTION. Specifically in the Windham case each of several republican candidates were shorted about 300 votes, and one democrat was awarded just under 100 votes from counting folds.
                In this instance the error had no effect – because all the republicans beat their democratic opponent by more than 400 votes.

                This problem is with near certainty present in all AccuVote machines in New Hampshire. It is also near certain this problem has been present in NH for 2 decades.

                With near certainty every single election that has been held in NH since the first Accuvote systems has had a 3.5% error in atleast two races in every single precint in NH.

                Next – we now know that not only Dominion – but The NH Department of State was aware of this problem in June of 2020 and chose to do nothing about it. The Dominion representative informed the NH Department of State of the problem in a meeting whose transcript has now been made public.

                Finally – we simply do not know that this problem is present only in AccuVote systems. It could easily be present in most of the vote scanning/counting systems in the country.

                While this is error, not malfeasance, it is a unique form of error in that it does not have a proportionate effect.

                The vast majority of errors in voting systems – even errors of bias rather than fraud on the part of those administering an election tend to cancel each other out. Ballot fords triggering under or over votes – will be random – in that the layout of the ballot will determine which races and which candidates are effected, but ballot fold overvotes and undervotes will ALWAYS favor One candidate and disfavor all other candidates in up to two elections on each ballot.

                The Audits that are occuring in some state right now are absolutely necescary.
                Further a more efficient and less costly permutation of them should occur in EVERY ELECTION – ALWAYS.

                GA had planned to impliment a random statewide audit as part of normal operating procedures stating in 2020,
                But the GA DOS rejected it as too costly (the actual cost is small).

                GA did ultimately conduct a random audit of signatures in Cobb County in 2020.
                They took a random sample of 5000 ballots and found that 300 failed to meet the States signature matching requirements by law.
                Further they found that 30 were clearly fraudulent.
                This is an error rate of 6% and a fraud rate of 0.6% – these are perfectly consistent with historical data on Mailin election error rates.

                The results of this audit SHOULD have triggered a state wide signature audit.

                It is near certain that GA counted 6% of mailin ballots that should not have been counted by law.
                And about 0.6% that were actually fraudulent.
                Innumerable elections in 2020 in GA were within a 6% margin.

                The number of erroneously counted ballots in GA is between 120-240,000 and the number of fraudulent ballots counted is between 12-24,000 and this is just based on signature checks. It has nothing to do with myriads of other forms of error or fraud.

                1. John say,

                  “ I am personally for entirely getting rid of voter registration – and instead allowing anyone with verified government issued voted ID to vote.

                  We are unlikely to get this because it diminishes the power of political parties – how can you control primaries ?”

                  It may diminish the power of the parties but it increases the power of the people. We are a self governed nation by the people’s consent. Therefore letting everyone who can vote vote is the most rational solution.

                  “ But it is absolute PROOF that the results of the PA 2020 election can not be trusted.”

                  Nope. No Trump lawyers ever provided proof in court.

                  Allegations and affidavits that have not been verified are not proof. Most affidavits were retracted once individuals realized they could face jail time if they were found to be committing perjury. Meaning many were just making stuff up.

                  Signature verification is not 100% accurate. People’s signatures change over time. This just makes it easier for county officials to commit fraud instead of the voters. I

                  1. Can we cut the debunked nonsense that evidence was not provided.

                    We have been through this over and over.

                    There were no evidentiary hearings prior to certification of the vote.

                    There is already plenty of “proof” of serious problems.

                    The Windham NH audit did not find fraud – though it mostly did not look for fraud.
                    It mostly focused on accuvote scanners and it found serious problems there.
                    It also found those problems were known in advance and ignored.

                    In 2020 the problems in Windham did not change the outcome of a single election – but they came close in several.
                    And the error was large.

                    Further Windham found that 60% of ballots did not scan correctly – this is an error rate that has been found with vote scanners throughout the country.

                    It is a rate that is 1000 times higher than the law allows. It is a rate sufficiently high that it makes vote scanners useless and untrustworthy.

                    In the random signature audit in Cobb County GA – 6% of all examined ballots were found to have been invalid, and 0.6% fraudulent.

                    In AZ we already have 23,000 federal election votes that should never have been counted. The voters were not registered and they provided no ID.

                    These are just the few things that have been established with CERTAINTY at this time.

                    There is much more that is likely coming.

                    And democrats keep engaging in trench warfare to thwart these audits.

                    Why ?

                    While the results of the Windham audit should have triggered a state wide recount of all offices, and resulted in statewide changes for subsequent elections. The Windham results did establish that we can be confident that the winners in Windham actually did win the election – and by a wider margin than on election day.

                    Audits do not undermine trust in elections – except when the results are not trustworthy.

                    They should be the NORM. Not exceptional.

                    The only people who should oppose audits are those who won by fraud.

                  2. What claim have you made that has proven true ?

                    Over the past 5 years – the left, the media, YOU have been constantly walking back various false claims.
                    The collusion delusion.
                    Russian bounties,
                    the natural origens of Covid,
                    The effectiveness of lockdowns and other policies,
                    and on and on.

                    Why should you be trusted ?

                    Why should the media, the left, Democrats – you be trusted on anything – much less elections.

                  3. “Allegations and affidavits that have not been verified are not proof. ”
                    That is correct – they are evidence. Whether they constiture proof is determined in evidentiary hearings with discovery and witnesses under oath and cross examination. That did not occur.

                    very little evidence has been disproven.

                    “Most affidavits were retracted once individuals realized they could face jail time if they were found to be committing perjury. Meaning many were just making stuff up.”

                    False – only a handful of affadavits have been retracted thus far – there were thousands produced accross the country.
                    Many are still being litigated.

                    “Signature verification is not 100% accurate. People’s signatures change over time. This just makes it easier for county officials to commit fraud instead of the voters. ”

                    All true, and yet we have used signatures as the primary means of verifying identity – not just in elections but throughout law and business for centuries. Further we have actually signature verification standards and processes to address mismatches.

                    The match standard for the audit in Cobb country was a 20% match – that is the lowest match standard ever used. That resulted in a 6% rejection rate. A 40% match requirement would likely have resulted in quadruple the rejection rate.

                    Further, in most of these ballots the signature was the ONLY means of assuring the legitimacy of the voter.

                    With mailin ballots – we have an envelope with information on it and a ballot inside.
                    We do not have a physical person present claiming “I am the voter”. We have only the signature and what other information was provided to verify the identity and legitimacy of the voter.

                    I personally have no problem with a low signature match criteria – but not NONE. So long as other information verifies.
                    Voters typically must provide and address, a state id # (usually drivers licesnse) and last 4 digits of social security #.

                    Ballots are not rejected in signature matches unless there are multiple mismatches – both on signature and other identification.

                    Further this is a trivial to address problem – notify the voter that their mailin ballot was rejected and that they must vote in person at the polls or absentee at the county courthouse.

                    Rejecting a mailin ballot for lack of verficiation does not preclude the person from voting. It just precludes counting an unverifiable mailin ballot. The rejection rate typically runs about 6% – as it did in Cobb County.

                    but the reality is we should not have mailin voting – it will always be subject to coercion and inducement. That can not be fixed.

                    We learned this in the 19th century – the left is determined to force us to relearn the mistakes of the past.

                  4. Banks do signature matches on checks all the time.
                    They are also used in wills and contracts and almost all legal processes.

                    There are other alternatives – but just accepting ballots without proof the voter is legitimate is not one of those.

                2. John say,

                  “ In PA it is 8 months since the election and there are still 270,000 more Ballots counted in PA than recorded voters.”

                  That allegation turned out to be false. It conflated the results of a previous primary and the 2020 election. It was a poor attempt at creating an issue of fraud that didn’t happen.

                  1. Nope, that is not an allegation – it is a fact.

                    95% of PA precincts have reconciled the 2020 election – but the largest counties in PA still have not.
                    In fact they never do.

                    You are correct that error is persistent into the past.

                    Just as the places in the country where YOU have what YOU consider to be the worst policing are the large urban areas already run by democrats and usually by minorities,

                    The same problem is true with elections.

                    While there is massive debate about the morality and legality of what Zuckerberg did in 2020. There is no doubt that he poured millions into precincts that have historically had massive problems with elections. These are the places where nearly all fraud has been found historically, they are the places were there are long lines and long waits to vote.

                    And yet these are also the places where that should NOT be true. A congressional district in NYC is physically small enough that you can walk accross it in a few hours. Where I live a precinct is too big to walk in several days.
                    Voters where I live must travel to the polls. Voters in democratic cities should only have to walk a few blocks.

                    Yet, it is those places were voting should be the easiest that it is the hardest.
                    It is those places that never are able to conform to election laws.
                    It is those places that should be reporting results first that are always reporting them last.
                    It is those places that should be the most efficient, that are always the least efficient.

                    In most of the country (actually all of the country) We could vote on paper ballots on a single day and count them by hand and have accurate tallies within hours of the close of polls. France as an example does exactly this.
                    Much of the US has done this for all of us history.

                    Every problem we have with voting is solvable – mostly trivially.

                    voting machines are black boxes that we are told we must trust.
                    But that is not so. We do not need voting machines, we do not need scanners, we do not need much at all for a trustworthy vote.

                    Trust in elections is easily acheivable. Count the vote by hand with public and press observation and with meaningful challenges.

                    Just about every single means of fraud – real and imaginable can be easily thwarted.

                    The constitutional requirements of 28 states for secret ballots is a potent anti-fraud measure that can not be replicated any other way.

                    Actual secret ballots prevent all forms of coercion of inducement.
                    No one will buy votes – if they can not verify that they got what they paid for.
                    Employers, Friends and family can not pressure you to vote at all, much less in a specific way if they have no means to know that you have done so.

                    Few nations in the world do not have secret ballots. Until 2020 – nearly all the US had secret ballots.
                    Our own past history tells us that eliminating secret ballots results in widespread fraud.

                    But our ability to have trustworthy elections requires that we have the processes to assure that trust AND that we follow them.
                    in 2020 – the left and our courts used C19 as an excuse to destroy historic safeguards and the results were a lawless election that is not trusted by many.

                    And you do not grasp – it is not just that they do not trust the outcome – they do not trust the process. they do not trust government.
                    they do not trust governors, they do not trust the courts.

                    That is a recipe for disaster.
                    And you have brought it on yourself.

                  2. The failure to reconcile ballot counts with voter counts is not specifically an allegation of fraud.

                    It is an allegation of error. But it is an allegation of error in a system that exists for the purpose of detecting and discouraging fraud.

                    And no, it is not an allegation that has proven false.
                    Only a few of the allegations regarding the election have proven false so far.

                    And even those have not really been refuted.
                    The Windham audit revealed serious error – problems that have been present for 2 decades that we now know have been known and yet were never corrected. These problems with near certainty are true throughout 85% of New Hampshire.
                    These problems are possible wherever any scanners are used.

                    Yet because the Windham audit did not change the winners and losers we are again ignoring that it found a very significant problem that would have effected any close election in NH for any office for two decades.

                    In GA the random signature audit found a 6% error rate and a .6% fraud rate. These are significant. they should have resulted in a 100% signature audit of the entire state.

                    Yet you ignore these results.

                    In AZ they have already found 23,000 federal only ballots that were unfortunately lawfully cast by AZ voters who could not provide proof of identity or voter registration. It appears that current AZ law allows these to be counted – most states do not. but there is absolutely no way to know if they are legitimate. In AZ you can apparently vote even if you are not registered, and even if you can not provide ID – but only for federal offices.

                    That is a open invitation to fraud.

            5. “There were videos of people admitting plans….” yet nowhere are you or anyone who has been claiming such provided any links or evidence of such videos. ”

              God, not this nonsense again. YES, there are myriads of videos of all kinds of voter fraud, as well as stories in the media that you ignore.

              “Bussing in voters is legal”
              Not from out of state.
              Not if those being bussed can not legally vote. Then it is fraud.

              “especially if it involves the elderly.”
              If you wish to provide transport for legal elderly voters – good for you.
              But there is no “especially the elederly”.

              “Did those public calls actually encourage massive amounts of people to move? NO they didn’t.”
              We do not know for certain – as election officials DID NOT CHECK.

              “Calls to move are NOT evidence of voter fraud.” Of course they are. They are not absolute proof of voter fraud.

              You are the one playing the idiotic black and white game.
              There is not at this moment incontroverted proof of large scale voter fraud.
              There IS at this moment a great deal of evidence of varrying quality of voter fraud on a variety of scales – more than sufficient to change the results.

              There is far more than enough evidence that the election should not have been certified and the evidence should have been investigated.
              It was not. All the court opinions you cite are damning – to you. Because they all prove the courts did not permit any investigation.

              And all this skips the fact that the elections were without argument lawless.

              “Nobody is saying that voter fraud ISN’T a crime. But many are claiming that things that SEEM like a crime are being committed and nearly 100% of the time it’s just innocent errors or legally obscure procedures that are not well understood.”

              Svelaz – this is complete idiocy. Voting is to be by the law open public and transparent. That is an absolute moral requirement for “consent of the governed”.

              One of your huge problems is that you keep trying to pretend that you can secure consent without being by the law open public and transparent.

              None of this is about legally obscure procedures.

              The only people making any of this obscure are on the left.

              In my state – the LAW says – voting must be by secret ballot – more than half was not.
              The LAW says that all voting requires providing a valid government issued photo ID – more than half was not.
              The LAW says that all voters must sing in to vote and that their signatures must be verified – they were not.
              The LAW says that all vote counting must be done publicly with observers from all parties having a right to challenge the counting of each ballot – that did not occur.

              These are just some of the big things.
              My state LAW required that all absentee (mailin) ballots had to be delivered to the office of the county board of elections –
              They were not. They were illegally delivered to many unattented ballot boxes.

              Just about every controversial state had similar laws – these were not followed.

              It is the duty of the courts to require government to follow the law – not actively seek to circumvent it for political gain.

              None of this is “legally obscure”. Ordinary people have little trouble understanding “THE LAW WAS NOT FOLLOWED”.
              Ordinary people understand when SIMPLE laws meant to impede fraud are circumvented – it is likely you get fraud.

              1. John say,

                “ My state LAW required that all absentee (mailin) ballots had to be delivered to the office of the county board of elections –
                They were not. They were illegally delivered to many unattented ballot boxes.”

                Nope, your state law did require that absentee ballots had to be delivered to the office of county board of elections. But the law you’re citing doesn’t specifically state that the ballots have to be delivered to the physical building itself it states that the “office” may designate locations to drop off ballots. As long as they are designated by the “office” they are legal. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court pointed out that the term “office” does not always mean a particular physical structure or space. Just as saying the office of the president declared such and such or designates something. We both know the “office” i.e. the physical structure or space didn’t designate or declared something the individuals who consist of the “office” did.

                This is where you get in trouble in trying to read the law using the narrowest possible interpretation. The court correctly determined what the term “office” in “office of county board of elections.

                That’s why the boxes were determined legal.

                “ The LAW says that all vote counting must be done publicly with observers from all parties having a right to challenge the counting of each ballot – that did not occur.”

                No. The law only allowed observers to observe. They were there as noted in the court. The candidates are allowed to challenge the counting not the observers. All the law required was that observers be present. They were not allowed to interfere with vote counting. Hence the term “observers”.

                “ In my state – the LAW says – voting must be by secret ballot – more than half was not.”

                There was no evidence provided to the court of this claim. An allegation is not proof.

                “THE LAW WAS NOT FOLLOWED”.

                Yes. It was. The Pennsylvania supreme court’s opinion explicitly detailed why it was. They went to great lengths to explain every detail of why the law was indeed followed. Just because they didn’t interpret the law in the narrowest possible way as you wanted doesn’t make it wrong. The court explained why such interpretation would not work.

                The laws were not merely circumvented just because they wanted to. They did so because they had a reason, the pandemic, and the legislature granted such changes to individual counties. Some chose drop boxes. Others asked for extra time which they were allowed according to the law. County board of elections were required to ask MUNICIPAL courts for an extension and they were granted. The legislature GAVE those local elections board that authority because it involves a local issue. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court pointed this out too.

                The majority of the alleged fraud often turns out to me innocent mistakes or miscommunication about what local officials believed was an issue.

                1. “Nope, your state law did require that absentee ballots had to be delivered to the office of county board of elections.”
                  Correct – that is EXACTLY what I said.

                  “But the law you’re citing doesn’t specifically state that the ballots have to be delivered to the physical building itself it states that the “office” may designate locations to drop off ballots.”
                  False. On both counts.

                  Exactly what language would you have the legislature use to be more specific than “the office of county board of elections.” ?

                  All you are doing is PROVING why law must be read narrowly.

                  The argument that you and the PA SCOTUS used is “unfalsifiable” – i.e. – it will NEVER be possible for the legislature to be sufficiently specific using the broad interpretation of the courts.

                  “As long as they are designated by the “office” they are legal.”
                  Even that did not happen.

                  “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court pointed out that the term “office” does not always mean a particular physical structure or space. ”
                  The law did not say “office” it said “the office of county board of elections” – there is litterally by law only one such office in each country.

                  “Just as saying the office of the president declared such and such or designates something. We both know the “office” i.e. the physical structure or space didn’t designate or declared something the individuals who consist of the “office” did.”
                  The law referenced a specific PLACE – further there is a reason for the requirement that was part of the law – that was chain of custody.

                  Ballots that are not hand delivered to election officials by voters, OR delivered to the same election officials by the post office do not have a valid chain of custody. There is no means to know that they came directly from the voter,

                  This is why the courts are not free to broadly interpret the law – when they do so, they alter the purpose of the law.

                  Regardless, your argument is nonsense. When we refer to “the office of the president” – or any other similar uses we are typically refering to a SOURCE not a destination. When we speak of the office of the president or the office of legal counsel as a destination – we DO MEAN A SPECIFIC PLACE.

                  If you send mail to “the office of the president” – it is going to ONE place – the whitehouse mail room.

                  “This is where you get in trouble in trying to read the law using the narrowest possible interpretation. The court correctly determined what the term “office” in “office of county board of elections.”
                  Nope, the law did not say “office”. It said “the office of the county board of elections” – that is one and only one place.
                  Even if as you falsely claim the country could designate another place – it does NOT mean by any stretch of the imagination unattented ballot boxes on the streets. Those are not offices in any sense of the word.

                  I would note as a matter of law – that the courts are obligagted to give meaning to EVERY word in a statute.

                  They can not separate out “office” and apply it in anyway that dillutes the meaning of the other words int he law.

                  The law did not require delivery to “an office” or even “an office of the county board of elections” – it required delivery to “The office of the county board of elections”.

                  “delivery” is specific, “The” is singular. “office” is singular. “county board of elections” is specific.
                  There is only a single reading of the law where every word retains its full meaning.

                  There is also no means to write a law that specifies a single place and preserves chain of custody that is not subject to this nonsense that the PA supreme court engaged in.

                  The courts have ALWAYS erred in their reading of the law, when the process that they use to reach a given out come will ALWAYS reach that outcome. When it is not possible to reach the outcome they were avoiding.

                  This is pretty litterally the rule of man not law.

                  “That’s why the boxes were determined legal.”

                  Unattented boxes are not “office”, they are not “the office”. they are not “the office of the county board of elections”
                  That you are arguing this just demonstrates your stupidity and the courts malfeasance.

                  “ The LAW says that all vote counting must be done publicly with observers from all parties having a right to challenge the counting of each ballot – that did not occur.”

                  “No. The law only allowed observers to observe. They were there as noted in the court. The candidates are allowed to challenge the counting not the observers. All the law required was that observers be present. They were not allowed to interfere with vote counting. Hence the term “observers”.”

                  WRONG. Nor is this something new. I would note that numerous courts in PA found that this requirement was NOT met.
                  While the counting was occuring democratic judges ORDERED the observers to be allowed back in and within 6 feet of the counting.

                  That did not happen.

                  One of the problems when election officials go completely lawless is that ultimately the courts are forced to draconian measures – or to back down.

                  This is the same as my leases with tenants. I can provide all kinds of provisions in my leases. but I ultimately have only one means of enforcing them – that is eviction.

                  The courts ultimately have only one means of enforcing election laws – and that is to throw out the results when the law is not followed.

                  Democrats played chicken with the courts and won.

                  The courts before and after the election did a serious disservice to the people.

                  Democrats – as in the DNC – or the party or outside groups are allowed to argue whatever they want.
                  They are allowed to try and undermine the election.

                  But the PA dept of state, the PA governor, the PA SCOTUS are NOT.

                  They are not the legislature. There job is to enforce the law as written – not rewrite it.

                  THEY have a duty to the electorate – that the democraty party or outside interests do not have.

                  In addition to reading the law narrowly – they are obligated to deliver elections that can be trusted.

                  Why is it necescary to demonstrate to you why chain of custody is important ?

                  We already know that the Post Office F’d up and lost ballots. But the post office is accepted by law as a trustworthy means of delivery of legal documents – and a ballot is a legal document.

                  The voter is also always a trustworthy means of delivering their own ballot.

                  Third parties are not. So called “ballot harvesting” is illegal in PA. Ballots can be handled by the voter, the post office and election officials .
                  NO ONE ELSE.

                  They can not be left unattended.

                  Is it really necescary to discuss why that is a bad idea ?

                  An unattended ballot box is the perfect means to inject thousands of fraudulent ballots.

                  We are still trying to figure out what happened in Fulton county GA – and before you start making stupid claims – subpeona’s have been issued and those involved in what appears to be ballot injection and counting the same ballot multiple times are going to have to testify under oath in GA soon. I would further note that we have multiple convictions in Philadelphia for several prior elections for doing exactly that – election officials injecting ballots into an election.

                  But with unattended ballot boxes you do not need to be an election official to commit large scale fraud.
                  Anyone can.

                  Or what about doing the oposite. Dropping an incindiary device into a ballot drop box and destroying hundreds of ballots.
                  Again anyone can do either of these with very little chance of getting caught.

                  If as you claim the PA legislature really intended the idiocy that you and the PA SCOTUS claimed they did – then the legislature failed badly.
                  The election would have been “lawless” even if the law actually said what PA scotus claimed.
                  But the law did NOT.

                  The law was specific. More importantly the law was more than sufficientlhy specific to completely rule out multiple “offices” or unattended ballot boxes.

                  These were created out of whole cloth by the courts.

                  And there is no remedy short of revolution for lawlessness by the courts.

                  You have ranted that Jan 6. was an insurection.
                  It was not.

                  But when the courts are lawless – revolution is the remedy – read the declaration of independence.

                  ““ In my state – the LAW says – voting must be by secret ballot – more than half was not.”

                  There was no evidence provided to the court of this claim. An allegation is not proof.”

                  There was.

                  Regardless – the PA constitution is available on line. As well as the history of amendments and changes.

                  Parties in a lawsuit are NOT obligated to raise constitutional objections. The obligation for enforcing the constitution rests with the courts.

                  PA Act 77 is unconstitutional. I would note that the secret ballot provision is not the only provision of the constitution it runs afoul of.

                  And this is a problem in 28 US states.

                  ““THE LAW WAS NOT FOLLOWED”.

                  Yes. It was. ”
                  Nope.

                  “The Pennsylvania supreme court’s opinion explicitly detailed why it was.”

                  Yes, the PA scotus oppion provides in great detail proof that the court acted lawlessly and outside its authority.

                  “They went to great lengths to explain every detail of why the law was indeed followed. ”
                  They did – because they were going rougue and knew it.

                  “Just because they didn’t interpret the law in the narrowest possible way as you wanted doesn’t make it wrong. ”
                  Yes, it does.

                  “The court explained why such interpretation would not work.”
                  No they did not.

                  “The laws were not merely circumvented just because they wanted to. They did so because they had a reason, the pandemic, and the legislature granted such changes to individual counties. Some chose drop boxes. Others asked for extra time which they were allowed according to the law. County board of elections were required to ask MUNICIPAL courts for an extension and they were granted. The legislature GAVE those local elections board that authority because it involves a local issue. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court pointed this out too.”

                  All of this is FALSE. The legislature did NOT grant this things. There is no mechanism for the legislature to do so.
                  The Governor and the PA dept state did so, and they did not have the authority to do so.
                  And courts have already found that. You are not keeping up.

                  Nor is “the pandemic” an excuse for unconstitutional conduct. While we have done so before – Koramatsu comes to mind.
                  Either our laws and constitution continue to work in times of emergency or we are lawless.

                  Millions of people in PA and 10’s of millions in the country voted in person as they normally do.

                  I did. There were no problems. There was no spike in C19 after the election.

                  All you are doing is proving why the whole government response to C19 was lawless. Not just the elections.

                  I would further note that more and more we are seeing what was hidden from us – not just about the election.

                  We are learning that there was NOT agreement by “experts” over anything that government did regarding Covid.

                  That those “experts” who did not agree were either silenced or ignored.

                  That government at the direction of a subset of experts – hid FACTS, lied to us and imposed policies that had no basis in actual science.

                  While we are seeing a decline in Covid right now that we are attributing to Vaccination – there is actually pretty good evidence that Covid is just burning out naturally.

                  While that has not been established – it is also not established that vaccines are really having significant effect.

                  Throughout the world Covid has waned when about 1/3 of the population has become infected.
                  And that is about where we are now. It has appeared likely from the start than 2/3 of people had natural immunity to Covid.

                  Regardless, the vaccines as the cause of the fading of the epidemic is not yet established.
                  Maybe it will be.

                  But the point is that the certainty with which we were given about public policies was all fraudulent.

                  You claimed the legislature changed the law – it did not.

                  Throughout Covid we had a legislature and a congress. They were capable of taking up changes in election law if necescary.

                  We bump into this nonsense all the time – left and right.

                  To the possible extent that any emergency powers are EVER justifiable they are only so for very short periods of time.

                  There is no such thing as an emergency that requires abandoning the rule of law for months at a time.

                  You say the legislature acted – they did NOT, but they could have.

                  The PA scotus was incorrect in using Covid as a justification for anything.

                  That is not inside its power. That is lawless.

                  “The majority of the alleged fraud often turns out to me innocent mistakes or miscommunication about what local officials believed was an issue.”

                  That is something that we determine AFTER the fact by investigation – not assumption.

                  We found serious error – not fraud in Windham NH. Everyone breathed a sigh of relief, and then did nothing about the error which is likely state wide.

                  One of the reason that we do not go lawless is precisely what you are claiming – mistakes were made. that is the direct consequence of going lawless. We have run elections of decades. Wehn we run them the same as the last one or atleast are slow and careful about changes – we do not have “innocent mistakes” or “miscommuniactions” – atleast not large scale.

                  In the end it does not matter.

                  Fraud undermines trust in government.
                  Lawlessness undermines trust in government.
                  miscommunications undermine trust in govenrment
                  mistakes – innocent or otherwise undermine trust in government.

                  The courts enabling lawlessness undermines trust in government
                  The courts sticking their heads in the sand and refusing to to the hard work of assuring that elections were conducted according to the law, and withour significant error or fraud undermines trust in government.

                  If you actually want a violent revolution – continue as you are.

                2. Your arguments are the same nonsense that makes up CRT and the very problems with the PA SCOTUS decision.

                  Reality does not matter in CRT, for you or for the PA SCOTUS.

                  The core of your arguments are that legislators, voters, citizens, can not have the laws they wish – because you will not allow them to.

                  You want to pretend – as the court did that the PA law was not clear.

                  It could not have been clearer. I have directly adressed the simple gramatical errors you and the court made to reach a stupid conclusion.

                  But you have not addressed ever in any context how it is possible to create law that means what the legislators wrote and intended.

                  Contra your nonsense – Narrow reading of laws is required.

                  Courts – left and right CONSTANTLY and wisely throw out laws as unconstitutionally over broad.

                  It is not the role of the courts to broaden the law.

                  You wrongly claim the PA law was not clear. If that were true then the courts duty would be to void the law and return it to the legislature – not change it.

                  The courts are not the legislatures. It is their role to KILL laws that are unconstitutional. That are unclear – not to create new law.

                  Crafting legislation is not Jenga – it is not some game to guess what idiocy the courts will do to warp the law.

                  When SCOTUS strikes down laws for lack of clarity they are UNCONSTITUTIONALLY vague.

                  A lack of clarity in law is NOT an invitation to the courts to read into the law whatever they want.

                  Laws MUST mean what they say because each of us has the individual right to laws that are clear.

                  Ignorance of the law is only not an excuse if the law is actually knowable. And that requires that it means what it says – not whatever you want it too.

                  You talk about “innocent errors” and miscommunications. Many of us doubt the innocence you are so sure of – regardless.

                  Lack of clarity requires defaulting to the narrowest reading or rejecting entirely.

                  That is not merely true of the law – it is true of the application of the law – if an election official or state is unclear, they too must act in the narrowest way. It is not innocent error to go broad when in doubt. It is not miscommunication to expand power without clear authority to do so.

                3. Harris went to Guatemala – on arrival she was told by Guatemalan’s – “Trump Won” and to “Go Home”

                  She was repeatedly chastized by the president of a “banana republic” She was told CORRECTLY and REPEATEDLY – that she and Biden had created a mess with immigration.

                  The stupidity of your immigration policies is making a mess of countries throughout south and central america.

                  These countries now have waves of immigrants pushing through their countries headed for the US.
                  People are dying along the way – in a single leg of the journey – the casualtiy rate is estimated at over 10%.

                  And then we get a speech from Harris that certainly sounds like she is channelling Trump.

                  She IS saying the right things. But the problem is that she does not mean them and these people know it.

                  Whatever Biden or Harris say – 40% of those who have crossed the US boarder in the past few months have been allowed to stay.

                  We now have a 15 year high in illegal immigration. And in some places it is near a 30 year high.

                  Democrats are losing elections in border communities that are 80% hispanic and have voted democrat for decades.

                  You have lied to people and they are pissed.

                  And this is getting worse.

                  Don’t beleive me ? You are not required to. Believe what ever you want.

                  But reality is not an opinion.

                  We have leading leftists chastizing Manchin for refusing to push the idiotic HR1 or to end the fillibuster.

                  Keep pushing. Twist Manchin’s arm – and Sienema, and every other democrat who will not toe the line.
                  Cancel them, Disempower them.

                  Many already wonder why Manchin remains a democrat. The easiest way for Manchin to escape the idiotic preasure of the left is to switch parties – or retire. It is not like West Virginia is electing another democrat anytime soon.

                  Regardless, keep lying, keep behaving stupid. See how far that gets you.

                  70% of Blacks want Voter ID laws.

            6. Discussing things with you is like disuccsions with a 4 year old.

              You are constantly trying to get arround the facts, and the law.

              When your parents say – “eat your broccoli before you watch TV” – they do not mean “feed it to the dog”.

              This is not legally complicated. It is legally simple. You did not follow the law – you went lawless.

              You behaved wrongly and immorally. All that is left is whether you will get away with it.

              1. John say,

                “ You are constantly trying to get arround the facts, and the law.”

                Nope. What is happening is you’re running into the problem of you not actually understanding the law.

                It means you’re not really reading the actual laws. You’re just assuming based on what someone else has said. That’s why it’s easy to rebut your claims. I’ve actually read the laws you say were not followed including the entirety of the court’s opinion.

                You have only cited specific phrases in law without the full text which gives you the entire context of the law’s intent. You look at the narrowest possible interpretation and use simple literal meanings to extrapolate an absolute. Courts are not limited to literal narrow interpretations. Just because you WANT them to doesn’t make it lawless or wrong. The courts explain in great detail they’d reasoning and they did exactly that in Pennsylvania. They were indeed correct.

                1. Svelaz – you seem to think that you can make whatever argument you wish and it will be valid just because you assert it.

                  This is unsurprising as you have already stated that you beleive truth is fungible. That there is your truth and my truth, that humans create truth rather than discover it.

                  That is not so. Nor can it be. Iur problems in perfectly discovering truth do not change reality itself.

                  The same it true of law. While law is created by humans. It is still subject to the constraints of nature, reality, and logic.

                  The courts can say the law is whatever they wish – and those decisions have the force of government behind them.
                  But when court decisions conflict with nature, reality, or logic – that significantly weakens them.
                  When those decisions undermine the confidence of even some people in government that deligitimizes government.

                  Reading law MUST be consistent – if it is a contest between the political whims of judges of different parties – we are lawless.

                  Consistency is more important than correctness. We can adhere to bad court decisions, but we can not follow the law when what the law is varies from court to court.

                  But correctness is important too. Some errors are easier to fix than others. Some are not fixable at all.

                  We have worked these things out over millennia. The requirement for consistent, narrow, and litteral reading of law – is not whim.
                  It is logic. Legal systems without those do not work – they are lawless.

                  If a court decision favors your ideology – but is not consistent, narrow and litteral – it is lawless – whether that decision favors the left or the right.

                  Even that is not ultimately enough. Law must have more than the support of the majority of people – it must have the willing obedience of nearly all people.

                  Government is inherently inefficient – I have noted that repeatedly before.
                  What people do on their own is ALWAYS much more efficient than what they must be forced to do.

                  Currently there are over a million police in this country. There are almost an equal number employed in incarceration.
                  There are several times more employed enforcing regulation.

                  None of these people – nor the courts and prosecutors are productive. The effort that we put into enforcing law and regulation is effort that is not put into production.

                  Our standard of living rests solely on the value that we produce – the larger government is the less people are involved in production.
                  The poorer we all are.

                  One of the reasons that government must be limited – is simply that it is inefficient. No government is chaos, and that is inefficient,
                  but government beyond the minimum needed for fundimental order is increasingly inefficient.

                  The more government is at odds with its people – even a small portion of them, the worse off we all are.

                  Government and law must ALWAYS be the “least common denominator” of the core value of the people – NOT the consensus, not the majority. Because any significant opposition to government increases inefficiency and lowers our standard of living.

                  We have debated marxism, socialism, and you fixate on meaningless details of distinctions.
                  While CRT is marxism, and the left today is increasingly socialist.
                  It would not matter if you were right about “nuanced” distinctions.
                  The left inherently seeks more government – and that reduces standard of living – no matter what label you place on it.

                  All of what I have stated above works individually and comes together as a whole.

                  We do not perfectly acheive it. But we are better off to the extent that we do.

                  This is the fundimental distinction between the libertarian ideology and all others – especially the left.

                  There has never been perfect communism, or perfect socialism, or perfect libertarianism. Perfection is not acheivable by humans.

                  What I have said above about how the law MUST be – is not perfectly acheivable, – it is aspirational.

                  But what is true – and is different from socialism, communism, CRT, statism of all kinds is that we will all be better off the closer we come to that ideal, while we are worse off the bigger government gets – no matter what the form.

                  We have spent 150,000 years working these things out. Progress was incredibly slow until the last 500 years.

                  But inside the last 500 years the rise of our understanding of the importance of individual liberty – of all the principles I noted above has resulted in astronomical improvement in human quality of life, that has never occured before in history.

                  And the problem with whatever the left is selling is that it seeks to destroy that.

                  If we were to decide CRT was “correct” – which would require bizarre meanings of correct, you would still have a massive problem – people – all people, including black people are inarguably better off under the system that you think is systemically racist.

                  When you focus on individual liberty you ultimately eliminate all the assorted forms of discrimination that you are so concerned about – because they are inefficient, they do NOT raise the human condition. They do not make us better off.

                  Slavery did not end because it was evil – it has been evil for all of human existance. It ended because it is inefficient.

                  If CRT’s thesis of exploitation was correct – we would still have global slavery, and global colonialism.

        2. I do not care where the billboards were put up.

          First they are free speech.
          Next they are legitimate public service messages.

          BTW we do know where voter fraud is more common – as it has been for more than two centuries – Cities, and particularly the poor areas of cities. These are were votes are most readily available and where it is easiest to coerce or induce people into voter fraud.

          It is precisely this that resulted in 28 states requiring secret ballots.

        3. “That is not entirely true.”
          Actually it is entirely true.

          “Turley made the same claim and he was being misleading with his claim as well. He was talking about a group of Academics who had issues with a few of the claims made. What Turley didn’t divulge was that those same academics you speak of actually agreed on the idea of what the 1619 project sought to do. In fact they encouraged it as a meaningful discussion. Their objection was to one claim among many that they did not dispute and the agreed it were truthful.”

          This is both false and irrelevant. There are numerous lists of the significant historical errors of the 1619 project.
          There are many sources for the lists of errors.
          And you do not get to speak for those who can speak for themselves.
          I am not interested in your mind reading claims about the intentions of the critics of the 1619 project.

          The 1619 project is a garbage version of history. It has numerous factual errors, and its conclusions are not supported by the facts.

          “it pays to really research things Svelaz” instead of parroting things you really don’t understand.”

      2. Karen

        You do not seem to understand – if you are on the right it is a crime to accuse others of what they are actually doing.

        The left impeached Trump for asking Zelensky to investigate prima fascia extortion and abuse of government power by Biden for the benefit of his family.

        And far too many think that was OK.

    3. ” All this discussion about Rutgers Law School and the controversy over critical race theory (CRT) is giving me a headache. Teaching about the history of racism in this country and how white privilege permeates almost every thing should not be controversial ”

      Of course it is.

      Slavery ended 150 years ago. Only a tiny portion of the people in this country have ancestors that owned slaves.

      The vast majority of us arrived here Long after the end of slavery. Further we had nothing to do with Jim Crow or lynchings.

      Many of us were both white and the victims of racism and discrimination.
      Most of my ancestors are irish. The earliest arrived just in time to fight in the union army – against slavery.
      For almost 100 years the irish were discriminated against in the US. Before that they were essentially slaves in Ireland.
      And many remained very nearly slaves through to the start of the 20th century.

      Other whites came from italy, poland, eastern europe, again arriving after slavery ended and having nothing to do with race issues in the US.

      I would further note that the western world ended Slavery BEFORE the rest of the world, and the angloshphere BEFORE most of the rest of the west. The US was late – in comparison to Britian – but LED most of the world is ending slavery.

      Legal slavery existed in parts of south american until the late 20th century. And illegal slavery still exists throughout the world.

      Outside the US racial discrimination remains the norm throughout much of the world.
      People are restricted from land ownership, owning a business voting, throughout the world today – based on SMALLER distinctions that race.

      You wish to rant about the US history of racism – as if the US was somehow more evil than the rest of the world, when ACTUAL history is that the US – whatever its faults was and is LESS racist than the rest of the world.

      Just a few decades ago the Hutu in Rwanda exterminated almost a million Tutsi – two peoples that americans would call “black” murdering each other over race in the late 20th century.

      The Chinese are exterminating the Uighurs today.

      The american conquest of “native americans” ended very near the start of european colonization of Africa.
      Further though the europeans were tryanical rulers in Africa – as they left Africa has gone to He11.
      From 1974 to the present China went from the bottom of the third world to the bottom of the first world – India nearly accomplished the same feat. as did much of asia. During the same time period despite over $2T in foreign aide Africa is STILL the bottom of the third world.

      When I was a child we talked of starving children in India, and bangeledesh and China. Today it is only PARTS of africa.

      TODAY americans – even the worst treated minorities are the top 1% of the world.

      If you had a choice between being born a poor black in the US and being born almost anywhere else in the world – you would be better off born in the US.

      That is your “history of racism” ?

      According to EJI – I am a member, I have been to the lynching museum and the lynching memorial, and have met Brian Stevens, 4400 blacks were lynched in the US over the course of a little more than a century.
      That is heinous – and we should not forget it.

      Approximately 3000 people were murdered on a single day = sept. 11, 2001. That is nearly as heinous.

      almost 500,000 people died in the civil war – more than half of those were white men dying to free black slaves.

      The US is not perfect, But our flaws including racism are greatly outweighed by the good of this country and its people.

      We are repeatedly encouraged – and should remember the contributions of various minorities – in the US and in the world.
      But we can not forget that a vastly disproportionate set of accomplishments in the past half millenia were by White Men.

      The entire concept of self government originated with and was brought to fruition by white men.
      Much of the past half millenia of math, science, literature was the product of white men.

      One of the problems with the modern left – and with this marxist critical race theory nonsense – is not only does it seek to bury white men, but it seeks to tear down their accomplishments. No matter what race or sex brought it about the enlightenment and late the scottish enlightenment changed the world for the better in ways nothing else in history has ever done.

      The history you seek to foist on people ignores the vast majority of history in favor of the history of the oppression of a minority of people in the US by another minority of people in the US.

      And if you wish to focus on “modern racism” – which I could challenge you on that – we INARGUABLY live in the least racist moment in the least racist country on earth. Bit even that is not the whole story.

      We can debate “systemic racism” in policing – and you will lose. But lets look at your own arguments.

      Once again you seek to pretend that some small portion of the world or the country is the whole.
      Most of us DO NOT live in New York City, or any of the large cities in this country.
      Nor have we in our lifetimes. If the police forces of NYC, Baltimore, chicago, LA, SF, …. are racist – who has been running those ?
      In all cases – democrats, in most cases Blacks. Most of the major cities in the US have been controlled by democrats for over a century.
      Nearly all for the past 60 years. Many have been governed by blacks.

      If there is “systemic racism” in the policing of those communities – that is the responsibility of those communities – not the rest of the country.

      The shooting of young black men by white police is almost exclusively occuring in democrat controlled and usually minority controlled cities in the US.

      There is not a republican in sight. In fact there is not a KKK member in sight in this purported he11 holes of racism.

      The “History” you wish to teach mentions NONE of this – of COURSE it is controversial.

      It is also FAKE or at best a deliberately politicized version of history.

      And yes it is very controversial.

      The treatment of a small portion of long dead people in this country by another long dead small portion of this country should not be forgotten. It is entitled to about as much discussion as it got in public schools 50 years ago – no more.

      1. John Say, Jesus, you sure love going on a rant.

        “Slavery ended 150 years ago. Only a tiny portion of the people in this country have ancestors that owned slaves.

        The vast majority of us arrived here Long after the end of slavery. Further we had nothing to do with Jim Crow or lynchings.”

        Just because slavery ended 150 years ago doesn’t mean the racism associated with it did. That is why Jim Crow laws and “black codes” were still a thing in the 60’s. That is the root of the problem John and too many are trying hard to dismiss it as not really an issue anymore. That is why CRT matters as means to further the discussion regarding racism and it’s on going implications today.

        “And if you wish to focus on “modern racism” – which I could challenge you on that – we INARGUABLY live in the least racist moment in the least racist country on earth. Bit even that is not the whole story.”

        That’s hilarious. The least racist country on earth. We are the most racist actually, based on our own history alone. Which is exactly what CRT is about. Pointing that out. We have passed the most racist legislation, made an entire race of americans subject to concentration camps because of their Japanese ancestry. Asians in California, the chinese coming to work on the railroad, were subjected to racist legislation forbidding them from owning land or exercising rights others enjoyed. There are plenty of example. Lynching was made a federal crime just last year. Lynchings were about punishing blacks for alleged indiscretions or false claims.

        “We can debate “systemic racism” in policing – and you will lose. But lets look at your own arguments.

        Once again you seek to pretend that some small portion of the world or the country is the whole.”

        I never made that argument. Don’t start lying now. Projecting your own views on others us frowned upon.

        Most of us DO NOT live in New York City, or any of the large cities in this country.
        Nor have we in our lifetimes. If the police forces of NYC, Baltimore, chicago, LA, SF, …. are racist – who has been running those ?
        In all cases – democrats, in most cases Blacks. Most of the major cities in the US have been controlled by democrats for over a century.
        Nearly all for the past 60 years. Many have been governed by blacks.”

        Just because police departments are run by ‘democrats’ as you say, without real proof of party affiliation, doesn’t mean there are individual police officers or groups that are indeed racist. That is not exclusive to cities. It applies to small towns and areas of the south as well. Which are more likely to be held less accountable for or discount the idea of systemic racism.

        “If there is “systemic racism” in the policing of those communities – that is the responsibility of those communities – not the rest of the country.”

        Not necessarily true, as you always do, applying absolutes to an issue that is more complicated than the black and white world you live in doesn’t help your argument here. Those communities DO try to hold their police departments accountable. The problem is others outside of those communities criticizing their attempts to do so by attacking their methods or proclaim sympathy to corrupt police departments. It’s not as easy as you want it to be.

        “The shooting of young black men by white police is almost exclusively occuring in democrat controlled and usually minority controlled cities in the US.

        There is not a republican in sight. In fact there is not a KKK member in sight in this purported he11 holes of racism.”

        Here you just show your own ignorance and racist biases. It is pretty clear that you don’t understand the majority of what you try to argue and you rely more in your emotional rage triggered by anything purporting to be of the ‘left’ to justify your nonsense. What makes you think police officers who are committing these abuses are not republican? What assures you that none of these officers are not racist at all or hold ill views of those who they are charged in protecting? Your own ignorance is your biggest obstacle to recognizing what it is you are really saying.

        1. “Just because slavery ended 150 years ago doesn’t mean the racism associated with it did. That is why Jim Crow laws and “black codes” were still a thing in the 60’s”

          The 60’s were 50 years ago. It is 2021.

          Wikipedia.
          As of 2016, the Anti-Defamation League puts total KKK membership nationwide at around 3,000, while the Southern Poverty Law Center puts it at 6,000 members total.
          While I doubt there are 3,000 members of the KKK today much less 6,000 – that is a fraction of the number of Antifa in Portland.
          In the mid 20’s kkk membership was 4-5Million.

          In the late 50’s the 3rd KKK peaked at about 35,000 members – that is slightly more than the Antifa in Portland.

          There has been almost no consequential acts of violence tied to the KKK after the mid 60’s – because the KKK has virtually disappeared.

          “That is the root of the problem John and too many are trying hard to dismiss it as not really an issue anymore.”
          We do not have to try hard to dismiss these idiotic claims. If you want Violence – Go to portland.
          If you want racially motivated violence – there have been dozens of acts in NYC in the past few weeks.

          “That is why CRT matters as means to further the discussion regarding racism and it’s on going implications today.”
          Actually that is precisely why CRT does not matter. CRT is like pretending that a black holocaust is occuring right now in the US.
          The entire US history of racism – as bad as it actually was, is inconsequential in comparison to the REAL Holocaust.
          The Peak US slave population was 3.9M in 1860. Atleast 6M jews were murdered in the holocaust – most during a period of about 18 months.

          “The least racist country on earth. We are the most racist actually, based on our own history alone.”

          It is ludicrously stupid statements like this that are why CRT is crap.

          Please name a non-african county in the world with a black population of 10% ?
          Please name a country in the world with a significant black population where blacks have a higher standard of living ?

          The 99% white Europeans countries used to chide the US about racism – now they have 10%+ mideastern populations and racial violence far greater than in the US.
          Even Sweden has massive racial problems today.

          The US has had a diverse population from its inception. While we have had lots of problems along the way – we have learned sometimes painfully sometimes over a long period of time how to deal with them.

          I would further note that the US remains the immigration destination of the world – and almost none of these are white.
          The nation with the largest number of foreign born people in the world is the US with 48M.
          The next closest is Russia with 11M

          20% of all first generation immigrants in the entire world live in the US.

          Can you name any other country with the ethnic diversity of the US ? About 40% of the country is not white. But even of those who are white we are from all over the world. Ireland, Italy, England, Poland, Sweden.

          The only other countries that come close to the ethnic diversity of the US are other anglo-sphere countries.

          80% of Swedes are not only caucasion but of the same tribe and have lived int he same place for more than 12 generations.
          And many of those who are not ethnic swedes come from Finland or norway.

          Is that your idea of diversity ?
          And sweden is having significant racial problems as the result of accepting a couple of hundred thousand mideasterners.
          And lets remember that mideasterners are semites – like the jews – in this country we count them as White.

          Svelaz – Do you know anything about anything you are talking about ?

          “Which is exactly what CRT is about.”
          Yes, it is about creating a problem where one no longer exists.

          “We have passed the most racist legislation”
          No we have a bunch of lunatic left wing nuts who call everything they do not like RACIST.

          Segregation in the US ended in the late 50’s. It has been illegal to discriminat in government since the 14th amendment was passed – but it has been impossible to discriminate in government since the late 50’s.

          Just calling legislation you do not like “racist” does not make it so.

          Regardless, the worst “racism” in the US occurs in the large cities in the US run by democrats, often by minority democrats.
          Is that where the racism you are ranting about is occuring ?

          “made an entire race of americans subject to concentration camps because of their Japanese ancestry.”
          Absolutely – that would have been a democrat in the 1940’s. That was very wrong. It was 80 years ago, and it was democrats.

          “Asians in California, the chinese coming to work on the railroad, were subjected to racist legislation forbidding them from owning land or exercising rights others enjoyed. There are plenty of example.”
          Absolutely examples from 80 years ago.

          Did you read anything I wrote ? This is about TODAY.

          As I noted before most americans – atleast those of my age who received a decent education are well aware of the mistakes this country made in the past. If you wish to go back into the past of ANY country you can find such problems. There were heinous things taking place in Sweden as late as the late 70’s. There were slaves in pretty much every country in the world at one time – including all of europe.
          There are still slaves in many parts of the world. There was legal slavery in much of the world until the late 20th century.

          You are completely ignorant of history.

          You seem to think the US is uniquely racist – the opposite is true. While the US essentially committed genocide against native americans in the 19th century – european nations were committing genocide in the early 20th century and manhy many other nations have committed substantial genocides in my lifetime.

          As heinous as the internment of the Nisei was no one exterminated them – like the jews in Germany or various groups in the balkans in the 1990’s or the Rwandan’s in the 1990’s. Ir what is happening to the uighur’s right now in china.

          “Lynching was made a federal crime just last year. Lynchings were about punishing blacks for alleged indiscretions or false claims.”
          The last known lying in the US was in 1981 – that is 40 years ago. EJI does not track lynchings after 1950 – because there were only a handful.

          The constitution has no provisions for a general federal police power. There almost no constitutional basis for ANY federal crimes and certainly no federal crimes that would infringe on the police power of the states.

          Lynching is murder, and murder has been illegal everywhere in the US for our entire history.

          Making lynching a federal crime today was a stupid act of virtue signaling.

          This is a common left wing nut tactic.

          We do not need something to be a crime 10 times over. The fundimentals of what is and is not a crime have been established for atleast 500 years – many for several millenia – since Hamurabi.

          If existing criminal laws are not being enforced – why do you think new ones criminalizing the same conduct are going to be.

          Should these stupid laws have a “we really mean it this time clause” ?

          “Just because police departments are run by ‘democrats’ as you say, without real proof of party affiliation, doesn’t mean there are individual police officers or groups that are indeed racist. ”

          While your claims about systemically racist policing are ludicrously stupid and have been amply refuted by actual statistics.
          You still need to pay attention. If as you claim the police departments of major US cities are racist – who governs those cities ?
          Democrats ALL, and most have been governed by democrats for half a century.

          If you think the police departments of Baltimore, Washington, Atlanta, NYC, SF, LA Chicago, Minneapolis are racist – FIX THEM.

          We do not need the federal government to fix problems of local racism.

          “That is not exclusive to cities.”
          Pretty much it does. The portion of crime in US cities is enormous.
          If you are going to be murdered in the US today the most likely cause is gang violence according to the FBI,
          and the gang are in the big cities.

          “It applies to small towns and areas of the south as well.”
          Only in your head. If you eliminate the big cities in the US the crime rate tanks across the country.
          If you are black and you are headed for jail – it is far more than a 50% probability you are from a big city run by democrats.

          Are there problems elsewhere ? There are always problems elsewhere. But given that the actual problem you are trying to fix is nearly as bad as your idiotic Federal Lynching law – non existant – why is it that you need to transform the education of the entire country to address problems that are less common than being struck by lightning ?

          If you are black in the US today and you are unarmed your odds of being shot and killed by a police officer are LESS than your odds of being struck by lightning – and that INCLUDES all those big democrat run cities where all the crime occurs.

          So tell me again about this faux systemic racism ?

          “Which are more likely to be held less accountable for or discount the idea of systemic racism.”
          Because you say so ? The police forces in US cities have centuries long histories of corruption.
          Those outside the cities do not. Go read Serpico about police corruption in NYC in the 60’s.

          “Not necessarily true, as you always do, applying absolutes to an issue that is more complicated than the black and white world you live in doesn’t help your argument here. Those communities DO try to hold their police departments accountable. The problem is others outside of those communities criticizing their attempts to do so by attacking their methods or proclaim sympathy to corrupt police departments. It’s not as easy as you want it to be.”

          No, I use DATA – FACTS. I personally have little interest in the policing in big cities – they are YOUR problem.
          While the DATA says that you are completely full of Schiff there too – if you really wish to further destroy your own policing – as you have already done. If you wish to see thousands of more young black men (and other bystanders) murdered each year by criminals and gangs to avoid a handful of police shootings of black criminals that may or may not be perfect – that is your business.

          But do not bring YOUR crime to MY community. Especially not based on your ludicrously stupid lack of understanding of the actual data.

          If you can not figure out that you do not have a systemic racism in policing problem in your own communities – why in the he11 would any other community allow YOU to F’k arround with their law enforcement ?

          “Here you just show your own ignorance and racist biases. It is pretty clear that you don’t understand the majority of what you try to argue and you rely more in your emotional rage triggered by anything purporting to be of the ‘left’ to justify your nonsense. What makes you think police officers who are committing these abuses are not republican? What assures you that none of these officers are not racist at all or hold ill views of those who they are charged in protecting? Your own ignorance is your biggest obstacle to recognizing what it is you are really saying.”

          What makes me think that the police officers are not republican ? Well until 2020 they were not. How many republicans do you think are on the NYPD ? Regardless, I DO NOT CARE – these are DEMOCRAT RUN CITIES – YOU GOVERN THERE. YOU HAVE TOTAL CONTROL.

          Until you can clean up the mess you have made of your own cities – DO NOT COME TO MY COMMUNITY – YOU ARE NOT WELCOME.

          I would further note – my arguments are rooted in DATA, FACTS.
          I understand EXACTLY what I am arguing.

          YOU Have $hit in your own bed – do not $hit in mine.

          1. John say,

            “ What makes me think that the police officers are not republican ? Well until 2020 they were not. How many republicans do you think are on the NYPD ? Regardless, I DO NOT CARE – these are DEMOCRAT RUN CITIES – YOU GOVERN THERE. YOU HAVE TOTAL CONTROL.”

            You’re just making assumptions here. You have no data backing up that assertion. You say you don’t care, but clearly you do since you’re so focused on it.

            Police officers are not directly controlled by democrats. Individual police officers can be racist, overzealous, bigoted, etc. you’re assuming just because democrats run something everyone is a democrat by association.

            1. “these are DEMOCRAT RUN CITIES – YOU GOVERN THERE. YOU HAVE TOTAL CONTROL.”
              What part of that is an assumption ?

              When was the last time any of these cities had republican government ?

              “You’re just making assumptions here.”
              Nope.
              This is not secret knowledge – if you are so poorly informed – you can check everything I claim.

              Find a single city in the country with over 100,000 people with a republican government.
              There must be atleast one. I can not name a republican mayor of a large city.
              I can not name a large city with a republican city councel.

              “You say you don’t care, but clearly you do since you’re so focused on it.”
              Again – given a choice between facts and emotions – you choose to argue about emotions – and worse those of others that you can not know.

              “Police officers are not directly controlled by democrats.”
              To the extent they are controlled – they are nearly all controlled by democrats.

              “Individual police officers can be racist, overzealous, bigoted,”
              Correct – and that is inherently NOT “systemic racism”.

              “you’re assuming just because democrats run something everyone is a democrat by association.”
              No i am asserting that when you have power, you have responsibility.

              It is 2021. Biden is in the whitehouse. Democrats control congress.
              They are responsible for the country as a whole.

              They are not responsible for the violence in our cities – any more than Trump was.
              Though depending on who federal democrats act they could become responsible.

              Real responsibility for the violence in our cities rests with those who govern our cities.

              We already know something about violence and good governance.
              Since the late 80’s violence in the US declined – including in the cities.
              But that changed with the riots this summer and the defund the police nonsense.

              Regardless – if you beleive that there is systemic racism in our cities – that IS the responsibility of those who govern those cities – and that is democrats.

        2. My comment is awaiting moderation, likely because of the wording of the exact quote from the Constitution of Liberia. I will rephrase.

          Svalez, you said, “We are the most racist actually, based on our own history alone.” You have again presented your opinion as a fact.

          On what do you base this sweeping statement? Racism and slavery were ubiquitous throughout human history. It existed among Native American tribes before Europeans ever arrived. There are derogatory terms that tribes made up against other tribes, and they were slavers. They routinely kidnapped women to be sexual slaves, for example. Some tribes even had dedicated lodges where they were kept to service all the men.

          Is the US more racist than North Korea, where, today, they incarcerate women who get pregnant by Chinese men, and forcibly abort their babies?

          Is the US more racist than South Africa, where white land owners are slaughtered because of skin color, and with their history of Apartheid?

          Is the US more racist than African countries, where the Bantu persecute and continue to enslave the pygmies?

          What about the Ivory Coast? The Young Patriots of Abidjan target European and Lebanese women to be raped, and the men to be beaten.

          What about China, where there is racism against Koreans, Europeans, Americans, etc?

          In order to be a Liberian citizen, according to its Constitution, you have to be ‘persons who are Ne*&%oes or of Ne^o descent’. How’s that for racial immigration law?

          Did you even spend 5 minutes, or travel anywhere, before you repeated a talking point so easily disproven?

          The US, along with the rest of the West, was at the forefront of abolishing slavery. Racism, being so pernicious in human nature, did not dissolve immediately, but it did gradually become less socially acceptable until today it is uniformly condemned. That’s why Democrats have to make up new definitions of racism that doesn’t actually include having a negative bias against a race. You see it every day. If you disagree with a Democrat policy, you’re called racist, no matter how much you protest that you have no bias on race. Democrats even defend racially discriminating against Asians, calling detractors racist.

          What utter nonsense.

          1. Svelaz – and pretty much ALL left posters are ignorant – not merely of history – but of everything.

            There is a pretty good article on both CRY and CT and the very very serious threat the pose by andrew Sullivan

            I will note for Svelaz that much of Sullivan’s argument is made by extensive cites from CRT and CT itself.

            I would further note that Sullivan’s core criticism’s – are also the exact problems of leftism here.

            Fundimentally CT and CRT reject logic entirely. I am constantly pointing out that those on the left make fallacious arguments.
            These arguments are not fallacious in CRT – because logic is racist. Because a persons perceptions of their own experience are reality for them and that can not be challenged. Because there is no such thing as objective reality with CT or CRT – these things are western constructs (true) and they are inherently racist. It is irrelevant according to CRT that Svelaz is incorrect.

            CRT is perfectly fine with the claim that this is the most racist moment in history and the most racist country simply because some people of color say so. There is no objective reality in CRT, and all conflicting views are littlerally settled – not by facts, but by appeals to authority – and that authority comes – not from real knowledge and success, but from your interectional status points. It you are a muslim handicapped black trans lesbian your view is fact.

            https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/removing-the-bedrock-of-liberalism-826

            While Sullivan does an excellent job of pointing out most of the flaws of CRT AND noting that at its core it is as anti-liberal as you can possibly get. He actually misses another major core problem – It is inherently anarchic. The comparison to marxism are only partly apt – it is far worse and more dangerous intellectually. However it absolutely the same in that like all anarchy is brings about totalitarianism.

            Several people have noted that what is occuring with the left right now strongly resembles the cultural revolution in China.

            The destruction of statues and history, the fact that we have a revolution being driven essentially by children who are clueless and illogical.

            Like what occured with Marxism generally – but the cultural revolution specifically right and wrong, good and evil can change on whim in a moment.

            In stalinist Russia quite often those in most danger were the communists themselves. If Stalin consciously or not changed directions on policy – the PAST writings of other communists could be used to prove their disloyalty and send them to the gulags. And the cultural revolution in China was even worse. And that is the closest model for what we are facing today.

            While you are absolutely correct that Svelaz is thoroughly ignorant of facts or history. What is most dangerous is that neither he nor those on the left care about that at all.

            To be clear – while I have compared the current left to the cultural revolution – and that comparison is apt, I do not beleive we are in the midst of the cultural revolution. We are in the midst of an ATTEMPT at the cultural revolution. The left today in the US does not have the god like figure of Mao. While the cultural revolution was an absolutely horror it did not degenerate into total anarchy because Mai was untouchable. They dared not go after him. There is no similar figure to organize the current “cultural revolution” and that amplifies the anarchy. It also makes it self disempowering.

            Essentially we have a window in which all of this is likely to self destruct.

            But god help us all if it does not.

            1. John say, Andrew Sullivan? The guy who came up with the Bell curve comparing IQ with race? No wonder you’re so triggered by the notions that CRT talks about.

              Stating that CRT logic is racist is a deflection, just a means to avoid confronting an uncomfortable truth.

              You talk about the left being ignorant about the facts of history when you’re here trying mightily to shut down discussion about an uncomfortable part of our history because others are saying things that are not true or are being deliberately misinformed.

              Then you go off on a rant about some supposed connection to communism or Marxism or whatever political philosophy fits your fancy that seeks to justify your hatred for anything “left”.

              You’re on a full blown fantasy about what you think is going on based on other’s rantings and poor understanding of what they see.

              Andrew Sullivan’s views may have been once admired but time and history have long rendered his views indefensible.
              Just like Noam Chomsky, once a brilliant intellectual, now just a radical intellectual whose current views are no longer relevant.

              You’re too wrapped up in your own intellectual failings to see reality.

              1. “John say, Andrew Sullivan? The guy who came up with the Bell curve comparing IQ with race?”
                Clearly you know nothing about Andrew Sullivan or the Bell Curve.

                BTW NO ONE “came up with “the Bell curve comparing IQ with race”. Data is data.
                The fact that you do not like it is YOUR problem. The book and research is by Charles Murray.
                Most traits distribute along a Bell curve – also called the standard normal distribution.
                That includes IQ. An IQ of 100 is average in the US, and occurs at the peak of the curve by definition.
                Half of us have higher IQ’s half lower.
                The IQ’s of Black’s both in the US and in Africa, even when tested using tests that have no cultural bias and use graphic patterns rather than words are 20pts below the US average.
                That is something that we should explore further. Why is this the case ?

                I would not that this is important. Rates of violence correlate strongly to IQ and the violence rates of blacks are double that of whites and 4 times that of asians.

                “No wonder you’re so triggered by the notions that CRT talks about.”

                You keep using “triggered” as if it is a thing. As if emotional responses matter.

                This is not about emotions. It is about facts.

                “Stating that CRT logic is racist is a deflection,”
                No it is a fact.

                Tossing out words does not make them true.
                CRT is racist. that is one of its many flaws.

                CRT – like you rejects the existance of reality. CRT has personal truth’s not actual truth.

                Gravity does not care what your personal truth is. If you jump off a high rise – you are going to die when you hit the ground – regardless of your personal truth.

                “just a means to avoid confronting an uncomfortable truth.”
                Svelaz – there is no Truth in CRT – only personal truths. According to CRT – my Truth is Truth.
                I do not need to confront your uncomfortable truth.

                But I prefer to stick to reality. It is not comfortable. But it actually works.

                “You talk about the left being ignorant about the facts of history when you’re here trying mightily to shut down discussion about an uncomfortable part of our history because others are saying things that are not true or are being deliberately misinformed.”
                Ludicrously false.

                We have been discussing the “ugly facts” of the past my entire life. From our discussions it is obvious I am better informed about them than you are – so clearly no one has shutdown discussion of them. Nor is this about discussion.
                You and I are having a discussion. College professors do not have real discussions with students – as college professors grade their students. There is nothing close to an equal power dynamic. If a college professor can not have a discussion with a student – how is a 3rd grader going to have one with a teacher ?

                The truth is often uncomfortable. That is a good thing.
                But everything uncomfortable is not true.
                CRT endeavors to do more than expose us to the ugly facts of the past. That has been done well for 50 years.
                CRT sells an ideology based on a mix of actual facts and faux facts that is wrong, racist, marxist, and does not work.

                And you are about as knowledgeable about CRT as you are about the ugly facts of the past – which is very little.

                “Then you go off on a rant about some supposed connection to communism or Marxism or whatever political philosophy fits your fancy that seeks to justify your hatred for anything “left”.”

                No rant, just truth. You accuse me of not knowing lots of things – but repeatedly it has been you that is clueless.
                You live in a fantasy world were Fox and Alex Jones can delude 75% of the country – but were Joe Biden won the election by 10M votes.

                And you are incapable of grasping that – while both of those can be false. Both can not be true.

                “Andrew Sullivan’s views may have been once admired but time and history have long rendered his views indefensible.”

                Svelaz – clearly you have no idea who Andrew Sullivan is. You have confused him with Charles Murray.

                “You’re too wrapped up in your own intellectual failings to see reality.”
                And yet on point after point – it is you that has been wrong about reality.

                Can you name a single issue of public consequence over the past 5 years that we know the truth about now that you have been right about ?

          2. Karen, not more racist. Just that we have a real issue with racism that continues to this day.

            1. Svelaz – Racism will never go away. Nor will sexism or any of myriads of other ism’s.

              But all forms of discrimination that are not justified by facts are at the lowest levels ever – or they were until last year.

              We are seeing rising violence in the cities YOU control.

              Some have tried to blame it on Covid – but throughout the world Covid, lockdowns etc have REDUCED crime – everywhere except the US.

              Here where we have seen left wing nut riots – violent crime is at a 15 year high – and rising.

              The Seattle police force is officially down 1/3, but in reality it is at half strength – what do you expect crime to do with less policing ?

              We see similar things accross the country. The police are not going to do their job if that could send them to jail.
              They are not going to do their job if no one has their backs.

              Nor is seattle through the worst. Many Seattle police are covering their asses, quietly waiting until what they beleive is a “silent majority” pushes back against this woke nonsense.

              Maybe they are right – though I doubt it. I fully expect large scale blowback. But not in Seattle, or Chicago, or LA, or Democrat cities.

              Regardless, spiking crime – and your woke nonsense is stoking the fires of racism.

              Accross the country prestigious institutions are ending the use of testing for admissions. They are free to do that.
              But we already know the effect. Whites get into the best colleges at the same rates regardless of affirmative action measures.

              But Asians do not. If you want all asains to vote republican – foreclose their educational oportunities.

              Regardless, AGAIN – we live in the least racist moment in history, in the least racist country in the world.

              This is reality. Most of us know it.

              If you are claiming otherwise – you are either lying or out of touch with reality.

              Can we do better – sure, and we will.

              But the route to better does not go through destroying things as they are.

              We are not as an example going to ruin the lives of 90% of the country over the demands of a fraction of the remaining 10%.

              Violence WAS going down – and had been for 50 years. It is not now – that is YOUR FAULT.
              Racism was declining – and has been for 250 years. It may not be now.

              This nation is NOT inherently racist. Its people are NOT inherently racist.
              White supremecy is nearly non-existant.

              But you CAN bring it back.

              Little would do so more effectively than what you are already doing.

        1. There is an excellent article on the threat of CRT in substack right now.

          https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/removing-the-bedrock-of-liberalism-826

          There is another excellent article by Glenn Greenwald on the serious threat to our liberty of the lefts war on domestic terror

          There is even an excellent article by Thomas Frank in the guardian about the serious political consequences of the supression fo the lab leak hypothesis.

          I have some major Quiblles with Frank’s articles – the largest being – “Why has it taken you so long ?”, and the 2nd being
          “Why in god’s name would you beleive that placing faith in experts was EVER a good thing”.

          Regardless, Each of these is a major LIBERAL thinker, that is waking up to the very serious threat of the LEFT today.

          The Sullivan article is particularly damning. While it focuses on CRT – much of it applies well beyond CRT.
          While CRT is a direct assault on the foundations of the western liberal thought that brought about the incredible advance of the human condition that has occurred in the past 3-4 centuries – look arround, you can completely eliminate race fromt he political dialog today – I know that is difficult, but it can be done, and you STILL have the same LEFT assault on the foundations of western liberalism.

          The idiotic arguments that are made on every issue by those on the left here and elsewhere mirror perfectly those made in CRT with regard to race.

          The left today does not accept that there is any such thing as objective reality. That past history can just be ignored, that everything is a matter of opinion, that all opinions are equal – except theirs – which for no rational reason are dogma.

          Many of the things that we have public debates over are completely insane.

          While Trump has been the focus of an awful lot of the nonsense, it does not matter what the issue is – the arguments of the left on almost anything are just bat$hit crazy.

          As Greenwald notes – First Obama the Messiah tells them that Russia is not a threat, they are just a regional power. Then Suddenly Russia is our greatest adversary using this insane theory that Trump is in bed with Putin, then all of a sudden Russian is not a threat again.

          Why is it that no one on the left grasps that not only are the shifting positions insane, but that this is exactly what occurs with most communist regimes.

          We are not seeing exactly what we saw at some period in the past – as the quote goes, “History never repeats, but sometimes it Rhymes”

          We are definitely rhyming now. This will not end the same as it did in the past – but however it ends, it is not ending well.

          In another post which I have not read yet, Turley is posting about Flynn and alleged Coups. Further there as members of DoD who purportedly seriously worried about a coup in late 2020. This is nonsensical fear mongering on the part of the left, the consequence of the left and the media positing the most bat$hit crazy nonsense.

          But there is one aspect of this that is correct – whether through a coup, or maniplulation of the political process or other means the anarchic nonsense we are enduring from the left right now IS the environment that often leads to totalitarianism.
          Whether it is the French Revolution, the russian Revolution, the Wiemar Republic, Italy, Argentina, Chile, Cuba, ….
          Totalitarian rule comes about when there is anarchy.

          Create enough turmoil, stress and fear and people will accept totalitarian leaders who promise to restore stability – by whatever means necescary.

          The thought of a Coup at the conclusion of the Trump administration was idiotic.
          The thought of an insurrection on Jan 6. is lunacy.

          Bit if things continue as they are these and many other violent resolutions are possible.

          No one would have imagined countries like Germany or Italy taken over by fascist leaders – until they were.

          The US has in the past been unusually immune to this, and it is my bet that we remain mostly so. That we are more likely to find our way back to some kind of normalacy. But that is a bet, not a sure thing.

          At the same time the lunacy of the left has actually assured that real progress on a few of the things the left is actually right about will not occur. There is little possibility of further criminal justice reform right now. Neither party will touch it with a ten foot pole – but there was real possibilities through the Obama and Trump administrations. There is little possibility of immigration reform – despite the fact that there is a public consensus left and right. there is little possibility of prison reform, or drug law reform. Even sane police reform is not possible today.

          And all of this is because the left has gone insane.

          Read the Thomas Frank article and keep one big thing in mind that Frank barely touches – the origens of Covid are but one of innumerable issues that the left has gotten massively wrong in the past decade.

    4. FIRE was started (and is still run by) liberal democrats.

      FIRE is not the problem – YOU are.

      Your antipathy to organizations such as FORE is the demonstration of your own ignorance of history.

      The free speech crusade in the US has for most of a century been the domain of the liberal left.
      Whether it is those fighting the censorship of the right during the late 19th or early 20th century, or those fighting the blacklists in the 50’s or the Berkeley Free speech movement in the 60’s or FIRE today

      One of the most disturbing aspects of the modern left is how illiberal they have become.

      The modern Sen. MacCarthy is on the left.

      The political reversal on the issue of free speech where the left has become intolerant and illiberal and the right has become tolerant and liberal and advocates for free speech is one of the most disturbing developments of the past 2 decades.

      And it is an evil development.

      If you are not for freedom – including for freedom of speech – than YOU are intolerant, YOU are immoral, YOU are regressive, YOU are dangerous.

      At the height of the cold war real communists in the US posed no threat to our nation, and attempts to silence and blacklist them were vile and harmful. Actual white supremecists pose far LESS of a threat today, and like in the 50’s evil regressives attempt to paint anyone whos politics they do not like as at the very least sympathizers to a discredited ideology that is impotent.

      The danger now as then is from the censors, from those who seek to warp history.

      1. John Say,

        “FIRE was started (and is still run by) liberal democrats.”

        FALSE.

        “The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is a non-profit group founded in 1999 that focuses on protecting free speech rights on college campuses in the United States.[1] Its goal is “to defend and sustain individual rights at America’s colleges and universities,” including the rights to “freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience”.[2]”

        It was started by a Libertarian.

        “FIRE was co-founded by Alan Kors and Harvey A. Silverglate, who were FIRE’s co-directors until 2004. Kors served as FIRE’s first president and chairperson. Its first executive director and, later, CEO, was Thor Halvorssen.

        Kors co-founded – with civil rights advocate Harvey A. Silverglate – and served from 2000 to 2006[citation needed] as chairman of the board of directors of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

        He writes pieces for both libertarian and conservative journals on political matters. He is an occasional contributor to Reason. His essay “Can There Be An After Socialism?” was published by the journal Social Philosophy & Policy.

        “n 1999, Halvorssen became the first executive director and chief executive officer of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a U.S. civil liberties organization. As head of FIRE, Halvorssen formed coalitions that brought together the conservative and libertarian advocacy organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, Feminists for Free Expression, the Eagle Forum, with more traditional free speech defenders such as the ACLU. Halvorssen has a track record of defending individuals both on the right[34] and on the left of the political spectrum.”

        FIRE is funded by libertarian think tanks. Such as the Koch foundation, and the Bradley foundation which supports limited government.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Individual_Rights_in_Education

        “At the height of the cold war real communists in the US posed no threat to our nation, and attempts to silence and blacklist them were vile and harmful. Actual white supremecists pose far LESS of a threat today, and like in the 50’s evil regressives attempt to paint anyone whos politics they do not like as at the very least sympathizers to a discredited ideology that is impotent.

        The danger now as then is from the censors, from those who seek to warp history.”

        Wow, I didn’t realize that your ignorance was that massive. Actual white supremacists pose far LESS of a threat today? No, they are continuing to pose a threat. The ideology is not only toxic it’s the very ideology that seeks to discredit things like CRT. Kind of what you are doing and it’s not surprising. An alcoholic will never admit he is an alcoholic or admit he has a problem, but everyone outside of that self denial can see he IS an alcoholic and he DOES have a problem. Racists have that same issue and those who have had the courage to admit that about themselves know how difficult it is just to admit it. You may have a similar problem John.

        1. “Wow, I didn’t realize that your ignorance was that massive.”

          Alan Dershowitz is one of the most famous civil libertarians – he is a LIBERAL not a libertarian.

          Absolutely FIRE has drifted closer to libertarians over time – because the left has moved AWAY from civil liberties.

          Silverglate was a member of the board of the Massachusetts chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (and past president) and also taught at Harvard Law School, the University of Massachusetts Boston, and at the Cambridge Rindge and Latin School.[1]

          He is an attorney in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He practices in academic freedom, civil liberties, criminal defense, and students’ rights cases.

          He was also active in the academic free speech cases in the 60’s and 70’s.

          You appear to be sufficiently ignorant as to fail to grasp that Free speech was – until recently one of the many places were libertarians and liberals were partners.

          Free speech, freedom of the press, civil liberties are all areas that for most of my life have been the domain of liberals and libertarians.
          Generally fighting against Republicans and conservatives.

          Who fought the blacklisting of communists in the 50’s ? Liberals. Who fought for the washington posts right to publish the pentagon papers ? Liberals. Who fought for the rights of vietnam war protestors during the 60’s ? Liberals.

          Every single civil liberties issue in the 60’s 70’s, 80’s 90’s and early into the 21st century was lead by LIBERALS.

          Absolutely libertarians shared the same principles and viewpoints, but until the 21st century there has been no meaningful libertarian infrastructure in the US. Cato and Reason are old, but until recently they were FRINGE.
          Prior to Gary Johnson in 2012 no libertarian presidential candidate ever got more than 0.5% of the popular vote.

          Fire was founded in 1998 by LIBERALS. Virtually no one identified as libertarian in 1998.
          Libertarians were considered the Wacko’s, the Lyndon LaRouchies.

        2. “Actual white supremacists pose far LESS of a threat today? No, they are continuing to pose a threat. The ideology is not only toxic it’s the very ideology that seeks to discredit things like CRT. Kind of what you are doing and it’s not surprising.”

          Typical left wing nut ROT.

          Having a brain does not make you a white supremecists.
          No one is seeking to discredit CRT – it discredits itself without any need for help.
          Being opposed to CRT merely means you have an IQ over 80.

          White supremacy is Toxic – so toxic it is nearly non existant.

          Aside from your stupid nonsense about CRT – what is it that you think is white supremecist today ?

          When was the last time there was a lynching in the US ?
          Every time there is some mass killing – the press immediately rants about how they are a white supremecists, and yet, nearly every one turns out to be a eco terrorist, an islamic terrorist, a trans terrorist, or just a nut job.

          The left tells me there are hundreds of mass killings every year – the actual number is a handful.

          If there is 100, can you identify 50 that were by white supremecists ?
          25?
          10?
          5?
          1?

          This is a snipe hunt.

          There are more dangerous violent left wing nuts in Portland on any given night than “white supremecists” committing violence in the US in a year.

          If “white Supremecists” are such a big threat – WHERE ARE THEY ?

          You have to go back to the obama administration to find purported right wing violence – like the Bundy’s – except – didn;t the federal courts find that BLM and the FBI were the actual lawless actors there ? Hmm.

          There were probably 40 acts of violence by the left and by arabs against jews in the US in the past month.
          That is racist violence. It certainly not white supremecy.

          WHERE IS THIS WHITE SUPREMECY ?

          My children are both asian. They are constantly facing racists – typically blacks.

          Do you remember the story of the little boy who cried wolf ?

          If you keep calling people racists and white supremecists – you are eventually going to get REAL RACISTS and white supremecists.

          1. John say, your frothing at the mouth rantings are getting worse.

            “ No one is seeking to discredit CRT – it discredits itself without any need for help.
            Being opposed to CRT merely means you have an IQ over 80.”

            You’re discrediting it yourself. The right is spending enormous time and money trying to discredit CRT. It is the only reason why there is so much criticism from the right against it. Jesus, your ignorance is so massive.

            1. No, Svelaz – I am not discrediting it any more than I am discrediting fascism.

              CRT has discredited itself.

              It is stupid, racist and destructive – that is a conclusion people reach – not because of Fox, or OAN or me.
              But because they have been exposed to the teaching materials used to indoctrinate kids with CRT.

            2. Svelaz – I am having fun.
              I have no ability to change the nonsense that you the democrats and the left are doing to the country.
              I voted against you, and I voted against Trump.

              I bear no responsibility for the mess you are creating.

              But I am enjoying laughing at your failures.

              I am quite happy that you have failed so badly so quickly.

              While you have done lots of damage very fast – and people will suffer for that – and I am sad about that.
              There is nothing I can do about it.
              At the same time, I can take pleasure that you are proving rapidly how right libertarians are on everything and how stupid you are.

              I am not “discrediting you” – you do an excellent job of that yourself.

              I am merely preventing you and from hiding from the mess you are making.

  2. Criticsl race theory. Sounds like something Hitler and the Nazis would dream up.

    1. The National Socialist program relied on social progress of the concept of “Jew privilege”, a subset of diversity doctrine (i.e. color judgment) that underlies the foundation of Critical Race Theory. Normal people do not exercise liberal license to indulge that dogmatic belief of a Pro-Choice, nominally secular, religion (e.g. ethics) that denies individual dignity, individual conscience, intrinsic value, and normalizes color blocs (e.g. the racist designation “people of color”), color quotas, and affirmative discrimination.

    2. Because they did. All that is different is who the favored and disfavored races are.

  3. In this sanctorum of learning ve have ways of dealing viv those who step out of line and will not declare the words of the Great Leader to be without blemish. Beware, your privilege to be in your classes hangs in the balance.

  4. Let me rephrase that so it’s more accurate:

    Rutgers student government requires all student groups to include racist programs that discriminate against their members.

    Democrats are driving racism in this country. Drive it out of school. Don’t sit there and complain or whine about it. Do something.

    Parents, vote with your wallets. Do not financially reward universities who incorporate racist admissions policies, who are racist against students, and who discriminate against conservatives. You didn’t save up for years to throw it all away on a woke university who will brainwash your offspring to hate themselves, hate you, and hate others, based on skin color.

    Enough already.

    1. If only. Diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment), not limited to racism, sex-ism, ageism, is a progressive (i.e. monotonic) and likely liberal (i.e. divergent) condition. Normal people do not generally indulge the oldest, notably pro-choice, selective, opportunistic, relativistic (“ethical”) religion.

    2. Karen, students vote with their wallets too. Students who may be members of the student government. They get to make rules too. What a concept.

      “ Rutgers student government requires all student groups to include racist programs that discriminate against their members.”

      Fortunately that’s not what their requirements is. But do keep on projecting your true desires onto others.

      1. Svelaz:

        CRT is racist against whites, Asians, and Jewish people. Have you read any CRT curriculum or teaching materials? Have you read about white employees, or students, being forced to apologize for their whiteness to fellow employees or classmates of color? CRT promotes racial and gender stereotypes to a shameless level.

        Why would any decent human being want to teach school children that they are born oppressed or oppressor based on their skin color? That’s remarkably irresponsible, and harmful to the psyche of all children involved.

        Why does the premise that diversity is skin deep have such traction?

        Examples of the blatant discrimination in CRT and the ironically racist “anti-racism” movement.

        “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” “The most threatening racist movement is not the alt right’s unlikely drive for a White ethnostate but the regular American’s drive for a ‘race-neutral’ one,”- “How to be an Antiracist”, by Kendi

        Here is an opinion piece on a few ways in which CRT are harmful:
        https://www.edweek.org/leadership/opinion-critical-race-theory-doesnt-help-kids/2020/10

        Here is another example. By claiming that any disparity is proof of racism, anti-racists have targeted meritocracy as “white supremacist.” This punishes Asian high achievers with regularity. Thomas Jefferson High School is one of the top high schools in the country. It has a high percentage of Asian students. In order to increase black attendance, new rules were imposed that would select the top 1.5% of students at each school in the district to attend this high school. This discriminates against the high performing Asian students who attend the same school. A straight A Asian student in the top 1.6% at one high school would not get in, while a B- student in the top 1.5% of a poor performing public school would.

        https://lawliberty.org/critical-race-theory-or-civil-rights-law-we-cant-have-both/

        “all whites must admit their culpability by confessing the advantages white supremacy confers on them. Failure to do so reflects “white fragility”—an instinctive defensiveness that whites are said to display after they have been trained about their investment in racism. Second, individual whites cannot hide behind any personal history of non-discrimination or the desirability of race-neutral laws or policies because the collective action of their race has been oppressive.
        Whites, therefore, must support “anti-racist” policies that require various forms of race preferences for non-whites across a variety of fields for an indefinite period. This is required even where whites are a local minority and power structures are controlled by non-whites or Blacks, Indigenous, and People of Color—“BIPOCs” in the current terminology.”

        1. Karen S., clearly you have been very misinformed about what critical race theory really is. It is obvious that you have not really read it or delved into what it really says instead of just taking the word of people who know less than you .

          1. Svelaz – the widespread attack on CRT is not the result of people being deluded by Alex Jones.

            It is coming from parents agahst at what is being taught to their children.

            CRT is not being misrepresented by the right – it is being judged by its own words.

            I word further note that even if that were not so – there is no right to impose ANY ideology by force through our government.
            Especially not one with no practical evidence of benefitical real world benefit.

            You deny that CRT is not marxist – but it is similar to marxism in one very clear way.

            There is no real world evidence of marxism ever working.
            We have heard you rant about misunderstanding nuances.

            SO WHAT ?

            No matter what might be misunderstood – there is still no example of any form of working marxism, socialism or whatever you might call it.

            CRT has not had the opportunity to cause the bloodshed that marxism has.
            Though it is already off to a bloody start.

            But like Marxism it has no track record of success – anywhere ever.

            That is true whether CRT is just a permutation of marism – or whatever nonsense you are arguing.

            If you want to introduce ne dominate public school curicula with CRT – it must be PROVEN first, and it has not been.

            We have world wide examples that the enlightenment values that the left eschews actually work.
            No such thing with Marxism or CRT.

            We do not teach that the moon is made of green cheese.

            We teach that 1 + 1 = 2.

            That for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

            We teach established truth – not the intellectual conjecture of greivance groups.

            1. John say,

              “Svelaz – the widespread attack on CRT is not the result of people being deluded by Alex Jones.

              It is coming from parents agahst at what is being taught to their children.

              CRT is not being misrepresented by the right – it is being judged by its own words. ”

              Nope. Those same parents you mention are getting their information from not just Alex Jones, but Fox News, OAN, NewsMax, etc. All those are getting their information from right wing think tanks who are working hard disbursing misinformation about what CRT is about. It is quite telling by the same talking points parent use when airing their concerns. Nearly all the misinformation is coming from right wing pundits and think tanks and further spread by parents sharing this on their facebook and twitter accounts. Before you know it it becomes “common knowledge” to these parents who become against this policy. You and those parents are being taken for fools.

              “I word further note that even if that were not so – there is no right to impose ANY ideology by force through our government.
              Especially not one with no practical evidence of benefitical real world benefit. ”

              Nobody is forcing an ideology on anyone. Requiring a discussion of an issue with other options not specific to CRT or thru the lens of CRT are not forcing an ideology.

              There IS evidence of beneficial real world practicality in discussing CRT. What many on the right don’t want is to HAVE the discussion. You can’t really discover the practical benefits if you don’t discuss it, right? It worked in Germany by forcing their own to confront the ugly truth about their history in WWII. Here you are telling everyone basically that we just need to stick our heads in the sand when it comes to CRT. Because it brings up uncomfortable realities regarding our own history and how it applies to our present.

              “CRT has not had the opportunity to cause the bloodshed that marxism has.
              Though it is already off to a bloody start. ”

              John, CRT is not a movement. This is why your arguments against it are so flawed. You are expecting bloodshed, because Marxism did? CRT has nothing to do with Marxism. The Marxism connection to it only comes from one guy who made a claim to it on an ALEC conference. It’s why everyone, including you, are parroting that without really bothering to understand why it really has nothing to do with Marxism. That guy made a very dubious connection to it without really claiming CRT had anything to do with Marxism. You’re basing your argument on a poorly worded rant at an ALEC conference.

              “That is true whether CRT is just a permutation of marism – or whatever nonsense you are arguing.

              If you want to introduce ne dominate public school curicula with CRT – it must be PROVEN first, and it has not been. ”

              As I explained above, CRT has nothing to do with Marxism nor it is a “permutation” as you want to argue.

              Introducing CRT to public school curricula won’t “dominate” it like you seem to think it will. That is just your own paranoid delusions acting up. It is an ADDITION to our history. An enhancement to what is already currently known. It’s not going reverse our history or claim whites are oppressors. If you say it first be proven then you must let it be discussed first, But the opposition to just discussing it and bringing it up before it can be “proven” as you say then it can’t be “proven” your logic is flawed here.

              Many of the issues brought up by the 1619 project are already proven parts of our history. Expert historians still have issues with SOME of the claims and the author of the 1619 project has admitted herself that and has been willing to correct those issues and is open to making changes. The same critics that Turley cited as critics of the 1619 project agree that the ideas being discussed in the project SHOULD be discussed and don’t dispute their validity. The issue is some claims. Not the entirety of the project as many on the right falsely allege.

              “We have world wide examples that the enlightenment values that the left eschews actually work.
              No such thing with Marxism or CRT. ”

              Such as? CRT is NOT an ideology John. This is why your attempts to conflate Marxism with CRT is so disastrously flawed. You are just being intellectually lazy or ignorant here.

              “We teach established truth – not the intellectual conjecture of greivance groups”

              Truth is established by those in the majority who control the narrative of history. Minorities didn’t have that when our history was being taught in schools. CRT is the history those in the majority did not want to include because it is an uncomfortable truth. Exposing the white washing, sanitizing, or just plain obscuring of unpleasant aspects of our history is not intellectual conjecture of grievance groups.

              “We teach that 1+1= 2”

              True, but when it comes to history we are not doing that.

              1. “Nope. Those same parents you mention are getting their information from not just Alex Jones, but Fox News, OAN, NewsMax, etc.”

                False. Much of the revolts we are seeing right now are by people who have no idea who Alex Jones is.

                Do you really think that Alex Jones has a massive following in northern Virginia – right next to DC ? Or in NYC ?

                In ssome cases these are “white families” – but often they are not – these are immigrant families who are saying “we came from the failures of communism or somalia, or other tyranical states, we have nothing to do with this $hit, and you are not going to teach my 6 year old that they are evil because they are not black”

                Recent polls indicate that 75% of americans OPPOSE Critical Race Theory being taught in K-12 classes – in fact they Oppose all forms of DIQ training, not just CRT.

                Do you really think that Alex Jones has that kind of reach ?

                1. John say,

                  “ False. Much of the revolts we are seeing right now are by people who have no idea who Alex Jones is.

                  Do you really think that Alex Jones has a massive following in northern Virginia – right next to DC ? Or in NYC ?”

                  Alex Jones is not the only one spreading CRT misinformation. Fox News, OAN, Newsmax, etc. parents have ready access to these in every market. How do we know? Be a they are spouting the exact same talking points Fox News, OAN, and Newsmax, etc, are. These parents are not expected to have deeply researched CRT. They rely on their news sources.

                  “ Recent polls indicate that 75% of americans OPPOSE Critical Race Theory being taught in K-12 classes – in fact they Oppose all forms of DIQ training, not just CRT.”

                  That’s because they have been bombarded by the criticism and misinformation the right is spewing out. IIt’s no mystery.

                  1. “Alex Jones is not the only one spreading CRT misinformation. Fox News, OAN, Newsmax, etc. parents have ready access to these in every market. How do we know? Be a they are spouting the exact same talking points Fox News, OAN, and Newsmax, etc, are. These parents are not expected to have deeply researched CRT. They rely on their news sources.”

                    AGAIN – these parents are from Northern Vikrginia and NYC – these are not hotbeds of fox viewers.
                    Fox is the leading news network – with 2.9M viewers – that is less than 1% of the country. OAN does not even have 1M viewers.

                    I would further note in a survey comparing fox viewers to msnbc viewers released in May – Fox viewers proved more knowledgeable of nearly every subject than MSNBC viewers. Fox viewers were twice as likely to know the national debt within a few trillion.
                    They were 50% more likely to know the top marginal tax rate within 10%, They were twice as likely to know the current and projected rates of global warming, Fox viewers were twice as likely to know the percent of uninsured amerians.
                    Fox viewers were far more likely to know the number of unarmed blacks killed by police each year (18 on average) – 25% of CNN viewers thought it was 500.

                    I do not watch Fox, or CNN, or MSNBC or any of the talking heads of news. Further while Fox viewers were far more accurate overall – they were still abysmal. It was rare for even the average Fox viewer to get more than 50% of all questions right.

                    if you are worried about the right media propogandizing the country – they have a small following, and the data suggests their viewers are more knowledgeable than those on the left.

                    Regardless, your argument is nuts. These parents are not consumers of right wing media. Further, in the event what they are saying mirrors fox – that would be because it is true. These parents are not reading from Fox transcripts. They are reading from the educational materials given to their kids by their school districts.

                    The parents are upset by this.
                    And Fox is upset by this.
                    and 75% of the country is upset by this.

                    ““ Recent polls indicate that 75% of americans OPPOSE Critical Race Theory being taught in K-12 classes – in fact they Oppose all forms of DIQ training, not just CRT.”

                    That’s because they have been bombarded by the criticism and misinformation the right is spewing out. IIt’s no mystery.”

                    Fox can only dream to have the reach that you give them.

                    Regardless, the parents are reading out loud in public from the educational materials that school districts are giving their kids.
                    Fox did not force these schools to send home this CRT nonsense.

                  2. What is being read is from the texts brought home by students.
                    Not Fox transcripts.

                    It is offensive. Parents should be offended.
                    Fox is righting offended,
                    Even Alex Jones is rightly offended.
                    Why aren’t you ?

                    CRT is not being misrepresented to parents by FOX.

                    It is being exposed for what it is by its own teaching materials.

                    You can not blame Fox for what is in the CRT curiculum.

                    People are offended by CRT as represented by the teaching materials created by CRT programs for students.
                    Fox did not do that.

                    You did it to yourself.

              2. When you teach to grade school kids that is FORCE. It is not “discussion”.

                Very few grade school students are capable of standing up to their teachers.

                1. John say,

                  “ When you teach to grade school kids that is FORCE. It is not “discussion”.

                  John, teachers can engage in a discussion. Teaching INVOLVES discussion. Especially when students ask questions or question an issue.

                  You’re being kinda dense.

                  1. ““ When you teach to grade school kids that is FORCE. It is not “discussion”.

                    John, teachers can engage in a discussion. Teaching INVOLVES discussion. Especially when students ask questions or question an issue.

                    You’re being kinda dense.”

                    Nope, Svelaz – you are being incredibly dense.

                    You are especially dense because the dynamics of power differentials in relationships is a fixation of the LEFT.

                    A college professor has greatly disparate power to college students.
                    That is why we frown on romantic relationships between professors and students.
                    It is also why when the academy was not overrun by left wing nuts we expected that professors would reward students who intelligently disagreed with them with good grades.

                    If we hold college professors to high standards because of power differentials – how much more so – elementary school students.

                    When you were in first grade and “discussed” whether “1+1=2” – how many students successfully were allowed to offer a different view ?

                    Teachers TEACH. Socratic methods are rare in high school – they are non-existant in elementary school.

                    Please cut the nonsense of pretending that curricula driven exchanges between teachers and students are “discussions”.

                    They are not even truly free discussions in college.

              3. I like those parents fighting CRT take those who advocate for CRT at their word.

                We beleive it is what its advocates call it. We beleive they mean what they say.

                Much of what I have said about CRT comes right out of the ABA’s advocating for CRT.

                Again I take them at their word, that they mean what they say.

                The attacks on CRT are coming directly from the curiculum that CRT advocates are providing.

                You can say it is not this or that all you wish.

                Most of us rely on what the CRT advocates are trying to teach in our schools – not your spin.

              4. “Truth is established by those in the majority who control the narrative of history. ”

                False. The sun will rise tomorow – even if every human is gone.

                Humans seek to discover the truth – they do not create it.

                We are sometimes wrong about the truth, but that does not change the truth.

                Your idiocy is precisely why you are dangerous.

                Your concept of truth is the road to chaos, anarchy.

              5. Whites have controlled the narrative of history MAYBE for about 500 years and then only inside the anglosphere.

                That is a small part of history and a small part of the world.

                You really are ignorant of history.

                I would further ask – I have no idea where you got your addled version of history – but it certainly is not from the tradiational purportedly white supremecist education that I got in the 60’s and 70’s.

                I am MORE familiar with the history of minorities in this country and the world than you are.

                It certainly appears that the racist history you accuse those who educated me of is better and less racist that that you received.

                1. John say,

                  First you say that it’s false that those in the majority don’t control the narrative of history, then you proceed to prove that wrong by admitting it is true when you state, “ Whites have controlled the narrative of history MAYBE for about 500 years and then only inside the anglosphere.”

                  Couching that with a “maybe”. Historians will disagree with you on that.

                  “ I am MORE familiar with the history of minorities in this country and the world than you are.”

                  That’s a bold claim from someone who clearly shows a level of ignorance as you do. Your “familiarity” seems based on the sanitized history CRT points out.

                  It’s not racist history you were taught. It’s history white washed of its ugly truths.

                  1. “Couching that with a “maybe”. Historians will disagree with you on that.”

                    Then they would not be historians.

                  2. “That’s a bold claim”
                    No it is not.

                    We have been debating this for days.

                    It is self evident that you are entirely clueless about the history of minorities in this country.

                    “Your “familiarity” seems based on the sanitized history CRT points out.”

                    Again – you are both ignorant of CRT and of reality.

                    I have demonstrated far more familiarity with the history of racism in the US than you have.

                    Every single “ugly truth” you claim I am unaware of – I know more about than you do.
                    And plenty of “ugly truth’s” that you are completely ignorant of – I am well informed of.

                    And we can verify both of those claims by looking back at my posts and yours.

                    The problem with CRT is NOT about the facts of history.
                    That I am well aware of all those “ugly facts” and more – demonstrates that the education provided 50 years ago covered all the ugly facts that you claim were whitewashed.

                    The problem with CRT is what is NOT a fact.

                    CRT pretends that this country is founded on racism – specifically against blacks.
                    That is obvious nonsense.

                    No one came to north america for the primary purpose of oprressing blacks.

                    They came here for many reasons – for religious freedom, for freedom generally, for opportunities that were not available to them in the old world, and many to get rich.

                    SOME attempted to do so by exploiting others – something that has been true throughout ALL human history.
                    But despite the commonality of exploitation throughout history – it is NOT the theme of history – not in north america, or anywhere.

                    Further contra the left – the actual story of history is that exploitation is rarely sucessful and never for very long.

                    The US did not succeed on the back of blacks as CRT claims. If that was true – the south would have crushed the north in the civil war.
                    If that was true even after the war the South under Jim Crow would have economically dominated the country.

                    The modern south is actually finally rising – but not on the backs of blacks. It is rising because all of that is over – or nearly so, and because the south has transformed from racist democrats to republicans focused on ACTUAL roads to prosperity.

                    If as CRT claims – racism is so profitable – why was the slave south far less prosperous than the north ?
                    Why was the Jim Crow South far less prosperous than the north ?

                    Why is it that the standard of living in the south has only started to rise significantly since the end of Jim Crow and the rise of southern republicanism ?

                    If as you and CRT claim – exploitation is so successful – why didn’t it work for southern democrats ? And why does it allegedly work today for southern republicans ?

                    You are far more ignorant than I am of the realities of both past racism, exploitation – that is quite evident from our respective posts.
                    There is no assumptions involved – that conclusion rests on evidence.

                    If those facts were all this debate was about – we would not be discussing CRT – because my superior knowledge of our “ugly history” to yours was the product of conservative white schooling.

                    The problem with you and CRT is not the “ugly history” it is the quite obviously unsupportable, illogical and false conclusions you draw from that history.

                    It is also from your desire to hide from the far more important truth of the same period of time and the same people.

                    Slavery – and particularly racial slavery was first put to end by whites – shamefully the US did not take the lead on that, but we were not far behind the rest of europe and england. And we were way ahead of the rest of the world.

                    Through out history the epicenter or human progress has moved to different regions in the world. Starting in the 1500’s it shifted to Europe, then England and then the US. But that shift was different from all prior shifts. As important as the contributions of the egyptions, chinese, indians, africans, greeks, romans and others were, it was not until the enlightenment that human standard of living started to rise dramatically.

                    And only an idiot would be foolish enough to blame that on racism, or slavery. If slavery were the root cause of those tremendous improvements – then why did those gains not happen long before and everywhere else ?

                    Every other world culture before the enlightenment had slaves. Africa had slaves.

                    The tremendous gains that took place starting slowing in europe 500 years ago and eventually spreading to the world – did not have their foundation in race. They had their foundation in IDEAS. And the central idea that came to flower in Europe was that of individual liberty.

                    The problem with YOU and CRT is not that it confronts ugly facts from our past. You are ignorant of the fact that the country as been doing that for 50 years.
                    The problem is not even that YOU and CRT are racist against whites (and jews, and asians, and …).

                    The problem is that you wish to destroy the most successful developments of human history.

                    You wish to remember the “ugly facts” of the past – so what ?

                    The problem is that you want to forget the incredible ideas that not only ended legal slavery throughout the world eventually but also brought incredibly prosperity first to the west and then to the world.

                    And Only idiots like you and those selling CRT could be stupid enough to beleive that was the consequence of racism.
                    Not only does that fly in the face of history – but if it were true – it would mean that without racism the world is going to he!!

                    But logic is not your forte.

                    Slavery was bad, Jim Crow was bad. What was done to “native americans” was bad – though none of that was unique in history or unique to whites. Europeans were the 4th wave to come to north american and drive the indigeonous people elsewhere or to doom.
                    “native americans” were the 3rd.
                    The mongols subjected much of europe to the same thing for about 500 years.

                    None of your “ugly truths” are unique to europeans, whites, or white americans.

                    But the unprecidented success of the idea of individual liberty has no prior precident.

                    Your “ugly truths” are america at its worst. But whether you like it or not – our Best FAR outweighs our worst.

                    And your inability to understand that is what is wrong with you and CRT.

              6. The foundations of education are the 3R’s – Reading. wRiting, and aRithmatic.

                If you can not teach actual history -which you clearly can not – teach nothing.

                If students do not graduate knowing how to read, knowing how to right and understanding sufficient math to count change or fill out their taxes, – then the schools have failed and there is no time in education for this nonsense.

              7. These parents are getting their information from the schools. They are attacking the schools using the actual material they are teaching from.

                The “information” that you refer to is the actual curricula of the courses these districts are teaching.

                In most instances the parents involved are democrats – certainly not consumers of right media.

                Not that, that matters.

                If Hitler says the sun rose today – that does not make it false.

                You do not seem to get that whether something is true is not determined by who said it.

        2. Karen S, “Svelaz:

          CRT is racist against whites, Asians, and Jewish people. Have you read any CRT curriculum or teaching materials?” Yes I have and they do not do what you claim it does. Maybe you should actually read it yourself.

          “Have you read about white employees, or students, being forced to apologize for their whiteness to fellow employees or classmates of color? CRT promotes racial and gender stereotypes to a shameless level. ”

          You read way too many sites purporting what CRT says which it really doesn’t do. You WANT to believe it does what you say it does, but the reality is it is simply not true. You should read Dennis McIntyre’s post above. He points out exactly why you end up buying the propaganda against CRT. It’s an effort to silence discussion on an uncomfortable part of our history.

          1. Or you could just watch the assorted videos of parents reading directly from CRT curriculum.

            Whether you like it Svelaz – it is not “right wing” cites that are wreaking havoc on the ideology of the left.

            It is the actual ideology of the left.

            Your problem is that we take you are your word.

            1. John say,

              “Or you could just watch the assorted videos of parents reading directly from CRT curriculum.”

              Parent’s reading directly from the curriculum are just reading from the curriculum with the mindset already given to them by right wing sites that they have been reading. I’ve watched those videos and you can tell they really don’t understand what they seeing in those textbooks precisely because someone already told them they were bad. Not because the researched the issue.

              “Whether you like it Svelaz – it is not “right wing” cites that are wreaking havoc on the ideology of the left. ”

              Wrong. It’s not the left where they are wreaking havoc. It’s the right, their own gullible listeners. They are the ones being fooled into thinking this is bad because they falsely claim this is about making “white people oppressors” and such. The left is not doing anything of the sort.

              All the left is doing is sorting the BS those right wing think tanks are spewing. That’s all it is. Just like your “Irish ancestors being slaves” stupidity. They even managed to convince you it was true when it was not. You’re being taken for a ride John and nobody likes to admit they are after realizing it. It’s easier to just keep convincing yourself that you have not been taken for a ride, and it shows.

              1. “Parent’s reading directly from the curriculum are just reading from the curriculum with the mindset already given to them by right wing sites that they have been reading.”

                So edit the videos to put images of flowers and ranbows and unicorns while they read – does it change anything ?

                This is an unbeleivably stupid argument. The mindset of these parents is irrelevant to the words they are reading.

                It is self evident FROM THE CURICULUM that it is GARBAGE that should not be inflicted in public schools.

                “I’ve watched those videos and you can tell they really don’t understand what they seeing in those textbooks precisely because someone already told them they were bad. Not because the researched the issue.”

                Svelaz – grow up – what they are reading is BAD. It is BAD in and of itself.

                “Wrong. It’s not the left where they are wreaking havoc. It’s the right, their own gullible listeners.”
                Says the person who tells us that we can not take “sustainable” litterally.

                Svelaz – it is still the parts of the country run by the left that are coming apart – the rest of us do not need your nonsense.

                You say everyone else is indoctrinated – while that is false – even if it were true – those people are happy, successful, they are not trying to run your life – you are trying to run theirs.

                You rant about parents opposed to CRT curicula – as if you have a RIGHT to force that curricula on their children, and they have no right to resist.

                You rant about systemic racism – when it is your cities, your police departments that are falling apart.

                The rest of us can see – as with sustainability – that you are ludicrously stupid and seeking to cut off your own nose to spite your face.
                We can laugh at you

                EXCEPT that you are trying to force your idiocy on the rest of us.

                CRT is facing resistance in the bastions of leftism. Parents are fighting in NYC schools – or leaving NYC to protect their kids.

                But those fights are YOUR Fights – it is when you choose to impose your stupidity on everyone else that the YOU become the problem.

                Those parents who you claim are indoctrinated – and somehow are making the words of the CRT curiculum transform from good to evil by subtle inflections of their voice ? Those parents are ENTITLED to reject CRT.
                It is their children and their schools – not YOURS.

                It is YOU that are trying to use force against them. It is YOU that are the problem.
                It is YOU that is racist. It is YOU that is violent.
                It is YOU that is wreaking havoc.

                If as you claim “right wing sources” are able to persuade parents to oppose YOU imposing your will your curricula on them by FORCE – they are entitled to do that.
                They are untitled to do that – even if they are wrong.
                But they aren’t.

                You are free to $hit in your own bed.
                Not that of others.

                1. John say,

                  “ This is an unbeleivably stupid argument. The mindset of these parents is irrelevant to the words they are reading

                  No, it IS relevant because these parents are already seeing it thru the lens the right has been presenting. They are already under the impression that it is racist because they have been bombarded with the false narrative they have been spouting. These parents are not going to actually research the issue. They are going by what they are hearing on the radio or tv.

                  1. No it is NOT.

                    They are Reading YOUR idiotic nonsense out loud.

                    If it sounds stupid – that is because it IS stupid.

                    The truth does not care who says them.

                    The truth is not altered by the “lens” of the speaker.

                    The curicula of these school districts is what it is – whether it is read by teachers, or parents or Alex Jones.

                  2. I have read John Stuart Mill – does that mean that I am some Mill Bot droid ?

                    I have attended conferences and speeches by Robert Reich. I have read Lawrence Tribes excellent text on Constitutional law, and attended seminars by him. I have been at private gatherings where Brian Stevens spoke.
                    Do these make me some left wing nut ?

                    Your argument is stupid. While people vary in their abilities, and they are influenced by the myriads of other voices they here.
                    The fundimental impact on those with even a modicum of critical thinking skills is the quality of the arguments not the spin.

                    Regardless, if messaging is your measure of propoganda the left is far better at it than the right.

                    Further it is trivial to promise that government will cure all your ills, That it will meet all your needs. That is an appealing sales pitch.
                    It is not however one that can be delivered on.

                    “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”
                    Abraham Lincoln

                    You are apparently one of those that can be fooled all of the time.

                2. John say,

                  “ It is self evident FROM THE CURICULUM that it is GARBAGE that should not be inflicted in public schools.”

                  You haven’t read the curriculum. That much is clear. Otherwise you would notice that what the parents and YOU are spouting is not part of the curriculum. That’s how you know all they are doing is parroting what they are are hearing in right wing media.

                  I’m not imposing anything John, that’s just your paranoia acting up. All I’m doing is pointing out the fallacies the right is spewing in regards to CRT.

                  Nobody’s forcing anything. Just to be able to discuss the issue in class is not forcing. What the right is desperately trying to do is stop the discussion all together by denigrating CRT.

                  In fact it’s stopping free speech. Those states seeking to ban CRT are actively violating the 1st amendment. They are seeking to ban the discussion of an idea. It seems you’re against free speech. Not surprising.

                  1. “You haven’t read the curriculum.”

                    Read it ? No. Though I have read the ABA’s notes on CRT.

                    But I HAVE watched/listened as parents READ elements of that curriculum publicly.

                    “That much is clear.”
                    False.

                    “Otherwise you would notice that what the parents and YOU are spouting is not part of the curriculum.”
                    Of course it is. It is PRECISELY the materials that teachers and schools foisting CRT on students are teaching. It is the materials they are using.

                    From the education dictionary:

                    The term curriculum refers to the lessons and academic content taught in a school or in a specific course or program.

                    Parents are reading the content their children are being taught.

                    Even if I we skip the debate over whether that is CRT – it is unarguably evil as well as really bad.
                    Whether it is CRT or not – it has no place in public schools.

                    It is however clearly CRT – none of the teachers and schools have said “no, no, this is not CRT, this is some OTHER stupid nonsense we are teaching your kids”

                    “That’s how you know all they are doing is parroting what they are are hearing in right wing media.”

                    Again both incorrect and stupid argument. Parents are reading from the materials THEIR schools have provided THEIR children.

                    No one is denying that. AGAIN – these school districts are NOT saying “this is not the material we are teaching” – they are telling the parents – “stuff it, this is what your child will be taught, whether you like it or not”.

                    “I’m not imposing anything John, that’s just your paranoia acting up. All I’m doing is pointing out the fallacies the right is spewing in regards to CRT.”

                    Svelaz – once again – you are completely clueless.

                    If you intend that CRT or any other ideology opposed by parents should be taught in public schools – you are IMPOSING your will be force.

                    You claim I do not know what CRT is – yet it is self evident that YOU are the clueless one.

                    This is not right wing Propoganda – it is FACTS – reality.

                    This school districts are NOT reqponding to parents by saying:

                    “no, no, that is not what we are teaching”.
                    nor
                    “no, no, that is not CRT”

                    You and a few clueless left wing idiots making arguments that have no foundation in fact are the only ones making this idiotic argument that parents in NYC or northern virginia – not bastions of conservatism, are being deceived into beleiving that their schools are teaching CRT when they are not, Or that they are teaching materials that they are not.

                    What parents are reading – did not come from Alex Jones – it came from their kids school books.
                    The school boards are not responding – “that is not what we are teaching”.
                    They are not responding – “this is not CRT, but some other stupid thing we are teaching”.

                    “Nobody’s forcing anything. Just to be able to discuss the issue in class is not forcing.”
                    False and false.

                    ALL government action is FORCE.
                    If parents were free to prevent this nonsense from being inflicted on their children – it would not be occuring.

                    Further, you clearly do not remember elementary school – teachers and students do not DISCUSS.
                    They are TAUGHT.

                    Teachers do not DISCUSS whether 1+1=2 – they TEACH it.

                    This is not college – which is STILL a coercive learning environment.

                    “What the right is desperately trying to do is stop the discussion all together by denigrating CRT.”
                    So the parents in NYC who are angry about this are on the RIGHT ?
                    So the parents in northern virginia angry about this are on the RIGHT ?

                    So the material they are reading publicly does not DESERVE to be denegrated ?

                    Absolutely the RIGHT does not wish to see CRT taught in schools.
                    Absolutely the RIGHT is denegrating CRT.

                    And the RIGHT is CORRECT in both instances.
                    This CRAP should not be taught in schools.

                    But it is not the RIGHT that is the reason that you have a huge problem here – it is ordinary parents.
                    Many of them minority parents. Many of them immigrant parents.

                    You are not wrong that the RIGHT opposes this. They are RIGHT in doing so.
                    As are the actual parents involved who are NOT on the RIGHT.

                    “In fact it’s stopping free speech. Those states seeking to ban CRT are actively violating the 1st amendment. They are seeking to ban the discussion of an idea. It seems you’re against free speech. Not surprising.”

                    Again what ludicrous stupidity.

                    NO ONE is stopping you from discussing CRT.

                    What they are doing is fighting COMPELLED SPEACH and political inductrination, and general all arround stupidity by government.

                    You seem to forget that the speaker in this instance is GOVERNMENT.
                    The government does NOT have a ANY rights – it has POWERS. The first amendment LIMITS government, both as a speaker and as a censor. There is no government right to free speech.

                    You are a really really shallow thinker.

                    Can government teach children Alchemy ? Can it teach them Zorastrianism ?

          2. Svelaz – you keep presenting your opinions as facts.

            The facts are that there are many employees complaining about harassment they suffered under mandatory CRT training. There are many parents complaining about how the public school education is now teaching children they are born oppressed or oppressor based on race. I have provided links to literature from this movement, with quotes.

            You keep countering that you just don’t think it’s true. That’s not a cogent argument.

            1. Karen S,

              “Svelaz – you keep presenting your opinions as facts. ”

              Nope. I’m presenting my opinion WITH facts.

              “The facts are that there are many employees complaining about harassment they suffered under mandatory CRT training.”

              What’s your proof? Just saying it happens without some examples don’t constitute that as a fact. You need to elaborate on those facts you’re claiming. You made the claim so it is your burden to provide some form of proof to back up that claim.

              “There are many parents complaining about how the public school education is now teaching children they are born oppressed or oppressor based on race. I have provided links to literature from this movement, with quotes.”

              Those links you posted are not based on facts Karen, they are opinion pieces and both make claims that as one of them does such as this, “CRT offers two responses to this situation. First, all whites must admit their culpability by confessing the advantages white supremacy confers on them. Failure to do so reflects “white fragility”—an instinctive defensiveness that whites are said to display after they have been trained about their investment in racism. Second, individual whites cannot hide behind any personal history of non-discrimination or the desirability of race-neutral laws or policies because the collective action of their race has been oppressive.”

              The author doesn’t offer any examples or links to support his claim. I have read thru multiple curricula and training material and NONE say that. This is why the author cannot produce the evidence to support that assertion.

              Here’s another part from your posted links, “It is not illegal for corporations or universities to invite speakers to argue for CRT, though forums with diverse views would be preferable. For instance, Sacramento State’s 2020 Fall Convocation featured an address by Ibram X. Kendi on “Advancing our Commitment to Anti-Racism.”

              Attendance at such events would be voluntary, but employee training sessions are a different matter because they are usually mandatory. Persons absent or passive will be recorded. When CRT becomes the basis for the selection, training, or evaluation of employees, that is a different legal issue entirely. Asking one set of employees to confess to the sins of their racial ancestors or their individual current white privilege runs contrary to an employer’s responsibility to avoid creating a hostile work environment.”

              That “mandatory training” you’re referring to is nothing more than viewing a video on workplace conduct. None of the links contained any quotes from employees complaining about harassment or ‘suffering’ under mandatory CRT training that is not even implemented yet. You really should read what you link to and UNDERSTAND what they are saying. They are opinions on an issue that hasn’t been an issue yet. They are just saying we should be careful about such “training” or “awareness” about CRT. IF it is implemented.

            2. Svelaz also presents facts as if they are incorrect oppinions.

              The work of the 1619 project is available for anyone to inspect.
              Its numerous historical errors are well documented.

              It is yellow journalism – not history.

              The CRT based curricula are also available for all.

              Svelaz rants that we did not read CRT – but that is exactly what is being done – teachers, students, parents are reading outloud from the curricula – and it is offensive.

              The history of CRT is readily available. We know who concocted it. We know what it is based on.

              Its marxist roots are not secret – except to Svelaz.

              We live today in the “twilight zone” – where those on the left can openly admit their marxist idelogy – but we can not accuse them of being marxists.

              This is the nonsense you get when truth becomes individual and subjective.

          3. On antisemitism in the BLM and CRT movements:

            https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/03/12/critical-race-theorys-anti-semitism-problem/

            CRT teaches that whites are born oppressors. Does it really surprise anyone that there is an undercurrent of antisemitism against CRT, BLM, and similar rhetoric against successful white Jewish people? BLM supports Palestinian terrorists like Hamas.

            https://www.thejc.com/comment/analysis/jew-hate-is-forced-on-the-kids-of-california-1.511521.

            Many pro-Palestinian demonstrators have attacked Jewish people. The Democrat Squad regularly makes anti-semitic comments. BDS is a Leftist movement against the survival of Israel. CRT offshoot Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum’s original iteration taught that Israel was an Apartheid State.

            There are many examples of racism and anti-semitism in race-driven Leftist ideology, including BLM and CRT. You simply keep denying it exists, but that doesn’t make it true.

            No one denies racism is real, or that slavery exists. And it’s not a “discussion” if public school curriculum incorporates far Left propaganda that teaches children to judge each other based on race. That’s brainwashing. You bet parents will object to their children being taught to hate themselves, or others, based on skin color.

            One of the silver linings of the Covid pandemic is that parents have been able to listen in to what children are being taught in school though Zoom sessions. They don’t like what they’ve been hearing. Unless they take action, like removing their children from these schools, then their complaints are ineffective.

            1. As I have pointed out to Svelaz repeatedly – there is not a single FACT regarding past racial conflict in the US or the colonies that I and millions of others were not taught of in the standard educational curricula of 50 years ago.

              The FACTS are not secret, or hidden. There is nothing of consequence for CRT or the 1619 project to add.

              They are not about the FACTS – the fight is ideological – not factual. It is over meaning, not FACTS.

              There are myriads of facets of CRT – though they are not secret.

              CRT makes no secret of the fact that it tears down the entirety of western principles and ideals as racist.

              CRT intends to destroy the very school of thought that brought us first religious tolerance and then ethnice and racial diversity and sexual equality.

              The entire world was racial and ethnic enclaves less than 1000 years ago. Even today most people in most of the world do not see people of other cultures, races, religions as part of their ordinary lives.

              Only in England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand do most people encounter others of different race, religion, ethnicity in the course of a typical day.

              Accross the world right now people are murdering their neighbors over race, religion, ethnicity.

              CRT seeks to blame the only country on the planet to have actively sought diversity for having taken a couple of hundred years to get to where we are today – where your race, your religion, your sex, your ethnicity are inconsequential predictors of your future.

              CRT explicitly attacks the founding principles of western thought.
              Individual liberty,
              Due process,
              The rule of law not men.
              The objective nature of truth.

              Real history tells us exactly what we get without those.

              CRT and 1619 are an ego centric rewrite of history and idelogy that ignores 150,000 years of human history, and pretends that the world was a racial utopia before Columbus arrived in the new world.

              Absolutely white people have done some horrendous things with racial motives – exactly like every other human race for the preceding 150,000 years.

              What distinguishes whites – is not the racial evil that they committed – there is no time in history – through to the present where even minor differences have not resulted in evil treatment of the other race, the other ethnicity, the other religion.

              What distinguishes whites is that they are the only race that has sought and to a very large extent succeed in overcoming it.

              This tolerance, pluralism, value of diversity started with the religious wars in Europe. After centuries of religiously motivated killing and war, the West had to finally accept religious plurality as a matter of reality. Tolerance slowly grew to acceptance and even eventually to valuing religious pluralism. Religious tolerance eventually evolved to racial tolerance, sexual tolerance.

              There is no place outside of the western culture – western thought, western values, that has a tiny fraction of the diversity and tolerance of the west.

              CRT seeks to destroy western culture because it has not perfectly accomplished something no other culture has ever even tried.

              1. “As I have pointed out to Svelaz repeatedly – there is not a single FACT regarding past racial conflict in the US or the colonies that I and millions of others were not taught of in the standard educational curricula of 50 years ago.”

                CRT is only taught in law schools, John.

                1. Not anymore.
                  Regardless, is there something I wrote that you can demonstrate as incorrect ?

                2. I would further note CRT has no place in a law school either.

                  I would expect the best graduates of law school to be experts in the Law.
                  Just as i would expect an accountant to be expert in accounting – not why accounting is racist.

      2. “students vote with their wallets too.”
        Yes, but it is not students who are paying for their education.
        Their parents are, government is. MAYBE in the distant future they might be.
        But they are too immature and stupid to understand loans must be paid off – and why so many are demanding a free ride.

        “Students who may be members of the student government. They get to make rules too. What a concept.”
        Except that is not actually how things work. that is called the tyranny of the majority – and it is why Socrates drank hemlock.
        That is where you are headed.

        The rule of law fundimentally means that the majority does NOT get much of what it wants.

        1. John Say,

          “Yes, but it is not students who are paying for their education.
          Their parents are, government is.”

          Sure, some parents pay for their kid’s college, but the majority of students pay for their own education. The government only loans them money to do so, the still have to pay it back, hence THEY are paying for it.

          ““Students who may be members of the student government. They get to make rules too. What a concept.”
          Except that is not actually how things work.’

          Yes, that IS how it works. It’s called a student Government for a reason. Students VOTED for that government when they chose their members. That is not tyranny. That’s representative democracy. Just like in any legislative body in every state in the union. They ALL rule by “tyranny of the majority” Republicans are especially fond of that. That’s how these new voting restriction laws and abortion laws are made, by the “tyranny of the majority” in a legislative body.

          1. Svelaz – you are very ignorant of the realities of how education is paid for.

            All pre college public education is paid for by Adults – mostly parents.

            Most college education is paid for by parents.

            Have you ever filled out a FAFSA ? My kids can get limited government loans – which I must cosign for their education – AFTER the government has calculated how much of their education the Parents can pay for.

            But lets say you are correct – AGAIN – government is not free to give a benefit to SOME young adults and not others.
            That would violate equal protection.

            You keep trying to convert government into a charity – it isn;t.

            I have no problem with your giving to the charity of your choice and that charity giving its money out however it pleases.
            But government is NOT a charity.

            1. John say,

              “ All pre college public education is paid for by Adults – mostly parents.”

              You’re talking about taxes. Pfff… the reality of most state funding for state universities has been shrinking. Which is why tuition keeps rising.

              “ Most college education is paid for by parents.”

              That may be true of some schools. But not all of them. A lot of students do pay for their own college by taking out students loans. So much that it is in the billions right now.

              FAFSA is not the only option, I’m sure you’re well aware of that. You also have your traditional student loans. Grants, scholarships, etc.

              “ But lets say you are correct – AGAIN – government is not free to give a benefit to SOME young adults and not others.
              That would violate equal protection.

              You keep trying to convert government into a charity – it isn;t”

              I never said government should be a charity. It is a Public university which EVERYONE contributed to it thru their taxes. Government ensures access to higher education thru treating everyone equally.

              You viewing that as a charity is not only wrong, it is also asinine.

              1. “” All pre college public education is paid for by Adults – mostly parents.”

                You’re talking about taxes. Pfff”
                Pfff is not an argument.

                ” the reality of most state funding for state universities has been shrinking. Which is why tuition keeps rising.”
                Not relevant.
                Though I would note that public funding for higher education is RISING. Both public and private colleges are increasingly funded by federal government tax money – money from tax payers.

                ““ Most college education is paid for by parents.”

                That may be true of some schools. But not all of them. A lot of students do pay for their own college by taking out students loans. So much that it is in the billions right now.

                FAFSA is not the only option, I’m sure you’re well aware of that. You also have your traditional student loans. Grants, scholarships, etc.”

                You clearly have tunnel vision. There is almost no loans for education that do not require you to fill out the FAFSA.
                Unless you are a student who is already a financial success – a private student loan is going to require a cosigner – typically your parents.

                “” But lets say you are correct – AGAIN – government is not free to give a benefit to SOME young adults and not others.
                That would violate equal protection.

                You keep trying to convert government into a charity – it isn;t””

                “I never said government should be a charity.”
                When you give to people based on need that is charity.

                “It is a Public university which EVERYONE contributed to it thru their taxes.”
                Aside from being factually incorrect – we are not discussing just public universities,
                Using force to get everyone to contribute to a charity is precisely what is unconstitutional.

                Do you think that government should be free to force all of us to contribute to Greenpeace ? Rotary ? National Right to Life ?

                “Government ensures access to higher education thru treating everyone equally.”
                False. Everyone does NOT have equal access to higher education. Nor is that the standard.

                “You viewing that as a charity is not only wrong, it is also asinine.”
                No, it is literally charity.

                You seem to have this problem with the real world. You keep wishing to pretend it is different than it is.

                Litterally means “in a completely accurate way” – according to websters.

                You are correct that we need not take everything ” in a completely accurate way”.

                But we certainly should be completely accurate with regard to government.

                It is trivally arguable that government has done NOTHING to alter access to higher education.
                The cost of higher education has increased DIRECTLY as government loan guarantees have increased.

                Government loans have REDUCED access – because the cost has increased, and now those less able to afford higher education have large loans to repay.

                Nor is government treating us equally. People must still apply to college – many do not get in. Most do not get in to the college of their choice. There is nothing equal about a college education – it is inherently unequal – and that it precisely why people seek a college education.

                A college education in most cases substantially increases you lifetime earnings potential.
                That increase is unequal – it effects each student differently. Mumerous factors inside and outside the control of students alter the value of that college education.

                Many people do not chose to go to college – and far more are unable to do so.

                And finally – if you actually made college truly available to all – if you FORCED it on everyone – which is the only truly equal approach,
                then the value of a college education would diminish radically.

                You are a really shallow thinker.

                Government subsidizing ANYTHING – is government engaging in charity – and it is INHERENTLY unequal.
                There is nothing that government subsidizes we benefit equally from.

    3. “Enough already” of your attacks on Democrats, blaming them for virtually everything you don’t like and your baseless accusations of racism. Where did you get the idea that the student government organizations and law student bar association at Rutgers are run by Democrats? Just more of your regurgitation of the drivel you hear on the alt-right media you rely on for your information. You really need to stop doing this.

      1. Do you have any facts to dispute what everyone knows … that sycophant Ds are trying to ruin the USA … whether in elections or in local governments or on school boards or in the USA Congress or at so-called “higher” education (whether students or teachers)?? No right-minded person would be espousing teaching RACISM to students while calling it education.

      2. ““Enough already” of your attacks on Democrats, blaming them for virtually everything you don’t like”

        Blaming democrats is easy. They fail constantly.

        What is most surprising today is how quickly Biden has failed.

        You spent 4 years ranting about Trump’s “failures” – and yet even with “the pandemic” – 4 years of Trump left the country better in numerous ways than 4 years of Obama.
        And Biden has managed to fail worse in 4 months than Obama in 8 years.

        Biden has reversed and then reversed again more Trump policies.

        In a month or two more – Biden’s border policies will be indistinguishable from Trump’s.
        Biden has reverted to building the wall – atleast parts of it.
        He has now restored “remain in Mexico”, and he has managed to deport those who cross outside of checkpoints in 10 days – something that would have had Trump stoned to death.

        Biden inherited the most peaceful mideast we have had in 20 years. And in a few months managed to burn it all down.

        We were told through all the past year that C19 came from nature – and that Trump’s allegations that the CCP was at fault were lunatic ravings.

        Today the Biden administration has had to reverse itself and reopen the investigations it closed, and worse still, it increasingly looks like the US may have been complicit in the creation of Covid 19

        Some on the right want the Chinese to pay for Covid 19. What happens when the rest of the world sues China AND the US for funding its development ? And this went on when Obama was president and Biden was vice president.

        Trump wisely Defunded WHO – Biden restored that funding – REALLY ? We should be giving money to people who lied about the most serious public health problem for 18 months now ? Who were complicit in the world being unprepared ?

      3. “Where did you get the idea that the student government organizations and law student bar association at Rutgers are run by Democrats?”

        Really ? How long has your nose grown ?

        Can you name a student government at any Ivy that is not run by democrats ?
        Can you name a prominent law school that has not fallen off the left edge of the planet ?

  5. “It’s the [Kool-Aid], stupid.”

    – James Carville
    _____________

    The product is propaganda and indoctrination.

    Stop buying the product.

    Shop the competition.

    For the time being, this is still America; land of the free and free markets.

    The customer is king and he can still affect the supply by adjusting his demand, for the time being.

  6. CRT: Cathode Racist Tube
    n. An electronic device that displays projections of racism, regardless of signal input.

  7. As is becoming usual, Turley, your arrow doesn’t quite hit the mark. In the first part of your piece, you state that “student government” imposed the requirement for including race sensitivity. At the end of your piece, you state that “the University” needs to rescind this policy. So, which is it–student government or the University–that is imposing requirements for a grant? The difference is important. Doesn’t a student group have an autonomous right to set rules for those seeking monetary grants? And, by what authority could or should the University dictate to a student-led group like a student bar association what they can or should require as a condition for obtaining a grant? That’s the real question here, Turley.

    1. Natasha, good point. It seems Turley is conflating the student body’s intentions as those of the university. Clearly that is not the university’s position.

      1. I’ll bet the staff of the Law School is in syc with these FOOLish student! I just received a magazine from the Duquesne University School of Law. The faculty, led by the now University President, put together CLE programs and printed articles that the lefty “progressive” Ds will be so proud of! The student editors are working their own kind of “reparations” as they cover alum in the magazine. It’s not the Law School from which I earned a JD in 1969. Shame! Shame!

      2. Good point ?

        Nope, just a typical nutacha left wing nut shallow thinking.

        ALL student groups exist because the University deems them valuable.
        Power and authority in a university comes FIRST from those paying for the education – the parents.
        Through the university.

        While student government is a value add to a college education – they are NOT the education itself, they are NOT the university.

      1. Nutacha is incapable of reading english without manufactuing offense.

        There is no contradiction in Turley’s remarks.

        Student Government has a voice in a University.
        They are NOT the university.
        Whatever authority they have is deritative and can be rescinded.

        Any actions – by the university or its delegates that violates existing University policies is a breach of contract by the university.

        But like typical socialists – Nutacha can not conceive of either individual rights, or anything at odds with her own beleifs.

    2. “Doesn’t a student group have an autonomous right to set rules for those seeking monetary grants?”

      No!

      Why would a student group have any rights with respect to money that belonged to others ?

      “And, by what authority could or should the University dictate to a student-led group like a student bar association”
      By the authority that they ARE the college.

      Student groups exist at the leave of the college.
      They are funded by the college,
      Any funds the student groups disperse are college funds.

  8. This would be an excellent time for alumni and parents of future and present students to vote with their pocket books. Universities are cash starved.

    1. My alma matter is not the worst of the woke ivory towers, but I stopped giving almost a decade ago, because they are too idiotically woke.

  9. Critical Racists’ Theory presumes diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment), not limited to racism, sexism, and ageism is a progressive condition: one step forward, two steps backward, under the Pro-Choice religion.

    That said, diversity of individuals, minority of one. Baby Lives Matter

  10. Much of academia has gone off the rails. And – it continues. Unfortunately, bar associations are supporting themes like “diversity and inclusion.” The New York State Bar Association began requiring licensed attorneys to include a requirement for a one hour course in “diversity and inclusion” several years ago. What about diversity of thought? On this topic see THE DIVERSITY DELUSION by Heather McDonald. Jason Riley had an excellent column in yesterday’s edition of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL on the topic of Critical Race Theory. He suggests titles for provide a counterpoint to CRT. See 1620: A CRITICAL RESPONSE TO THE 1619 Project by Peter Wood and BLACKOUT by Candace Owens. My two cents: Let’s teach our children HOW to think, not WHAT to think!

    1. “Let’s teach our children HOW to think, not WHAT to think!”

      Amen.

      We have done significant damage to our education over the past 50 years, and this will be very expensive to us as a country.

      It is irrelevant what we teach regarding sex, transgenderism, race, if graduates can not read, or write, can not add and subtract.

      It will be irrelevant what graduates beleive about climate change – if we are incapable of producing cars, or growing food.

      I was in NYC for a few days recently. I saw signs on stores saying they were “sustainable” – what nonsense.

      New York City is NOT sustainable. Almost nothing in NYC is sustainable. Every single day massive amounts of goods and energy are transported into NYC. Cut NYC off from those external sources and New Yorkers will start dying in massive numbers quickly.

      New York City depends on the rest of the country, Conversely New York produces things that the rest of us value.

      New Yorkers trade the value they produce for the value they need – just as we all do.

      Actual sustainable living ended several centuries ago.

      Then I saw signs for rallies to “unite against hate”.

      And I wondered what this was all about ?
      I was not aware that NYC was a bastion for the KKK.

      Who is hating who in NYC that New Yorkers must Unite to speak out against them ?

      Who is hating who in this country that New Yorkers must unite to speak out against them ?

      The number of FTM transgendered has skyrocketed in this country – we do not have roving gangs of neo-nazi’s murdering the transgendered. But we do have a huge spike in transgendered suicides.

      It seems that chosing to live as a different gender does not alter any of the problems in ones life.

      The number of blacks killed by white police officers in a year is very small. The number of blacks murdered in chicago in a year by gangs is many times the number of blacks killed in the US in a year by police. And of those killed by a police less than 1/10 are questionable.

      We would all prefer that the police never had to kill anyone. but that is unrealistic. Government is FORCE, Laws are ENFORCED by men with guns – the Police, FORCE.

      If we have a problem with our laws – we shoudl take it up with those who make those laws.

      There is a rising tide of hatred in this country but it is NOT the hatred of gays, or trans people, or blacks. It is the hatred of the left for anyone who does not agree with them.

      Hatred tends to be reciprocated. So far – contra the left, there has been no dramatic rise in racism, sexism, etc.

      But as this nonsense keeps up THERE WILL BE.

      1. John Say, you just have poor comprehension skills. “I was in NYC for a few days recently. I saw signs on stores saying they were “sustainable” – what nonsense.”

        When stores have those signs it is not talking about the store itself as you incorrectly assume. Being a libertarian it is understandable since you take everything as literal without nuance or context. Stores using that sign are promoting their use of sustainable PRODUCTS, they are not talking about the sustainability of their business. Sheesh.

        1. “When stores have those signs it is not talking about the store itself as you incorrectly assume.”
          No I do not assume that.

          What I KNOW is that the store is VIRTUE SIGNALLING – STUPIDLY – just as you do all the time.

          There is no “nuance” here – that Store is not even close to “sustainable” – atleast not in the way the left uses the word sustainable.

          As to your claim that this means they are using sustainable “products” – all products are “sustainable”.

          The laws of physics – of conservation of energy and matter require that.

          But lets use the left’s defintion of “sustainable”.

          The swedes did a study of organic farming. They found it require 3 times the land, 5 times the labor to produce the same amount of food which was indistinguishable in actual quality from the “non-organic” food.

          That sounds pretty much the defintion of “unsustainable”.

          Without GMO grains – hundreds of millions would have died in india (and accross the world) over the past 50 years.

          Places like NYC CAN NOT EXIST unless the rest of the country engages in processes and produces products that are by YOUR mangled use of the word – unsustainable.

          This is all idiotic stupid virtue signalling by YOU and the left. Nothing more.

          In a prior post you demanded that I produce my own electricity, water, food, and furniture.
          That I live “sustainably”.

          New York City CAN NOT DO THAT.

          Places like NYC exist only because others produce what New Yorkers need – and nearly all of that “unsustainably” – atleast according to the left.

          1. John say,

            ““When stores have those signs it is not talking about the store itself as you incorrectly assume.”
            No I do not assume that”

            Yes you do, you clearly point to all of us you are assuming that. Here’s the pertinent quote YOU posted, “New York City is NOT sustainable. Almost nothing in NYC is sustainable. Every single day massive amounts of goods and energy are transported into NYC. Cut NYC off from those external sources and New Yorkers will start dying in massive numbers quickly. ”

            You went from ‘stores’ to an entire city and rambled about the sustainability of NYC itself. You went off on a rant just because you say a sign that you misconstrued due to your literal reading of it. Your ignorance really.

            “There is no “nuance” here – that Store is not even close to “sustainable” – atleast not in the way the left uses the word sustainable.”

            Here you confirm exactly what I said about you taking that sign literally. When you admit that “at least not in the way the left uses the word sustainable”. Here’s an interesting question for you. What was the store selling? That should have been your biggest clue. but unfortunately you were triggered before you could rationally figure out what they were trying to do. Drum up business by stating that they were sustainable. You just went on a rant based on what you ‘thought’ you read.

            “There is no “nuance” here – that Store is not even close to “sustainable” – atleast not in the way the left uses the word sustainable.

            As to your claim that this means they are using sustainable “products” – all products are “sustainable”.

            The laws of physics – of conservation of energy and matter require that.”

            Well duh, you figured it out all by yourself, yet you still managed to miss the point itself.

            “Places like NYC CAN NOT EXIST unless the rest of the country engages in processes and produces products that are by YOUR mangled use of the word – unsustainable. ”

            Again John, you saw a sign on a store saying they were sustainable. Then you went from a store to…the entire city of New York and rambled about things that have nothing to do with the basic point of what the sign in the store was about.

            “In a prior post you demanded that I produce my own electricity, water, food, and furniture.
            That I live “sustainably”.

            New York City CAN NOT DO THAT. ”

            Nobody is saying they can’t do that. Only you. What you ARE doing is venting incoherent ramblings about New York city because you were triggered by a store sign and somehow it’s all about the left. Do you feel foolish yet?

            1. “You went from ‘stores’ to an entire city and rambled about the sustainability of NYC itself.”
              That is correct – and litterally proves that what you were claiming about my remarks is wrong.

              The stores are not sustainable,. NYC is not sustainable, few component parts of modern life are sustainable.
              But the whole is sustainable – by definition, and all the leftist rot about sustainability is nonsense.

              ““There is no “nuance” here – that Store is not even close to “sustainable” – atleast not in the way the left uses the word sustainable.”

              Here you confirm exactly what I said about you taking that sign literally.””

              Is there an alternative way to take sustainability ?

              Svelaz – this is typical of you – you pretend that with any argument that you do not like there is some alternative and then you just assume that alternative both exists and is correct.

              Of course the store could mean something different by sustainability – but not something that made any sense.
              Of course nuances could change the meaning of something – but when you claim that – it is YOUR problem to demonstrate a nuanced meaning that is not total nonsense.

              Cows can escape from their fields by donning jet packs – but not in reallity – not in the “litteral” world.

              We are on a legal blog. We are discussing, law, policitics and REALITY – not poetry and fiction.

              Everything is not meant to be taken litterally, but everything that involves the use of force, government, imposing your will on others, MUST be litteral.

              And even persuading others with respect to important choices in their own life SHOULD be done litterally.

              If you expect others to change their lives you should LITTERALY be correct in your arguments.

              “What was the store selling?”
              Virtuousness – isn’t that obvious ? What the sign actually said and meant was “patronize me – I am a good person”

              “Drum up business by stating that they were sustainable.”
              I absolutely agree, and my POINT was they did so by making an idiotic appeal, and the fact that appeal works is proof of the idiocy of their customers.

              If you wish to analogize to fiction – try the emperors new cloths.

              What I saw “litterally” was stores selling faux virtue and people buying faux virtue.

              BTW I was not “triggered” – that is a stupid leftist word that is about as idiotic as “sustainable”

              You should remove it from your vocabuilary – and certainly from your arguments – because whenever you use it, it is merely to deflect away from the actual argument.

              It is irrelevant whether signs touting sustainability made me frothing mad, or gave me a humourous chuckle.

              What is relevant is that they reflected the idiocy of those influenced by the.
              My emotional state is irrelevant – and you are wrong about it. but then your remarks are commonly WRONG, and IRRELEVANT.

              All that is relevant is that the signs were a reflection of the mass delusion and virtue signalling of the left.

              “Nobody is saying they can’t do that.”
              False.

              What is true is that no one on the left actually thinks about the meaning of the words they use.

            2. Svelaz –

              Can I take you at your word – that none of this is to be taken literally ?
              That we can completely dispense with the green new deal because you are not serious ?
              That we can ignore your rants about global warming – because they are not meant to be taken literally ?
              That we can ignore your rants about racism and white supremacy – because you are not actually serious ?

        2. You demand that I do not take “sustainability” litterally – how else am I to take it ?

          The entire meaning of the concept precludes any non-litteral use.

          The concept of sustainability as used by the left requires 100% sustainablity to survive long term.

          Otherwise it is either a lie or nothing more than virtue signalling or both.

          Using a handfull of sustainable products – might buy a few minutes before Gaia fails, but little more.
          The concept of sustainable is inherently all or nothing.

          Virtue signalling that you use sustainable ass wipes – while your entire existance depends on process and products that you claim are unsustainable is idiocy.

          Do you bother to read your own arguments before posting them.

          1. John Say,

            “You demand that I do not take “sustainability” litterally – how else am I to take it ?”

            First of all I didn’t demand anything, those are your own words. Second of all you don’t HAVE to take everything you read literally, especially when you factor in context and a little nuance. You say signs on stores and immediately assumed your worst case scenario and went on a rant about New York city. You didn’t bother asking those in the stores what they meant by sustainable? Didn’t occur to you at all to explore if your assumption is correct by asking directly to those who can give you the answer? No. You didn’t, because you took it literally and went off on a rant.

            “The concept of sustainability as used by the left requires 100% sustainablity to survive long term.”

            Well it is a logical concept that in practice isn’t really 100%. Nothing really is. That is you taking things literally again. I don’t think you really understand what sustainability really is. Based on your rantings it is certain that you really don’t understand the concept and that is supported by your next quote, “The concept of sustainable is inherently all or nothing.” which is certainly not true. Again you seem to only be able to deal with absolutes or literal meanings without real consideration to variances or nuances in concepts. I can see why that would be stressful for you just reading or hearing of such concepts and ideas. You’re too invested in absolutes and literal interpretations that are as narrow as possible.

            “Do you bother to read your own arguments before posting them.”

            You forgot to add a question mark on that one, you know, just being literal here. Yes John I read my own arguments. The question is do you read your own? Remember you took all this from some signs on a few stores. I’m not the one being triggered by them, you are. Let that marinate for a bit until you get it, or not. Your choice.

            1. “First of all I didn’t demand anything, those are your own words. Second of all you don’t HAVE to take everything you read literally, ”

              AGAIN – How is sustainability to be taken ?

              You, the left are constantly telling us the world is on the verge of collapse if we do not act in a variety of draconian ways.

              Do you mean that ? Or is it just hyperbole ?

              “especially when you factor in context and a little nuance.”
              There is no context or nuance that changes anything.

              You keep tossing these words arround as if they are magic talismans – they are not,

              “You say signs on stores and immediately assumed your worst case scenario and went on a rant about New York city.”
              No I assumed that those on the left mean what they say when they claim the world is going to he!!.
              Nor was NYC my target – You, the LEFT are.

              NYC is what it is – the good and the bad. I enjoyed my visit. My attack is on idiots like you.
              NYC itself is NOT sustainable – and does not need to be. Sustainability is a faux issue manufactured by the left.
              It can be ignored.

              People – including stores that are speaking of sustainability are virtue signalling to other idiots who are deluded.

              What I pointed out is that NYC is not and can not ever be “sustainable” – not even a little.

              You rant at that attack only because you think that “sustainability” is an important and meaningful value.

              Except that even you grasp that sustainability is not real – it is not LITERALLY achievable.

              In other words – it is just virtue signalling.

              “You didn’t bother asking those in the stores what they meant by sustainable?”
              I do not need to. You the left rant about sustainability, and all the means by which we are destroying the planet constantly.
              You manufacture stupid rules for sustainability compelling the rest of us to follow them – oblivious to the fact that your rhetoric is meaningless.

              “Didn’t occur to you at all to explore if your assumption is correct by asking directly to those who can give you the answer? No. You didn’t, because you took it literally and went off on a rant.”

              Svelaz – you are an idiot. You can use whatever words you wish to mean whatever you want them to,
              Of course few will understand what you say if you do.

              In the contexts we debate here words are meant to be taken LITTERALLY.

              We are not criticising poetry or fiction or movies and entertainment.

              Political discussions are about government and law. Law is meant to be taken LITTERALLY.

              While you can virtue signal as you wish as a store owner. I honestly do not care what the store says – though it speaks volumes about the stupidity of its customers in new york that they have no grasp of the fact that large cities are UNSUSTAINABLE.
              That does not mean they are going to fail. It just means that their survival DEPENDS on trade with others who provide what they can not.

              Most of this country is “sustainable” – the typical rural resident’s life would be poorer without those things they acquire from big cities, but they would not starve. Big cities are not and can not be. They are a product of our incredible success. Because we produce so much we can concentrate large numbers of people in small areas where they are more productive – and we can sustain them – from elsewhere.

              And what you and New Yorkers should never forget is that everyone else’s lives would be less rich without the dense urban areas that are mostly the domain of the left. But you would be DEAD without the rest of us.

              “Well it is a logical concept that in practice isn’t really 100%.”
              No it is not a “logical concept” – that is nonsense. It litterally is an “illogical concept”.
              Please learn to use words correctly.

              Regardless, it is not in practice 100%. In practice it is completely meaningless.
              Further steps towards what the left typically means by sustainability – are steps towards POVERTY.

              And the less than litteral uses of sustainability inherently mean those on the left are complete idiots and do not know what they are talking about.

              “Nothing really is.”
              More nonsense. Of course as a whole the country the planet are already LITTERALLY sustainable – or they would not exist.
              It is only in peices that we do not have sustainability. Further what you – and those on the left are blind to is that YOU are the least sustainable. Much of the country would have a lower standard of living if we moved towards small scale sustainability.
              Our cities would DIE.

              “That is you taking things literally again. I don’t think you really understand what sustainability really is.”
              Svelaz – I am a registered architect practicing since 1980. My education was at GA Tech and RPI where the focus at the time was on “sustainability” – I know EXACTLY what I am talking about. I know precisely what the grand poobah’s of the sustainability movement intend – and for your information it is LITTERAL sustainability
              They are under the delusion that cities like Atlanta and New York can produce their own food and process their own waste, and produce their own energy.

              For two full years at GA Tech all my projects were about how to convert all of atlanta to sustainable living in the few years remaining before oil ran out – purportedly in 1984 at that time.

              “Based on your rantings it is certain that you really don’t understand the concept”

              Of you wish to admit that all the policy measures – like “sustainability” that the left wishes to persue are not meant litterally – that we are not “litterally” racist or that Catastrophic Global Warming is not litteral or that sustainability is not litteral or that the green new deal is not litteral.

              Then we can get somewhere – we can just completely ignore the left politically – because the use of force is ALWAYS litteral.

              We do not make laws for fictions. We do not send men with guns to enforce figurative concepts.

              ““The concept of sustainable is inherently all or nothing.” which is certainly not true.”
              Of course it is. And that is the problem with the left – we ARE actually sustainable already – or we would not exist.
              What we are not is sustainable in small component parts – like big cities.

              “Again you seem to only be able to deal with absolutes or literal meanings without real consideration to variances or nuances in concepts.”
              Svelaz – you are describing yourself and the left – not me.

              You do not know when things MUST be litteral – such as when you seek to use force – government, and when they do not.
              You use nuance as a magic talisman – and when you use it you do not even mean nuance – otherwise you would be able to cite specific factors – nuances that actually change things. You do not know what nuance is, or how to apply it.
              All your arguments are vacuous – they depend on the use of words disconnected with ANY meaning – not litterally, not figuratively.
              Though so long as you are discussing the use of force – government, policies, laws, there is no figurative, and there is no nuance.

              Force is litteral. A gun is not nuanced.

              “I can see why that would be stressful for you just reading or hearing of such concepts and ideas. You’re too invested in absolutes and literal interpretations that are as narrow as possible.”

              I am not the one stressed out. I am not the one who thinks the end of the world is near. I am not the one who thinks that if I do not switch to an electric car or a dry toilet everyone will die. I am not the one who thinks that the country is to racist to continue as it is.

              “Yes John I read my own arguments.”
              Then you have reading comprehension issues.

              Svelaz, it is childs play to dismember your posts.

              It is clear you have not thought much about anything that you write. You have ranted about right wing nuts who are purportedly spoon fed by Fox or something similar – but it is clear that your ideas have all been spoon fed to you, and you have given them very little thought.

              They just do not hold up under the lightest scrutiny.

              “Remember you took all this from some signs on a few stores.”

              I did with respect to those stores – exactly what I do to you.
              I pointed out that they are clueless and have not thought much about what they are saying. Just like you.

              “I’m not the one being triggered by them, you are.”
              My problem with them and you – is NOT your idiotic ideas – I could care less if you wish to screw yourself over with the idiotic ideas that you have. And if New Yorkers wish to signal their own faux virtue with idiotic claims of sustainability – they are free to do so.

              My point is that it is stupid people – like these and you – who can not even live their own lives according to the idiotic nonsense they spout that wish to use FORCE against the rest of us – to impose their stupid ideas on the rest of us.

              I will be happy to leave you alone to live your life as you please – sustainable or not litterally or figuratively, nuanced or not – so long as you do the same for the rest of us. But you do not.

              You have created problems with crime and violence in YOUR communities – and you wish to project them on to the rest of us and inflict your failed solutions on the rest of the country.

              Contra idiots like you – this country is not systemically racist – even Biden and Harris found themselves having to admit that. It is not white supremecist.

              BUT if it is a choice between the consequences of YOUR policies – such as doubling of crime rates, and racism then I expect that much of the country will pick racism.

              When you put a gun to peoples heads and ask them to choose – you should not be surprised if they choose to take the gun from you and shoot you.

              And you do not grasp that.

        3. Should we treat racism or Critical race theory or marxism like you treat sustainability ?

          We need not take them litterally ?

          Can we claim to not be racist if we are willing to rub elbows with minorities on subways, even though we will not hire them ?

          Do you actually mean anything you say ?

          Do you think before you post ?

          1. John say,

            “ You, the left are constantly telling us the world is on the verge of collapse if we do not act in a variety of draconian ways.”

            Some of it is hyperbole. Not everything is going to be literally they say. This is just your inability to grasp nuance. Clearly you have an issue with making a distinction.

            “ There is no context or nuance that changes anything.

            You keep tossing these words arround as if they are magic talismans – they are not,”

            Yes. There is John. This is where you just have this comprehension problem. You can’t see the forest for the trees.

            You can’t understand what nuance is when you’re so stuck on literal interpretation of everything. You go off on nonsensical rants trying to justify your ignorance without much success because you just can’t grasp nuance or complexity. You take a simple thing and run away with the worst case scenarios on the literal meanings of things that can mean many other things. It’s like a bad case of OCD with literal meanings.

            1. “Some of it is hyperbole. Not everything is going to be literally they say. This is just your inability to grasp nuance. Clearly you have an issue with making a distinction.”

              When you are talking about the use of force against others there is no room for hyperbole.

              Laws are not poetry, they are not fiction, we expect them to be imposed LITTERALLY.
              We expect those who write them to write what they LITTERALLY means.
              We expect those who advocate for them to LITTERALLY mean what they say.

              While it is common place for those on the opposite side of a debate to speak hyperbolicly of the OTHER persons position – we except that they can be taken LITTERALLY when they speak of their own.

              If you are being hyperbolic about your use of force against others – that is evil.

            2. “Yes. There is John. This is where you just have this comprehension problem. You can’t see the forest for the trees.”

              No, Svelaz – there is not. If you had context that would make your positions paletable – you would provide it.
              If you had nuance that would make your positions less idiotic – you would provide it.

              But worse still – the ACTUAL context – which you keep ducking – the use of FORCE against others REQUIRES that we do NOT play context or nuance games.

              “You can’t understand what nuance is when you’re so stuck on literal interpretation of everything.”
              More ad hominem and straw men.

              Not only is this argument wrong – you do not know me at all. It is also irrelevant – the ACTUAL context of this debate is the use of FORCE – primarily by government.

              That is a context is which we MUST take things litterally.

              “You go off on nonsensical rants trying to justify your ignorance without much success because you just can’t grasp nuance or complexity.”
              Again Svelaz – you are clueless. I not only have no difficulty with either nuance or complexity – unlike you I clearly grasp where they are appropriate and where they are actually EVIL.

              Law is ALWAYS about the use of FORCE against others. There is no escaping that. You can not nuance your way out of it. There is no degree of complexity that changes that core FACT.

              No sane person wants the police to be artistic in their use of FORCE Or their application of the law.

              This is not a rant – it is a FACT – one you can not overcome – by calling it names.

              “You take a simple thing and run away with the worst case scenarios on the literal meanings of things that can mean many other things.”

              What a mess.

              YOU started a rant about complexity and nuance – NOW you are claiming the discussion is about “a simple thing”.

              You are correct – your writing is nuanced and complex and massively contexted – or more simply it is a meaningless mess.

              Law is about ALL scenarious – including the worst case. It is particularly about all scenarious because government often has the power to arrange the scenario it wants.

              While I do not buy you “systemic racism in policing” nonsense. I have no problem understanding that police will take advantage of all latitude in a law – or that the courts give them. That if you want the police to respect YOUR rights – the law must be written clearly and narrowly and the police must be required to follow it narrowly, otherwise the “worst case scenario” will be the norm.

              The same is true of “complexity” and “context” – if you are not clear in the law – in government, you can guarantee that those with power – your personal boogy monster being the police, WILL apply that complexity and context in the way that is most going to harm YOU.

              AGAIN – we are not writing poetry, or fiction. If the contraints on individual liberty – have multiple possible meanings – guaranteed YOU are going to be subject to the least favorable on. Especially if you are young, a minority, without meaningful power.

              CRT is WRONG in its claim that western law is inherently racist. But it is absolutely correct that YOUR means of imposing the law is inherently racist. You “nuance”, ‘context’, “complexity” are precisely what no sane person wants in the law.

              I am perfectly capable of grasping and using nuance, complexity, context,

              Unlikely you I also grasp that the none of that belongs in the use of force.

            3. “It’s like a bad case of OCD with literal meanings.”

              We are STILL not debating poetry, or fiction. We are debating law, government, the use of force.

              Do you really want to be confused over whether someone intents to literally kill you – or just figuratively ?

              Svelaz, you are just digging yourself a deeper hole all the time.

              If you wish to use nuance, complexity, context – we can have a debate about opera, or the bauhaus, or punk rock, or Dante.

              We are debating FORCE, Government, We do NOT want “context”, nuance, complexity.

              Not only must all law be crystal clear – so that we all KNOW precisely how to avoid running afoul of the law, but the law must be limited to innate concepts of right and wrong.

              People rarely ponder criminal conduct. A great deal of criminal conduct takes place with very little if any thought at all.
              The law, must reflect peoples innate understanding of right and wrong – because most of the time that is all that people will have to guide them. The legal premise that “ignorance the the law is no excuse” – rests on the premise that people know right from wrong. That even if they do not know the law, that they know right from wrong, and that when they chose WRONG, they knew they chose illegal – without knowing the law.

              The law must be CLEAR, it must be with very little context, ot must be written to be applied Litterally, and it must as best as we possibly can make it reflect our innate understanding of what is right and wrong.

              And if you have not figured it out – that means govenrment MUST be limited.

  11. Turley’s point seems to be a direct criticism of what Florida governor Desantis signed into law recently. Levying a gigantic fine on social media platforms for removing politicians because they violate the platform’s rules. It’s essentially compelling the platforms to carry the political speech of a politician. Clearly Turley would agree it is unmistakably unconstitutional.

    What is surprising is Turley ignoring this compelled speech issue vs. Rutgers own policy which is more vague than Turley leads others to believe.

    1. There may be problem with DeSantis’s actions, but in fact they are the OPPOSITE of this.

      You are the perfect reflection of the typical leftist.

      In left wing nut world Racism and Anti-racism have morphed into the same thing.

      Here you are trying to equate one governing body requiring specific speech to another government body prohibiting censoring speech.

      Compelling specific speech and requiring free speech are OPPOSITES.

      There is however an actual answer that has ZERO conflicts.

      Get government entirely out of the business of funding pretty much anything. And bar government from regulating anything.

      So long as Rutgers or Facebook accepts either money or priviledges from government, they are subject to government impositions on the way they operate.

      Arguably they are obligated to operate under the same rules as government regarding speech.

      Rutgers college should be free to set its rules however it pleases – subject only to the demands of those who pay for the college – parents, and donors.

      The Federal government should have no role at all in funding higher education.
      A college education is NOT a right.

      Worse still subsidizing college education is a violation of the rights of everyone who does not receive a college education.

      Facebook and social media should be allowed to operate as they wish – subject only conforming to contracts they entered into voluntarily, just like every other business.

      Conversely they should not now or ever have special legal protections. Such as those in section 230.

      They are publishers just like the news. They must be subject to the same legal obligations, otherwise again we violate the rights of all publishers that are not subject to section 230 protections.

      You left wing nuts do not seem to grasp that everything is much easier if you get government out of things.

      During Trump we saw myriads of big businesses “go woke” – all or nearly all are quietly backing away from that.
      Because it proved to be bad business. In a free market, in a free society, we are all subject to the competing influences of others.
      We can choose to ignore those or to conform as we wish – and deal with the consequences of that.

      If Coke and other big businesses want to “go woke” – that is their business, as is what soda I buy and from whom.

      Businesses are free to engage politically if they choose. And consumers are free to respond to that choice.

      Most businesses ultumately tend to find it is wise to conduct their political actions as private individuals.

      1. John say,

        “ Compelling specific speech and requiring free speech are OPPOSITES.”

        I disagree. They are both compelling speech. As you noted both involve a government entity. Rutgers is a public institution and obviously Florida’s legislature is a public institution both are government entities.

        Desantis, and the Florida legislature are compelling speech by forcing Facebook to carry the messages of politicians thru the threat of fines. It violates Facebook’s 1st amendment rights.

        Turley claims the student body’s requirement amounts to compelled speech because it involves any organization that spends more than $250. Its a student body and as you pointed out, “ Rutgers college should be free to set its rules however it pleases – subject only to the demands of those who pay for the college – parents, and donors”. It’s not only parents and donors who pay. It’s also students. A student body which is composed of those who are actually paying directly either themselves or their parents is setting the rules. So as you argue they are perfectly within their right to impose such rules.

        “ So long as Rutgers or Facebook accepts either money or priviledges from government, they are subject to government impositions on the way they operate.

        Arguably they are obligated to operate under the same rules as government regarding speech.”

        Not necessarily. Rutgers is direct funded by government. Facebook is not. The mere presence of government money doesn’t require private entities to operate under the same rules as government. The only exception is if there are specific conditions attached to such funds. Government cannot compel speech just because government money is involved. The constitution supersedes any such conditions when it involves speech.

        The Rutgers student body offered multiple options that don’t necessarily require the discussions be solely thru a CRT lens.

        DeSantis offers no options and it directly threatens Facebook with punishment for not carrying a politician’s speech and allows anyone to sue them for censorship they agreed to when they signed up to use the platform.

        Government is indeed a necessary component of higher education. It ensures that everyone has equal access to it. Remember public universities were created to allow those who couldn’t afford higher education in private universities. They were free back then. It allowed minorities and the poor the opportunity to get ahead. It is a benefit for the entire country not just the to those who can afford it.

        1. Desantis, and the Florida legislature are compelling speech by forcing Facebook to carry the messages of politicians thru the threat of fines. It violates Facebook’s 1st amendment rights.

          Actually you are wrong. Facebook and other social media platforms claim they are disinterested third party provider of public billboards, which provides them protection by law from lawsuits. Requiring them to provide access to all sides of an issue is not forced speech. Consequently, if Facebook or other social media platforms do not like a particular stand they are free to have an editorial or opinion section and make their stand there without interfering with other viewpoints. The fact they will not allow or prevent certain viewpoints show they have an inherent bias for or against certain views and that is interfering with the free flow of ideas. That is a violation of the law that protects them from lawsuits because they are no longer disinterested third parties.

          1. The quiet man,

            “ Requiring them to provide access to all sides of an issue is not forced speech. ”

            Yes it is, because government is threatening a private company with financial punitive actions to force them to carry an individual who violates their own policies. It’s forcing them to carry messages that they don’t agree with. They are not a government entity, they are a private company and the 1st amendment’s prohibitions only apply to government. Turley’s own column pointed out a Supreme Court opinion directly pointing this out.

            “ Facebook and other social media platforms claim they are disinterested third party provider of public billboards, which provides them protection by law from lawsuits. ”

            Irrelevant, their claims don’t negate their own 1sr amendment rights from being infringed by government such as Desantis threatening financial punishment if they abide by their own rules.

            “ Consequently, if Facebook or other social media platforms do not like a particular stand they are free to have an editorial or opinion section and make their stand there without interfering with other viewpoints. ”

            Again, this is irrelevant, Facebook is still a private company that HAS everyone who uses its platform under a legal agreement that was voluntarily accepted by those users. Everyone who accepted that agreement gave up their right by giving Facebook the ability to censor their opinions or views if they violate their terms of that agreement. Facebook is not obligated to allow anyone access to its platform. Nobody has a right to access it just because it’s there.

            “ The fact they will not allow or prevent certain viewpoints show they have an inherent bias for or against certain views and that is interfering with the free flow of ideas. That is a violation of the law that protects them from lawsuits because they are no longer disinterested third parties.”

            This is incorrect.

            They don’t allow any viewpoints or ideas that violate the terms and conditions that the users voluntarily agreed to in order to have the privilege of using their platform.

            “That is a violation of the law that protects against them from lawsuits…”

            Nope. That law which I assume you’re referring to section 230, doesn’t require Facebook to violate its own policies. Facebook also has 1st amendment rights. Just because they are a giant company doesn’t mean the rights guaranteed by the constitution don’t apply to them.

            1. “because government is threatening a private company with financial punitive actions to force them to carry an individual who violates their own policies. It’s forcing them to carry messages that they don’t agree with. They are not a government entity, they are a private company and the 1st amendment’s prohibitions only apply to government. ”
              This gibberish is proof of nothing.

              The left punishes private companies all the time for violating their own policies.
              Government requires cigarrette companies to put warning labels on their products – that is actual compelled speech.
              Government imposes all kinds of labeling requirements on products – that is actual compelled speech.

              ““ Facebook and other social media platforms claim they are disinterested third party provider of public billboards, which provides them protection by law from lawsuits. ”

              Irrelevant, ”
              Of course it is not irrelevant. You fixate on FB’s TOS – why do these TOS have meaning – but what FB says of itself publicly and in court does not ?

              If I advertise that all cars I sell have a 100,000 mile warranty – am I free in the fine print of the sales contract to disown that commitment ?

              What you say about your product publicly is generally a binding part of the products contract.

              “their claims don’t negate their own 1sr amendment rights”
              Of course they do – when you disown a claim – you give it up.

              We do not hold distributors of content liable for the content – because they do not make editorial decisions about content.
              Because they are NOT speaking with the content.

              Social Media explicitly disclaims responsibility for the content that is posted. You can not disclaim responsibility for your own actions.
              If you censor – you are responsible for what you DO NOT censor.

              Most media is responsible for the comntent they publish – even what they do not write – because they choose what to publish and what not to.

              NY Times vs. sulivan, Was a claim of defamation against the NY Times because the content in a paid advertisement defamed Sullivan.

              SCOTUS did not end defamation law. It did not exclude publishers from responsibility for content they published.

              If Social media makes editorial decisions regarding the content they publish – they bear responsibility for it.

              Conversely if they are protected from liability by government then government can impose requirements on Social media. That do not violate the consitution. This does not any more than laws saying that the town square must allow political speaches by all candidates.

              “Desantis threatening financial punishment if they abide by their own rules.”
              Government does that all the time.
              Are you saying fines are unconstitutional ?

              “Again, this is irrelevant, Facebook is still a private company that HAS everyone who uses its platform under a legal agreement that was voluntarily accepted by those users.”

              They do ? My signature is not on any contract with FB.
              Conversely FB has publicly championed free speech for all.

              “Everyone who accepted that agreement gave up their right by giving Facebook the ability to censor their opinions or views if they violate their terms of that agreement. Facebook is not obligated to allow anyone access to its platform. Nobody has a right to access it just because it’s there.”

              This is not true of actual contracts – why would it be true of non contracts ?

              “They don’t allow any viewpoints or ideas that violate the terms and conditions that the users voluntarily agreed to in order to have the privilege of using their platform.”

              This is also false. Not only because you are wrong about TOS, but also because you are wrong about SM censorship.

              The TOS does NOT reserve the right to censor whatever FB pleases.

              The CLAIM a right to censor false content.
              Presuming they WERE allowed to do so, they would have assumed liability for erroneously censoring true content.

              SM censored Glenn Greewald’s Hunter Biden story – yet that story is entirely factually correct,
              SM claimed wrongly it was Russian disinformation.

              You keep arguing that people are responsible for what they say and do. But then you refuse to hold social media responsible for what they say and do.

              When you claim the right to censor what is false, you are obligated to be correct about what is and is not false.

              FB has reversed itself on censorship of the Covid 19 lab leak.

              Yet for over a year they censored a story that is increasingly likely true.

              SM has been censoring stories about election fraud. Yet here we have a story that would be censored if posted on social media.

              https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/2021/06/08/pristine_ballots_put_georgia_vote_fraud_on_judges_mind_780469.html

              Has fraud been proven ? No. But certainly censoring this is very dangerous. We have several allegations credible enough for a democratic judge to allow further inquiry.

              Ultimately we have a testable claim. Either there are hundreds even thousands of ballots with no creases or there are not.
              Either there are large numbers of consequtive identical ballots or there are not.

              Either the ballots are filled out in ink or they are filled in toner.

              These allegations can be tested, and they are true or false.

              If SM is censoring the truth – they are responsible.
              If a person can be held accountable for using the N word – they can be held accountable for supressing the truth.

              The first amendment allows you to lie through your teeth.
              It does not releive you from responsibility for supressing the truth.

              Recently Youtube has censors Sen. Johnson for remarks regarding Covid Treatments.

              I suspect that he either mentioned HCQ or Invermectin favorably.

              We have heard over and over again for nearly a year that one or the other of these is ineffective.

              Yet there is a growing body of data on both that demonstrates otherwise.

              Masks are effective in vitro – in the lab, so is HCQ and Invermectin and a host of other things.

              But real world tests of masks show only small short term benefits.
              Stopping C19 requires large long term effects.

              HCQ is more effective than a mask at preventing the spread of Covid. Invermectin appears to be twice as effective.
              Vitamin D appears to be as effective as vaccination – with far less side effects.

              Ultimagtely we will not be saying “appears” – we will have established these are true or false.

              But SM has censored them.

              If even one of those proves true – and it is likely all will, does’nt social media bear the responsibility for the deaths that occured as a reasult of supressing the truth ?

            2. Just to be clear – you get tarred and feathered should you EVER claim Citizens United was decided wrong.

              You have asserted dozens of times that FB or SM has first amendment rights – in instances where the first amendment has no bearing at all.

              The first amendment is a right to speak or not speak as you choose. It is NOT the right to censor the speach of others.

              While you are correct that private actors have the right to censor – in some cases,
              That is NOT a first amendment right.

              Regardless – you are DONE claiming that corporations have no first amendment rights.

        2. ““ Compelling specific speech and requiring free speech are OPPOSITES.”

          I disagree. ”

          You are free to do so. You are free to argue that up is down. But that does nto make it so.

          “They are both compelling speech.”
          No they are not. That is just idiotic.

          Precisely how is someone being compelled to speak ?
          FB is not the speaker, the Poster who would have been censored is.

          “As you noted both involve a government entity. Rutgers is a public institution”
          It is therefore constrained by first amendment requirements and has very limited ability to constrain speech.

          “obviously Florida’s legislature is a public institution both are government entities.”
          So ?

          What is your argument here ?

          1. John say,

            “ Precisely how is someone being compelled to speak ?
            FB is not the speaker, the Poster who would have been censored is.”

            Here you misunderstand the context in what compelled speech entails.

            Forcing FB to carry a message IS compelling them to deliver speech which violates their terms and conditions. FB’s first amendment rights would be violated. Government cannot force anyone to carry someone else speech. In Tennessee a law mandating businesses put signs up stating their bathrooms, regardless of sex accommodate transgendered individuals. It’s the same intent with FB. Both involve punitive actions if they are not obeyed. That’s compelled speech.

            FB, a private company is being compelled against their own policies to carry the speech of a politician under the threat of a very large fine. The threat itself compels FB to post speech. That is a unconstitutional.

            1. “Here you misunderstand the context in what compelled speech entails.”

              Nope – you have no clue what Compelled speech is.

              FB is not a speaker, except when FB speaks.

              “Forcing FB to carry a message IS compelling them to deliver speech which violates their terms and conditions.”
              That may be True – but it is not the issue.
              Government has the power to force businesses or individuals to violate contracts.

              “FB’s first amendment rights would be violated.”
              Nope, as YOU said – FB is compelled to DELIVER speech.
              They are not being compelled to SPEAK.

              The USPS is compelled to DELIVER mail – they do not have the right to censor the mail.

              “Government cannot force anyone to carry someone else speech.”
              Actually they can, and the LEFT has been arguing that for decades.

              “In Tennessee a law mandating businesses put signs up stating their bathrooms, regardless of sex accommodate transgendered individuals.”

              Is there an argument or even a fact in this ?

              I have no idea what you are saying. Try english.

              “It’s the same intent with FB. Both involve punitive actions if they are not obeyed. That’s compelled speech.”

              That is not the standard for compelled speech.
              All laws involve punative actions if not obeyed.
              It is not the fact that something will be punished that makes it a violation of the first amendment.

              The laws you are refering to are not compelled speech.

              I would further note that SOME compelled speech has been found constitutional.

              Comercial building owners are required to put up emergency exits signs in their buildings,
              That is COMPELLED Speech.

              Personally I oppose that – I have no problem with exit signs, only government compelling them.

              But I would imagine you have no problem with Exist signs – therefore you can not continue to argue against compelled speech.
              Because exist signs ARE compelled speech – while requiring FB to not censor is NOT compelled speech.
              You can argue non-hypocritical against SOME compelled speech – but only when you can explain why SOME speech (exit signs) can be compelled and others can not.

              “FB, a private company is being compelled against their own policies to carry the speech of a politician under the threat of a very large fine. The threat itself compels FB to post speech.”
              Yup
              “That is a unconstitutional.”
              Nope.
              If it was – the phone company could censor or phone calls.

              1. John Say,

                ““Forcing FB to carry a message IS compelling them to deliver speech which violates their terms and conditions.”
                That may be True – but it is not the issue.”

                It is not, “may be true”. It IS true. It is THE issue. Government is compelling them to deliver a politician’s speech. That is a violation of FB’s 1st amendment rights.

                ““Here you misunderstand the context in what compelled speech entails.”

                Nope – you have no clue what Compelled speech is.

                FB is not a speaker, except when FB speaks.”

                You’re still not getting it. You’re relying heavily on a literal interpretation that is not applicable here. FB may not be the speaker, but it is being FORCED to carry someone else’s speech. That is compelled speech. Because it is being FORCED to carry someone else’s speech. Get it yet? Being FORCED to do something is to be COMPELLED. FB doesn’t have to be speaking itself in order for government to violate FB;s own 1st amendment rights.

                ““FB’s first amendment rights would be violated.”
                Nope, as YOU said – FB is compelled to DELIVER speech.
                They are not being compelled to SPEAK.”

                Again, the flaw is not about FB speaking. It’s about forcing FB to carry someone else’s speech that is recognized by every court in the land as compelling speech. Your understanding of what compelled speech entails relies heavily on a narrow literal meaning that is not applicable here.

                “The USPS is compelled to DELIVER mail – they do not have the right to censor the mail.”

                The USPS is compelled to deliver mail because it IS what they do. Deliver mail. Mail is delivered in SEALED envelopes. FB’s posts are NOT private if the sender posted publicly. There is a huge difference between the two. Your attempt making an equivalent example failed spectacularly. Plus it shows your ignorance as well.

                ““Government cannot force anyone to carry someone else speech.”
                Actually they can, and the LEFT has been arguing that for decades.

                “In Tennessee a law mandating businesses put signs up stating their bathrooms, regardless of sex accommodate transgendered individuals.”

                Is there an argument or even a fact in this ?

                I have no idea what you are saying. Try english.”

                NO, Government cannot force anyone to carry someone else’s speech. You don’t even provide an example of your claim that the left has been arguing that for decades. They haven’t succeeded because government CAN’T force someone to carry someone else’s speech.

                Because you don’t really pay attention to what you read or argue you don’t get the examples I point out to you. In Tennessee a law was passed that required businesses who wish to accommodate transgendered individuals to post signs that say explicitly that their bathrooms of either sex can be used by transgendered individuals. That is compelled speech and is unconstitutional. Just as FB is being compelled by florida to carry someone else’s speech. It’s the same intent with a different issue.

                ““It’s the same intent with FB. Both involve punitive actions if they are not obeyed. That’s compelled speech.”

                That is not the standard for compelled speech.
                All laws involve punative actions if not obeyed.
                It is not the fact that something will be punished that makes it a violation of the first amendment.”

                Yes it is. Because the punishment is what compels someone to do what the government wants them to do. When it comes to speech the government cannot compelled you to do what you don’t agree with. That is a violation of the 1st amendment. Because it is unconstitutional it is not legal.

                Not all laws involve punitive actions if not obeyed. Many don’t have any penalties attached.

                “I would further note that SOME compelled speech has been found constitutional.

                Comercial building owners are required to put up emergency exits signs in their buildings,
                That is COMPELLED Speech.”

                Yes that is absolutely right. SOME compelled speech is constitutional, but the scope of the speech is about safety, not personal opinion. There is a distinction that makes a difference. OSHA requires certain things be posted, but they are all about safety. Not personal opinion or political speech.

                “Because exist signs ARE compelled speech – while requiring FB to not censor is NOT compelled speech.”

                Nope. Here you are conflating two different kinds of speech. One involves safety that is detrimental to life or death decisions. if there is a fire it is imperative that businesses post where exits are located. FB’s speech is NOT about safety. It’s about political speech or personal opinion. Which the government cannot compel FB to carry it if it is against their TOS. YOU agreed that is true.

                “You can argue non-hypocritical against SOME compelled speech – but only when you can explain why SOME speech (exit signs) can be compelled and others can not.”

                That is clearly explained above. That’s where the context and nuance of speech plays an important part in what can and cannot be compelled by government.

                ““FB, a private company is being compelled against their own policies to carry the speech of a politician under the threat of a very large fine. The threat itself compels FB to post speech.”
                Yup
                “That is a unconstitutional.”
                Nope.
                If it was – the phone company could censor or phone calls.”

                Yes it is unconstitutional. Because as noted in the first answers to your pose above. If it WAS – the phone company. But it is NOT. A phone company cannot censor your calls because your calls are not PUBLIC. It’s private speech, peer to peer. FB doesn’t operate that way and therefore THAT is why that comparison is hugely flawed. They are NOT the same thing and if FB WAS a phone company they certainly wouldn’t censor calls. FB is NOT a phone company. I don’t know how you can’t distinguish the difference. It seems like you WANT it to be the same, but unfortunately it is not.

                1. You keep repeating this same straw man.

                  FB is not “forced” to deliver anything from anyone.

                  But they are not protected from claims of defamation for what they publish from third parties if they do not.

                  This is really simple. Without the DMCA – SM is legally culpable if they publish defamatory remarks – just as Fox is, just as MSNBC is.

                  With the DMCA – they are protected – but in return for protection they are obligated to allow speech according to the same rules as apply to government.

                  This is not complicated.

                  Government is arguably constitutionally barred from granting select groups special priviledges.
                  It is certainly barred from doing so for nothing.

                  1. John say,

                    “ FB is not “forced” to deliver anything from anyone.”

                    Yes it is. Because when Florida BANS Facebook from banning politicians from posting their messages they ARE being forced to carry their messages under threat of fines. That would be a violation of FB’s 1st amendment rights. It’s unconstitutional.

                    “ But they are not protected from claims of defamation for what they publish from third parties if they do not.

                    This is really simple. Without the DMCA – SM is legally culpable if they publish defamatory remarks – just as Fox is, just as MSNBC is.”

                    Facebook is not a publisher. It’s just a platform where people share their views, but those people also agreed to abide by the TOS which MSNBC and Fox News don’t have. They are news organizations, not social media.

                    “With the DMCA – they are protected – but in return for protection they are obligated to allow speech according to the same rules as apply to government.“

                    This is your biggest misconception. No, the same rules don’t apply at all. They are not obligated at all. It’s not a quid pro quo. Here you’re just assuming they are obligated. You haven’t quoted the law that obligates FB to allow speech by the same rules that apply to government. Cite the law that leads you to believe FB is obligated to apply the same rules government is required to follow.

                    “ Government is arguably constitutionally barred from granting select groups special priviledges.
                    It is certainly barred from doing so for nothing.”

                    No, it’s not. It can do so as long as it is being neutral in granting said privileges. It can’t if it involves speech, religion or other issues spelled out in the constitution.

                    1. FB is not “forced” to deliver anything from anyone.”

                      “Yes it is.”
                      Nope, “anything from anyone” is not the same as somethings from some people.
                      FB is free to censor in exactly the same ways as the government is free to.
                      Alternately they can eschew government protection and do as they please – facing lawsuits for defamatory posts they allow.

                      ” Because when Florida BANS Facebook from banning politicians from posting their messages they ARE being forced to carry their messages under threat of fines. That would be a violation of FB’s 1st amendment rights.”
                      Nope. That is not how the first amendment works.
                      There have been must carry laws for a long time.
                      It is not a violation of the first amendment.
                      It is not compelled speech.

                      ” It’s unconstitutional.”
                      I would prefer that the constitution was taken seriously and its limits on government had meaning.

                      I agree that this is unconstitutional – as is 90% of what government does.
                      But the courts do not agree.

                      You keep telling me that I must accept the courts.
                      Well the courts have not found this unconstitutional int he past.

                      “Facebook is not a publisher.”
                      That is precisely what they are.

                      ” It’s just a platform where people share their views”
                      That is what publisher do.

                      “but those people also agreed to abide by the TOS which MSNBC and Fox News don’t have. ”
                      This is stupid. A TOS is a contract, and you can not change contracts unilaterally.
                      And by your argument Fox and MSNBC could float a TOS accross the screen barring you from suing them for defamation if you continued to watch.

                      “They are news organizations, not social media.”
                      Correct, but legally they are publishers. Social media is also a publisher.

                      “This is your biggest misconception.”
                      Nope. There is not some middle ground – either you have the freedom of a private publisher, or you receive perks and/or direction from government and you are bound by the rules that cover government.

                      I would note that Faucci’s emails are now out – he was communicating with Zuckerberg frequently.
                      Zuckerberg asked him to be one of FB’s censor’s and Faucci told Zuckerberg what content to supress.

                      When you take direction from government – you are a government agent and bound by the same rules.

                      “No, the same rules don’t apply at all. They are not obligated at all. It’s not a quid pro quo. Here you’re just assuming they are obligated. You haven’t quoted the law that obligates FB to allow speech by the same rules that apply to government. Cite the law that leads you to believe FB is obligated to apply the same rules government is required to follow.”
                      One easy start would be the equal protection clause.
                      The DMCA violates equal protection – it grants SM priviledges that other publishers do not have.
                      At worst that is unconstitutional. At best – the NPP requirement is a manditory quid pro quo.
                      BTW law has QPQ’s all that time – as an example my state allows businesses to sell food, but only if they provide restrooms.

                      AGAIN – I would probably find all laws with QPQ’s unconstitutional – but the courts have no problem with them.

                      “No, it’s not. It can do so as long as it is being neutral in granting said privileges.”
                      It is obviously not neutral – Social media was granted a priviledge that traditional media does not have.
                      Further whether you like it or not that priviledge was conditioned on providing a neutral public platform.

                      ” It can’t if it involves speech, religion or other issues spelled out in the constitution.”
                      And this obviously involves speech.

                      This is simple – the DMCA is either unconstitutional – in which case SM can be sued for the defamatory content of their posters,
                      or it is constitutional – in which case SM is required to provide a neutral public platform.

                      You are getting tangled up in your own arguments.

                2. You really are nuts. whether the communication is public or private has nothing to do with whether you can censor.

                  Is there anywhere in the constitution at all that says anything about public vs private censorship ?

                  Id there anywhere in the constitution where the right to free speech is conditioned on that speech being private ?

                  You are just making arguments up.

                  1. John say,

                    “ You really are nuts. whether the communication is public or private has nothing to do with whether you can censor.

                    Is there anywhere in the constitution at all that says anything about public vs private censorship ?”

                    Yes it matters John because the constitution’s limitations only apply to GOVERNMENT. A phone company can’t censor your speech because your conversations are PRIVATE. Nobody else including the phone company listen in on your private conversations. They can’t sensor your speech because their core function is providing a means of communicating with an individual and only with said individual. Those conversations are not open to anyone to see or read. You don’t sign an agreement with the phone company that allows them to listen in on your conversation and kick you out if you are saying something they don’t like.

                    Facebook is the opposite. EVERYONE signs an agreement in order to use Facebook. The constitution’s prohibitions don’t apply to Facebook because it is NOT a government entity. The constitution does not limit what private companies can do with speech. They can censor at their whim.

                    Florida A GOVERNMENT entity is forcing Facebook to carry a politician’s speech is unconstitutional because government cannot compel political speech. Merely forcing Facebook to carry a politicians speech IS compelling them to carry it.

                    “ Id there anywhere in the constitution where the right to free speech is conditioned on that speech being private ?”

                    No, but it also doesn’t forbid private individuals or companies from censoring speech. It forbids government. Florida is violating Facebook’s 1st amendment rights by forcing it to carry someone else’s speech.

                    1. “Yes it matters John because the constitution’s limitations only apply to GOVERNMENT.”

                      Can we have that Tattooed on your forehead. The constitution dictates what government CAN do, and what it can NOT do.
                      If a power is NOT in the constitution government does not have it.
                      If a power IS in the constitution but the constitution contains limits to that power – those limits apply.

                      Back to your error.

                      The constitution NEVER makes a distinction between censorship of public vs, private communications.

                      In fact EVERY limitation in the constitution on the power of government applies whether that limitation is with regard to the public actions of individuals or their private ones.

                      Returning to Social Media – absent any action or influence on the part of government – private actors can constitutionally and legally censor.
                      That freedom to censor as they please is constrained to the domain of private action.

                      Once a private actor is granted a public priviledge by government – they are no longer acting completely in the private domain.

                      Strike the DMCA and SM can censor as they please – AND they are legally responsible for the content they publish – even if written by others.

                      If you grant select private actors priviledges that ordinary people do not have – they become govenrment agents.

                      Finally, the legality and constitutionality of left (or any other ideological) censorship does not change the fact that it is MORALLY WRONG.

                      Nor does it change that it is a horrible idea – censorship is quite often ACTUALLY HARMFUL.

                      The Censorship the left has engaged in has been incredibly HARMFUL.

                      I have repeatedly told people that there is no evidence that anything any government (outside of the totalitarian actions of China) has had any impact on the spread of C19. That was true in March, it is true TODAY. Nothing has changed.

                      But what you are allowed to say is changing.

                      SM has used the positions of select “experts” as the basis for censorship. In doing so they have ultimately deprived people of the TRUTH.

                      The odds that C19 transfered directly from nature to humans are now about 1:13000000000, but now we learn that the “experts” knew in February 2020 that C19 was not likely natural in origen.

                      we now know that many of those “experts” – not only knew this, but were morally, and ethically, and in many cases legally implicated in the likely unnatural development of C19.

                      Thomas Frank – no right wing nut, has an excellent editorial on the seismic impact of the lab leak.

                      It is not only another “Trump was right” – but it entirely undermines major ideological elements of leftism.
                      It makes it clear those in govenrment can not be trusted, that experts often get it wrong – and many times even lie to us all.
                      It makes it clear that not only is science fallible, but that it is the nature of the lead of science to be wrong far more often than right.
                      I.e. Real science is inherently skeptical – conservative. That new contenders for truth rarely displace older ones and even then – not be consensus, but by PROOF.

                      These and many other comsequences of the increasing probability of a lab leak are an absolute rejection of leftism.

                      We are NOT better off trusting experts
                      We not only have the right to take care of ourselves – but ultimately the undelagateable responsibility.

                      You are free to follow the advice of “experts” of your chosing. You are NOT free to FORCE others to do so.

                      Addressing SM – you MIGHT be legally and constitutionally able to hide the truth from others, but you are morally if not legally culpable for doing so.

                      When you actively suppress information that you believe to be incorrect – and you are ultimately found wrong – YOU are morrally culpable. YOU have HARMED others.

                      The spread of lies is FAR less dangerous than the suppression of the truth – even truth that you mistakenly believe to be a lie.

                    2. “A phone company can’t censor your speech because your conversations are PRIVATE.”
                      Of course they can – the public vs. private nature of speech has NOTHING to do with whether it can be censored.

                      Not constitutionally, not legally, not morally.

                      “Nobody else including the phone company listen in on your private conversations.”
                      After Snowden you actually still beleive that ?

                      “They can’t sensor your speech because their core function is providing a means of communicating with an individual and only with said individual.”
                      Not a valid argument. BTW a “sensor” is something quite different from a “censor”. I work with sensors all the time.

                      You are making a distinction that has no foundation in law or constitution – and is actually erroneous.

                      “Those conversations are not open to anyone to see or read.”
                      Aparently you do not know how SM works. You CHOOSE what you make public and what you do not – and with who you will share your speech.

                      “You don’t sign an agreement with the phone company”
                      Of course you do.

                      “that allows them to listen in on your conversation and kick you out if you are saying something they don’t like.”
                      Why can’t the phone company include that in their TOS ? Why can’t they send you a text or voicemail that changes their TOS at whim to add the right to censor your communications ?

                      “Facebook is the opposite.”
                      Nope. it is just another means of communicating.

                      “EVERYONE signs an agreement in order to use Facebook.”
                      Everyone signs an agreement to use a phone.

                      “The constitution’s prohibitions don’t apply to Facebook because it is NOT a government entity. The constitution does not limit what private companies can do with speech. They can censor at their whim.”

                      That is correct – so long as they are pure private actors. When they are given special priviledges by government they are no longer a private actor.

                      “Florida A GOVERNMENT entity is forcing Facebook to carry a politician’s speech is unconstitutional because government cannot compel political speech.”. Huge logic problem.

                      FB is an actual speaker – when they censor. They are NOT a speaker when they do NOT censor.
                      You have no clue what compelled speech is.

                      FB is being compelled to distribute – not to SPEAK. FB is NOT the speaker. That is a fact, and no one is confused about it.

                      “Merely forcing Facebook to carry a politicians speech IS compelling them to carry it.”
                      Yes, but compelling them to carry it is not compelling the to speak.

                      Just to be clear – the constitution correctly applied would invalidate the DMCA – govenrment can not give SM protection against defamation claims – that is a violation of the rights of those who are defamed.

                      I would note that protection makes it CLEAR that SM is NOT a speaker. When SM Speaks – they ARE subject to defamation claims.

                      ““ Is there anywhere in the constitution where the right to free speech is conditioned on that speech being private ?”

                      No,”
                      Correct – that argument is DEAD, you have accepted that. Now let go of it.

                      “but it also doesn’t forbid private individuals or companies from censoring speech. It forbids government.”
                      Correct, also irrelevant to this issue.

                      “Florida is violating Facebook’s 1st amendment rights by forcing it to carry someone else’s speech.”
                      Nope. You are confused about the difference between speaking, publishing, and distributing.

                      You also fail to grasp that if government can protect you from liability for what you publish – depriving others of their rights,
                      They it can force you to publish.

                    3. Svelaz – the DMCA requires that in return for protection from liability for publishing defamatory materials you provide a neutral public platform. and the Term NPP is a legal term of art, it is the same standard as applies to government for censorship.

                      The same requirement that you oppose regarding FL is in the DMCA.
                      If as you claim the FL law is unconstitutional – the DMCA is unconstitutional.
                      Conversely if the DMCA is constitutional – the FL law is constitutional.

                      I can live with either outcome.

                      But pretending that the DMCA is constitutional while the FL law is not is blatant hypocracy.

        3. The recently passed Florida Law creates a legal cause of action for a Florida Resident whose postings are censored by social media.

          i.e. it allows them to go to state court.

          The law requires that the moving party prove that similar posts were NOT censored.
          i.e. It requires proving that social media is engaged in inconsistent application of their own rules.

          The most likely end result of this will be the public exposure of the actual rules and algorithms that social media is using to censor content.

          Regardless, we already know that Social media applies whatever rules they have inconsistently. Myriads of posters on SM issue death threats all the time, as an example. But censorship of such threats is incredibly inconsistent.

          The hint of a threat by someone not on the left will result in censorship or banning.
          While overy death threats against non-left politicians or groups the left identifies as wrong go uncensored all the time.

          I do not know if the FL law is constitutional – on the surface it appears to be.
          I would greatly prefer that government stay out of this entirely.

          Free markets will ultimately punish bad conduct. Numerous businesses have tried “going woke” recently only to quietly back down when that backfired on them.

          While I have zero problems with businesses being politically active. Doing so is risky and it becomes far more risky the larger the business and the more nationwide it is.

          That said though I want markets. not law to fix this.
          The problems you claim with the FL law are not there.
          While those it attempts to fix are very real.

          1. John say,

            “The recently passed Florida Law creates a legal cause of action for a Florida Resident whose postings are censored by social media.

            i.e. it allows them to go to state court.”

            That part of the law may be more legally justifiable than the part where it requires FB to carry a politician’s messege. However FB has it’s terms and conditions as a legal shield against lawsuits of that nature.

            The issue of inconsistency in enforcing their policies could be attributed to the difficulty in monitoring every single violation. FB is a very large platform involving millions. Not every violation will be caught. The claims of only conservative views being censored is not true. It only seems that way because those conservative posters are the loudest critics and oftentimes they are highlighted by their extremist rhetoric. Even liberal posters have been censored or banned from the site.

            “Free markets will ultimately punish bad conduct. Numerous businesses have tried “going woke” recently only to quietly back down when that backfired on them. ”

            What you described is what “cancel culture” is. Businesses making political statements or taking positions are indeed risky, but also very effective especially when they are very large businesses. Look at large corporations who openly declared that they would no longer donate to republican candidates who push such laws. Suddenly those candidates lash out at companies for not “giving them money” because they are “woke”. They may be ‘woke” but they still have money politicians need to continue their careers. So they would ultimately realize that their ideas may not be as good as they may think and reconsider.

            1. FB’s TOS’s do not sheild against law.

              Further they are not much of a shield at all. Social media changes their TOS’s at the drop of a hat.
              Like it or not that is a weak reed legally. Twitter as an example sold itself as the free speech place on the internet.

              They can distance themselves from that – but not instantly.

              There was a significant court case to that effect recently.

              I beleive it involved Patreon. They changed their TOS and the new TOS took away rights in the old one.

              They ended up with all old subscribers subject to the old TOS AND had to pay very large legal fees for all plantifs.

              There are several other other issues – the DMCA S230 requires that providers who seek immunity from lawsuits provide a neutral public platform. That language has specific legal meaning, It imposes the same censorship rules as government is bound to.

              And SM has an additional problem in that governments are themselves trying to leverage social media into censoring.

              That is a Huge problem – when you act at the behest of government you are a government agent, and you are bound by the same rules as government.

              The left seems to think that they can use the fact that Social Media companies are not government to censor disfavored points of view.

              Those on the left were CORRECT when they chastized Trump when he asked private companies (or government) to punish speakers unfavorable to him. None of that ever happened. Trump never actually directed government to act. And no private actors took Trump’s advice.

              But the left has exactly the same problem – democrats, government, has asked private actors to censor. Biden has done so.
              Only there is one important difference in comparison to Trump. And that is that the directions of those in power on the left are being followed.

              And that makes those following them government actors bound by the same rules as government.

              You can have private actors censor within the scope of their TOS and public pronouncements. But once those in power ask them to censor – if they do so – it is no longer the TOS or public pronouncements that defines the limits. It is the legal standards that apply to GOVERNMENT.

              The next problem you have is that many of the current lawsuits against SM are going to get into the discovery phase.

              When they do not only are the internal communications getting exposed – but so are the algorithms that they use to decide what to censor.
              That will prove incredibly problematic.

              I would further note that these Social Media giants have themselves ACTED, or SPOKEN on their own – and that is NOT covered by S230 immunity.

              As an example the Computer ship that Hunter Biden dropped off his laptop with has been accused by the press and social media companies of being “russian disinformation” – the store owner is NOT a public figure. It is an easily established FACT that the laptops he received, gave to the FBI and later to the Post were NOT “Russian disinformation”
              The store owner was put out of business, has had to move accross country and still receives death threats.

              He is suing for defamation and is highly likely to win – not because of the posts that others made or that SM Giants censored – but what they directly said about WHY they censored.

              SM companies are protected by S230 for the content of 3rd parties – maybe.
              They are not protected at all for their own content and conduct.

              In the end censoring is a very stupid choice that will ultimately backfire – even if the courts allow it.

              SM Giants are already receiving demands from other countries to explicitly censor political disidents.
              US SM companies have been censoring chinese political speech for more than a decade.

              We have other countries that are demanding that SM companies can not censor – sometimes they can not censor the government, in other cases they can not censor political parties.

              Basically SM by demonstrating they have some ability to politically censor have made themselves subject to the competing whim of every country in the world.

              An impossible standard to meet.

              What happens when countries go beyond demands regarding those in their own countries to global demands.

              Can Russia force FB to censor derogatory information anywhere on FB from any source ?
              Can Russia force FB to censor the US government or visa versa ?

              Ultimately there is only one feasable position as a company – not to censor.

              We have already seen EU countries lash out at SM over Trump.
              Not because they like Trump. But because if SM can censor a US president they can censor any world leader.

              They and you are on the losing side of this argument.

              1. John Say,

                “FB’s TOS’s do not sheild against law.

                Further they are not much of a shield at all. Social media changes their TOS’s at the drop of a hat.”

                Yes they do. That is exactly why they have them. To protect them from frivolous suits. Yes social media or any other company CAN change their TOS at the drop of a hat. There is no law against that. Apple does it all the time and people obliviously keep on agreeing to the new terms.

                “There are several other other issues – the DMCA S230 requires that providers who seek immunity from lawsuits provide a neutral public platform. That language has specific legal meaning, It imposes the same censorship rules as government is bound to.”

                Yes the law requires them to provide a neutral public platform. It doesn’t forbid them from censoring or enforcing their own rules. Section 230 doesn’t prevent social media from removing people from their platforms for violating their TOS.

                It doesn’t impose the same censorship rules as government is bound to because the constitution’s prohibitions on censoring speech apply only to government. FB is NOT a government entity. By your own narrow interpretation of law philosophy the constitution does NOT say that private entities even by certain government rules are bound to the same prohibitions. Here you would be violating your own principles of constitutional originalism.

                “That is a Huge problem – when you act at the behest of government you are a government agent, and you are bound by the same rules as government.”

                That is only true if the private entity enters into a contract with government and government fund are used. FB has none of that. This is where are trying to conflate just the presence of government money as justification for you claim. It is categorically wrong.

                “The left seems to think that they can use the fact that Social Media companies are not government to censor disfavored points of view.”

                Nope. The left has nothing to do with that. It is the right chaffing at the notion that a private company CAN censor speech because it is NOT a government entity and it is completely constitutional. If a private company wants to censor a disfavored view it CAN.

                “Those on the left were CORRECT when they chastized Trump when he asked private companies (or government) to punish speakers unfavorable to him. None of that ever happened. Trump never actually directed government to act. And no private actors took Trump’s advice.”

                Wrong, Trump didn’t just “ask” he THREATENED private companies with punishment if they didn’t punish those speakers who were unfavorable to him. He didn’t direct government to act, but he threatened with government retaliation.

                Democrats actually ASKED to censor. They did not threaten private companies like Trump did. That’s the important distinction.

                “You can have private actors censor within the scope of their TOS and public pronouncements. But once those in power ask them to censor – if they do so – it is no longer the TOS or public pronouncements that defines the limits. It is the legal standards that apply to GOVERNMENT.”

                Here you openly agree that they CAN censor. And they do when those that are being censored violate their TOS just like trump did. ASKING them to censor someone is not illegal nor it makes them subject to government standards. What you are saying has has no legal basis at all. You haven’t even produced the particular rule that requires a private company to apply government standards just because they ASKED. This is the stupidest argument you have come up with and it shows just you ignorant about the law you really are.

                1. “Yes they do. That is exactly why they have them.”
                  Nope.

                  “Yes social media or any other company CAN change their TOS at the drop of a hat. There is no law against that.”
                  We have been over this – a changed TOS is a contract of adhesion. It is pretty weak and depending on the claim may have no meaning at all.

                  Think about it. If I contract with you to build a house for me, and 6 months in you provide me with a new contract completely different from the original – how does that work ? Can you just get out of the original contract by demanding I agree to a new one ?

                  Yes, companies do it all the time – and yes they want you to beleive that the new TOS is completely binding, and supercedes the old one.
                  But what they want you to beleive and what is true are not the same.

                  No there is no law against it. There is no law against every individual contract violation that could ever exist.
                  That does not mean you can violate contracts willy nilly.

                  Nor is there law covering every possible tort – and yet you can be legally held accountable for contract violations and torts.

                  Breach of contract lawsuits against SM companies would be difficult – but not because of constantly changing TOS’s, but because unless the SM company commits a tort such as defamation there are no damages.

                  “Yes the law requires them to provide a neutral public platform. It doesn’t forbid them from censoring or enforcing their own rules.:”
                  That is precisely what Neutral public platform means – that you can not use your own rules. NPP litterally means the same rules that apply to government.

                  “Section 230 doesn’t prevent social media from removing people from their platforms for violating their TOS.”
                  That is precisely what the law says. Thus far that is NOT how the courts have read it. But we have noted repeatedly that the courts like to make the law up. They created Qualified imminutiy, they created standing. And the courts not the law found that SM companies protected from S230 are not actually required to conform to the laws NPP requirements.
                  But the courts can easily change that.

                  “It doesn’t impose the same censorship rules as government is bound to because the constitution’s prohibitions on censoring speech apply only to government.”
                  False – all or nearly all the constitutional provisions that apply to government apply to government agents, or apply when you get benefits that others are not entitled to from government.

                  This is pretty trivial. Otherwise government would just use private actors to do everything to avoid constitutional limits.
                  This is a patently stupid argument on your part.

                  ” FB is NOT a government entity. By your own narrow interpretation of law philosophy the constitution does NOT say that private entities even by certain government rules are bound to the same prohibitions.”
                  Again false. This is not even a real question. There is plenty of case law that already says that government can not get arround constitutional limitations by working through third parties.

                  There are really only two possibilities with the DMCA – it is unconstitutional – because the federal government can not waive tort/defamation protection for private actors, OR SM is required to provide the same NPP as government in return for protection for tort liability.

                  YOU are the one trying to find a BROAD reading of the law. YOU are the one that seems to think that government can selectively waive torts and defamation at whim. That is a BROAD reading of the law.

                  If SM receives protection from Torts and defamation in return for nothing – that is a violation of Equal protection at the very least.

                  You do not seem to grasp that the DMCA infringes on the rights of ordinary people
                  That is either facially unconstitutional,
                  or unconstitutional unless there is a significant public benefit. The law specifies the benefit – providing SM users a neutral public platform.

                  You really do not understand law, conjstitutions, morality, or ethics in government.

                  The requirement that laws be read narrowly – is NARROWLY with respect to infringements on rights or powers of government and BROADLY in terms of actual individual rights.

                  But you get confused by this all the time.

                  You keep postulating that government can craft laws favoring specific minorities – It can’t.

                  Nor can it favor SM companies over ordinary people. A law that restricts the rights or most people while granting additional rights or priviledges to another group MUST provide a benefit to all to justify that. AND that benefit must be explicit.
                  The benefit provided is the requirement that SM companies provide NPP.
                  That literally means they must conform to the censorship laws that apply to government.

                  The simple solution here – and my prefered on is to find the DMCA unconstitutional – which it is. And avoid this issue entirely.
                  But if you accept S230 protections you have to accept S230 requirements.

                  “Here you would be violating your own principles of constitutional originalism.”
                  The pure originalist position is that the DMCA is unconstitutional.

                  “That is a Huge problem – when you act at the behest of government you are a government agent, and you are bound by the same rules as government.”

                  “That is only true if the private entity enters into a contract with government and government fund are used.”

                  Nope – again this is a stupid argument. Government can not circumvent the restrictions on it by delegating a power to a private party – whether by contract, or just granting that power to a private party.

                  The federal government can not as an example pass a law that places control of the National Mall in the hands of a third party – without contract and then let them make whatever rules they wish regarding its use.

                  You are correct that a contract can make a private party a government actor.
                  You are correct that payment can make a party a government actor.
                  You are incorrect when you presume those are the only ways.

                  Money BTW is just a proxy for value. If you receive something of value from govenrment – such as special legal protections that is no different from receiving money.

                  “The left has nothing to do with that. It is the right chaffing at the notion that a private company CAN censor speech because it is NOT a government entity and it is completely constitutional. If a private company wants to censor a disfavored view it CAN.”

                  False, there is no legal or constitutional problem with private censorship – though there is a moral one.
                  There is a legal and constitutional problem with receiving a benefit from government without obligation.

                  The simple solution is to declare the DMCA unconstitutional.

                  “Wrong, Trump didn’t just “ask” he THREATENED private companies with punishment if they didn’t punish those speakers who were unfavorable to him. He didn’t direct government to act, but he threatened with government retaliation.”

                  Pure Spin. The left does that all the time – including those in government. They do not have the power to do so, nor does Trump.
                  AGAIN it is ACTS that are illegal.
                  I would further note that the left has actually threatened – both private actors and the supreme court.
                  Trump for the most part did not Threaten.

                  “Democrats actually ASKED to censor. They did not threaten private companies like Trump did. That’s the important distinction.”
                  There is a distinction and you are on the wrong side of it. You label ACTUAL threats as ASKING, and Trump publicly speculating with threatening.

                  In fact you ALWAYS apply different standards to ANYTHING when the word Trump is in the sentence.

                  This is starting to dawn on more and more people.

                  We do not qs an example know for certain where Covid came from – though the odds of a natural origen are impossibly low.
                  But we DO know that Faucci, the WHO, China, NIH and others in government CONSPIRED to supress the lab leak hypothesis.

                  AND we know that the media fell all over themselves to go along with that because ….. trump.

                  When ever you have a sentence that has Trump in it – your judgement and that of half the country goes out the window.

                  There are things that Trump should not have said as president. There are more egregious ones that Biden and other democrats have said.
                  There is not a special Trump standard. Something is not false or evil because Trump said it.

                  You do not seem to get that. This debate is not about Trump. But it is about censorship, the role of government, the morality of censorship and the constitutionality of the DMCA.

                  SM companies and anyone else is free to censor as they please – so long as they are in all otherways treated by government the SAME.

                  “Here you openly agree that they CAN censor.”
                  I have done that repeatedly.

                  You keep trying reframe what I say.

                  Censorship is frequently morally wrong – whether it is legal or not.

                  The censorship of Covid by SM and the media is the perfect example of moral (not legal) error.

                  From the start we were presented with numerous FALSE claims regarding Covid.

                  We now have many of Faucci’s emails. We KNOW that he was informed of the possibility that C19 was the product of Chinese labs and that he actively sought to supress that from as early as February 2020.

                  But we also KNOW that faucci was aware that most of the policies that he worked to get imposed would not work – again from the begining.
                  We also KNOW that Faucci was aware that C19 could not be stopped – from the begining, and that he knew that it had a factor of 1000 variation in the mortality rate based on age from the begining.

                  Yet, Faucci, conspiring with the media and the left hid all these things from all of us – and LIED, and ACTIVELY CENSORED.

                  Where those acts were by government – they were illegal and unconstitutional.
                  Where they were by private actors they were immoral.

                  Part of what we are getting from Faucci’s emails is that the “experts” knew from the start that the lockdowns that damaged the country – would do little or nothing to thwart C19.
                  And that Faucci, the media, the left were willfully blind to the real harms being caused.

                  AND finally – that all of you CONSPIRED to silence – not merely dissent – but the truth.

                  Accepting arguendo that Media and SM can do that – it is STILL WRONG. MORALLY WRONG.

                  Censorship is nearly always MORALLY WRONG – and you are getting to see why.

                  You have constantly accused everyone who disagreed with you of being death mongers.

                  But that was a LIE. YOU were the real death mongers. Though we could have done a better job of protecting those few for whom C19 is very dangerous. everything else we did was WRONG, Worse Everything else we did KILLED PEOPLE, Deprived them of their livelyhoods, their freedom. their rights, we saw rises in suicides, drug overdoses, we are seeing large increases in mental health problems. We have seen and will continue to see people deprived of their livelihood by YOUR policies. We have seen people who have died or will die from delays in diagnosis of medical issues.

                  You have been wrong about nearly everything. Your experts have been wrong about nearly everything.

                  And everything was because you could not countance the possibility of Trump being right about anything.

                  And worse still – you silenced those who tried to speak the truth.

              2. John Say,

                “SM Giants are already receiving demands from other countries to explicitly censor political disidents.
                US SM companies have been censoring chinese political speech for more than a decade.

                We have other countries that are demanding that SM companies can not censor – sometimes they can not censor the government, in other cases they can not censor political parties.

                Basically SM by demonstrating they have some ability to politically censor have made themselves subject to the competing whim of every country in the world.”

                Other countries CAN tell FB or other social media platforms to censor political figures or information BECAUSE our constitution doesn’t apply in other countries. HERE within our borders where FB and other social media platforms operate they ARE subject to the constitution’s rights and our government is LIMITED by our constitution . Other foreign government are NOT. That would be a very logical conclusion don’t you think? So what is the point of your argument then?

                1. “Other countries CAN tell FB or other social media platforms to censor political figures or information BECAUSE our constitution doesn’t apply in other countries.”

                  There are several issues here. First is the FB censorship that you want is quite expensive – and it is paid for out of FB profits and shareholder value – Shareholders are not fans of value reductions.

                  The next is while you correctly note that the US has a constitution barring government from censoring speech and other countries do not – you say that non chalantly as if it is like other countries are colder than the US – just a meaningless fact about inconsequential differences.

                  Free speech is extremely important. It is a moral issue even more than a constitutional one.

                  The western concepts of law, the rule of law, that have taken thousands of years to develop are fundimentally both moral and utilitarian concepts. They are not arbitrary. Their development has been evolutionary – and we are not likely done evolving them.

                  Within my lifetime moral views on homosexuality have flipped nationwide – a good thing, we are slowly becoming MORE moral.
                  Coming closer to conforming to important core principles.

                  But this is not arbitrary as noted our evolution is both driven by moral principles and by utilitarian factors.

                  CRT not merely rejects elements of all of this – it rejects the entirety of a milienia of western thought and principles and values and seeks to start over.

                  This is part of its borrowing from marxism.

              3. “Can Russia force FB to censor derogatory information anywhere on FB from any source ?
                Can Russia force FB to censor the US government or visa versa ?

                Ultimately there is only one feasable position as a company – not to censor.”

                Yes Russian CAN force to censor derogatory information IN RUSSIA.

                FB can censor where they are required to censor determined on which country they operate in. They have that ability to control the content and what is allowed or not allowed in each country. Fortunately the country that has a constitution that protects them from government demanding censorship. Crazy isn’t it?

                1. “Yes Russian CAN force to censor derogatory information IN RUSSIA.”

                  Just watch how well that works.

                  “FB can censor where they are required to censor determined on which country they operate in. They have that ability to control the content and what is allowed or not allowed in each country.”

                  This is far harder than you imagine. Further there is no limit to what assorted governments can decide about censorship once you open the genies bottle.

                  Once upon a time the US not only offered meaningful free speech to its own people but demanded the same of other countries.
                  We also demanded that countries not conduct lawless elections.

                  Now we are a banana republic.

                  You claim that Biden has restored US credibility throughout the world.

                  Before Biden was inaugurated – YOU damaged US credibility in ways that it will take decades if ever to recover from.

            2. “What you described is what “cancel culture” is.”

              Svelaz – I chose my own words – please do not re-interpret what I say.

              I stand behind my own words – as I wrote them – not as you re-interpret them.

              “Businesses making political statements or taking positions are indeed risky,”
              Yes,
              “but also very effective especially when they are very large businesses.”
              Pretty much the opposite is true.
              Large businesses can not afford to lose small ports of their market even for short periods of time.

              Large businesses are typically (though not always) more efficient, as such they are more vulnerable to the market,

              “Look at large corporations who openly declared that they would no longer donate to republican candidates who push such laws.”
              Yes, actually LOOK – this is backfiring – and not because of the comments of candidates, but because all you need do is offend a small portion of your market.

              Coke can go “Woke” or go “NeoNazi” or anything in between.
              But whatever they do taking positions on controversial issues will alienate some of their customers.

              It takes only a small loss to seriously threaten a major business.

              Walmart has a 9%+ Return on Capital over the course of a year – but they turn their entire inventory every 30 days and average a 1.5% profit on each sale. That is incredibly low. Very few businesses can survive on a 1.5%
              per sale margin. Walmart manages because it turns everything every 30 days.

              Think of what happens to Walmarts business model if 1% of people shift their business elsewhere.

              A small business or a Niche business can take a political stand and BENENFIT – it will lose customers, but it will also gain them.

              Coke is going to pick up very few left wing nuts in return for the customers it loses.

              MyPillow on the other hand has trippled its business in the past year.

              1. John say,

                ““What you described is what “cancel culture” is.”

                Svelaz – I chose my own words – please do not re-interpret what I say.

                I stand behind my own words – as I wrote them – not as you re-interpret them.”

                Yes you chose your own words and they are precisely describing what cancel culture is. Good thing you agree that it IS cancel culture. The interesting thing is this whole “cancel culture” gripe originated with right leaning activists who pushed boycotts of companies that didn’t go along with their culture war issues.

                “Large businesses can not afford to lose small ports of their market even for short periods of time.”

                Yes they can. Especially multinationals. They are billion dollar companies that can weather a few losses here and there because there is always another market that they can tap into. They don’t just cater to conservatives or politicians. In fact it is politicians who suddenly found themselves losing large chunks of donations which were threatening enough to have them lash out and attempt to punish these companies with tax hikes.

                “Yes, actually LOOK – this is backfiring – and not because of the comments of candidates, but because all you need do is offend a small portion of your market.”

                No, it’s not backfiring. It has actually worked. When the NCAA pulled out of north carolina their lawmakers changed their minds. Republican legislators suddenly found themselves at odds with their biggest donors and threatened companies with tax hikes which doesn’t help these legislators if those same companies are are now donating to democrats in retaliation.

                “Coke can go “Woke” or go “NeoNazi” or anything in between.
                But whatever they do taking positions on controversial issues will alienate some of their customers.

                It takes only a small loss to seriously threaten a major business.”

                No it doesn’t. That small loss is highly dependent on fickle customers who may be at first outraged but then will regress to their usual shopping. These losses are always temporary. Nothing they can’t handle.

                “Walmart has a 9%+ Return on Capital over the course of a year – but they turn their entire inventory every 30 days and average a 1.5% profit on each sale. That is incredibly low. Very few businesses can survive on a 1.5%
                per sale margin. Walmart manages because it turns everything every 30 days.”

                You really are shoddy with economics. 1.5% profit on a multi-billion dollar revenue stream is a LOT. Not every business has a multi-billion dollar revenue stream. The economics of scale have a big impact on that 1.5% you cite.

                “Think of what happens to Walmarts business model if 1% of people shift their business elsewhere.”

                Sure, if it was 1% of people in the entire country. But that is not actually what will happen. Most likely it would be 1% of people in a state or state region. That can be compensated by other areas seeing an increase in people shopping. That’s why that issue you state is not really going to be an issue to these giant companies if they choose to make a political statement.

                1. You rant about missing nuance and context – and then claim that something I did not say is vaguely similar to what I did say.

                  No, you do not get to put words in my mouth.

                  I get to pick what I say and how I say it. Not you.

                  Of course we agree on many things. All humans agree on many many things.
                  But you do not get to claim agreement where we do not disagree just by asserting it.

                  I stand by what I have written – not what you claim I said.

                2. I rarely if ever use the words “cancel culture”. That is a phrase without clear meaning.

                  While you are often wrong about history. It is irrelevant where what you call “cancel culture” originated.

                  The right has made numerous errors historically – I am not conservative. We have been through that repeatedly.

                  I have fought for the free speech and protest rights of nazi’s and communists alike.

                  I stand behind what I have posted – not the twisted nonsense that you claim is mine.

                3. “Large businesses can not afford to lose small ports of their market even for short periods of time.”

                  “Yes they can. Especially multinationals. They are billion dollar companies that can weather a few losses here and there because there is always another market that they can tap into. They don’t just cater to conservatives or politicians. In fact it is politicians who suddenly found themselves losing large chunks of donations which were threatening enough to have them lash out and attempt to punish these companies with tax hikes.”

                  Svelaz – this is nonsense. Really big businesses are big specifically because they are more efficient (in their domain). And they operate on extremely small profit margins. I noted those of Walmart. A small change in purchase preferences can bankrupt Walmart quite quickly.

                  Yes, many of these businesses are monstrously large dealing with Billions nearly trillions of dollars. But you completely miss the fact that the also consume massive amounts of funds EVERY DAY. A 1% change in consumer preferences will tank nearly every large business in this country in weeks.

                  I would further note that the stock markets that all these businesses depend on for survival are brutal.
                  Shareholders can trumpet whatever ideology they wish – they make decisions based on PROFITS.

                  Even the hint of reduced gains cost facebook 15% of their market value 2 years ago.
                  That is massive amounts of money.

                  We recently saw a holy war over gamestop – which is pretty inconsequential in scale. Hundreds of millions were lost and made and lost over a few days.

                  While you are likely fundimentally correct – that generically “big business” is not going anywhere. You are greatly mistaken if you beleive that the pinacles of business today are indestructable.

                  There is only one business in the fortune 500 that was in the top 10 today and 40 years ago – an oil company.

                  IBM, AT&T, HP, GM, Kodak, .. myriads of other flagships of the past still exist – but they are shadows of their former selves.

                  I would bet you that of the top 10 fortune 500 companies today only 1 will be in the top 10 40 years from now – except I will not be here to collect. Regardless, that is so.

                  Most of todays information economy is extremely fragile. The entirety of the giants social media can be taken out nearly overnight by the successful development of Peer2Peer versions of the same services.

                  P2P is moving forward in the same way that tablets and smart phones and amazon did in the past – with much promise that keeps falling short, until quietly it takes over. Particularly in SM P2P has one and only one consequential flaw. While it could easily take out Twitter, Google, Facebook, …. It will not make anyone into a gagillionaire. But in every other way it uses the strength of social media companies against them.

                  And P2P can not be controlled or censored.

                4. “No, it’s not backfiring. It has actually worked. When the NCAA pulled out of north carolina their lawmakers changed their minds. Republican legislators suddenly found themselves at odds with their biggest donors and threatened companies with tax hikes which doesn’t help these legislators if those same companies are are now donating to democrats in retaliation.”

                  Look arround – opposition to the left is growing. “Woke” businesses are retrenching.

                  Myriads of LEFT analysts point out that democrats and the left have gone way too far, they have alienated people – and not just on the right.

                  Numerous 2020 analysis’s demonstrates that 2020 was a disaster for democrats. In virtually every important demographic EXCEPT white elite college educated men, the left LOST GROUND – in many cases dramatically.

                  And things are going downhill from there. I count atleast 4 articles by left pundits on the RCP news agregator right now foreboding problems for the left.

                  I disagree with many details in each of those articles. But uniformly ALL see storm clouds for the left.

                  The recent jobs report was not as bad as the last – but it was not good at all. Worse the gains were nearly all in 2 areas – hospitality and government.

                  While hospitality was clobbered in 2020, and it may be years before it fully recovers, it is to be expected that those businesses that managed to survive will have huge gains in the near future.

                  As to your claims regarding NC – what I have seen suggests you are both wrong and premature.

                  I would further note the problems of the left are not going away.

                  Biden’s immigration fiasco has been damaging. Not merely in direct consequences – but in political ones – particularly among hispanic minorities in the southwest that are increasingly opposed to “illegal immigration”.

                  We are seeing quiet and not so quit blowback against the past year of covid nonsense. What I have been saying for a years is now close to uniformly acknowedged by experts – and grasped by ordinary people – no government policies had any consequential effect.
                  Even VOX did an artical on this and though they tried to paint a less dark picture – even they had to comnclude there was little or no evidence of a beneficial policy effect.

                  We are also learning that that media supressions you are so much in favor of chocked off real expression of conflicting views by actual “experts” – anyone who disagreed – not with actual experts – but with media darlings such as Faucci were labeled as trumpists or Trump adjacent – even if they had nothing to do with Trump.

                  Several in the media are now being forced to admit that their coverage was driven by Trump.
                  If he said up – they said down – blindly without thought. Trump was always wrong.

                  Now they are being forced to admit – that it is THEY that have been wrong.

                  Though again there are problems there is an excellent article by Thomas Frank on the consequences of the lab leak hypothesis emerging.
                  Those consequences go FAR beyond just covid. While Frank paints a picture of a dire threat to major societal institutions, the FACT is it is not the institutions that are jephardized – it is their domination by the left.

                  Trust in the media is at a nadir. Trust in government is as bad. Trust in experts is near non-existant.

                  The emergence of the lab leak hypothesis is as Frank says institution shattering. But it is really just a standin for a complete loss of faith in core institutions that have been taken over by the left.

                  It is not just Faucci under attack. It is government, and specifically the US government. The rise of the lab leak hypothesis is having the effect that the failure of the Collusion delusion should have. It is pointing out that this country and its institutions are dramatically polarized and that in that polarization the LEFT is universally WRONG.

                5. “Sure, if it was 1% of people in the entire country. But that is not actually what will happen. ”

                  Except that is what will and often is actually happening.

                  Moving 1% of walmart, or Coke, or … customers is pretty simple.

                  Before the Pandemic sports was in trouble over the woke nonsense – declining ratings, etc.

                  People do not want politics with their sports. Even if a national business can make 10 existing customers happy with Woke BS, if it has 1 customer in 10 tune out – they are in trouble,

                  People do not want politics with their soda’s or travel.

                  “That can be compensated by other areas seeing an increase in people shopping.”
                  Nope. It is common for smaller businesses to benefit from a political position.
                  My Pillow is loosing retailers all over the country – but their sales are rising.
                  They are in a niche market and they CAN replace the left wing nuts they lose with Trump supporters.
                  Atleast int he short run.

                  But bigger businesses can not do that. Where is Coke going to get more consumers to make up for those they lose by going woke ?
                  Coke announced big woke plans and then quietly backed away when it did not work and/or the blowback was too severe.

                  I do not care if companies make political statements. They are free to do so. They are free to make political contributions.
                  But if you think it is going to work out you are mistaken.

                  I am personally surprised that the lab leak hypothesis seems to be the straw that has finally broken the camels back. But it appears to be the case. And the carnage is much broader than just the lab leak – or covid, or trump.

                  There is one article by a democratic strategist saying that voters elected Biden expecting a centrist and that they are increasingly angry.

                  You and I are debating CRT and schools. but my kids are grown – my views do not matter much.

                  Parents are really angry at the nonsense being taught to their kinds. And not racist white parents in red states – but parents in NYC and Northern Virginia.

                  People – and not just Trump voters are increasingly angry – WITH YOU.

        4. “It is a benefit for the entire country not just the to those who can afford it.”

          A “benefit” that I am compelled to pay for. That’s not called a “benefit.” It’s called theft.

          1. Sam, those who claim taxation is theft often forget that they too benefited from someone else’s “theft”, If you think your money is being stolen you are free to not work and stop government from “stealing” your money. Get some land and support yourself, make your own electricity, pump your own water, make your own furniture, make your own food, etc. nothing really stops you from doing that and that will effectively stop your “theft” from happening,

            1. A better, long-term solution is to kill the premise that my life is a means to someone else’s ends.

            2. “Sam, those who claim taxation is theft often forget that they too benefited from someone else’s “theft””

              So what ?

              If a thief robbs a bank, and gives some of the processes to the destitute – is the theif any less guilty of theft ? Are those who he gave some of what he took guilty of his theft ?

              All you do constantly Svelaz is demonstrate that like all those on the left you are poorly educated and clueless with respect to morality.

              Your thinking is shallow.

              Theft is a crime, those who steal are criminals. They are morally wrong.
              They are wrong whether they steal from the rich or the poor.

              Benefiting from someone else’s charity is not a crime. Nor is it morally wrong.
              It is not wrong even if the charity comes from immoral people.

              “If you think your money is being stolen you are free to not work and stop government from “stealing” your money.”

              Actual theft is a justification for the use of force – often DEADLY force – You are saying that if government is stealing we are free to kill those in government.

              “Get some land and support yourself, make your own electricity, pump your own water, make your own furniture, make your own food, etc. nothing really stops you from doing that and that will effectively stop your “theft” from happening,”

              First – that will NOT stop theft from occuring.
              Next – why am I obligated to do as you claim ?
              I do not “make my own electricity” – I make other things, and I exchange what I make for electricity.
              I do not pump my own water – I make other things and exchange what i make for water.
              I do not make my own furniture – I make other things and exchange what I make for water.

              Man has done this back as far as Ogg and Ugg the cave men. Ogg might hunt and Ugg gather berries and Ogg and Ugg exchange berries for meat. All without government.

              Government does not exist to provide for us – not food, not water, not electricity. Government exists to prevent others from using force to take from each of us what is ours.
              We are obligated to pay government for that and that alone.

              The Social contract trades our right to initiate force against others, for the promise that government will punish those that initiate force against us, that government will assure that others keep the agreements we make with each other – that when I eschange what I have produced for what another has produced that each of us keeps the agreement we made with the other, and finally to require that each of us make those we directly harm whole.

              That is ALL.

              Government is no more free to “level the playing field” with regard to race or much of anything else,
              as it is to lobotomize me, because I am more intelligent than you.
              Or to cripple you because you are more athletic than I.

              1. “I do not “make my own electricity” – I make other things, and I exchange what I make for electricity. [. . . ]”

                Well said.

                My life is far better living in a division of labor society, where the governing principle is *voluntary* trade. It is far worse living in a looter society, where the governing principle is compulsion.

                1. Sam,

                  “My life is far better living in a division of labor society, where the governing principle is *voluntary* trade. It is far worse living in a looter society, where the governing principle is compulsion.”

                  So you are for a system of bartering instead of using cash. That’s cool. You can do that anytime. It’s not illegal to barter.

                  ““I do not “make my own electricity” – I make other things, and I exchange what I make for electricity. [. . . ]”

                  Well said.”

                  Yeah, you do not need to make your own electricity. You don’t need electricity to live either. Those on the frontier days made do without it very well. If you choose not to use electricity there are plenty of other options for you.

                  1. “So you are for a system of bartering instead of using cash. That’s cool. You can do that anytime. It’s not illegal to barter.”

                    That is not at all what Sam said. And BTW while Barter is not litterally illegal, it is very nearly practically illegal.
                    Barter is not consistent with our tax laws. But that is an aside.

                    Money is incredibly old. The earliest money had nothing to do with government. Even today both crypto currencies and the stock market prove that we do not need government to have money – and in fact historically money has only been heavily in the domain of government for a few centuries. For most of history the value of money has been based on its gold or silver content – having nothing to do with government.

                    You rant about nuance and context and then you post nonsense that is idiotically ignorant of both as well as history in an area where these actually matter.

                    Further your response has little or nothing to do with what Sam posted.

                    “Yeah, you do not need to make your own electricity. You don’t need electricity to live either. Those on the frontier days made do without it very well. If you choose not to use electricity there are plenty of other options for you.”

                    Again you miss the point entirely – as well as being wrong.
                    Humans without electricity did not “do very well”. They merely did better than their predecessors – also without electricity because of other improvements in their standard of living. Much of the 19th century involved the move to coal, and oil as primary fuel sources over peat, wood, and dung that were the prior primary fuel sources. During the preceding centuries as an example nearly every building in london had a basement full of $hit. there was a booming business trading $hit used as fuel.

                    But the actual point – which had nothing to do with barter, or electricity, or money was that humans have not been individually self sufficient – sustainable for several centuries. And they have probably never in human history been entirely self sufficient in the way you describe it.

                    Whether it was one cave man who was good at gathering berries trading with another who was a more capable hunter, or in the modern era trading web development for electricity, There has always been atleast some focus on those things each of us are individually good at while relying on exchange with others for what they are good at.

                    Free exchange is the engine for our rapid rise in standard of living over the past 400 years.

                    I would further note that the free part of free exchange is critical, and it is that that is actually a relatively modern innovation.
                    For most of human history we did not have the opportunity for division of labor and free exchange. Much past division of labor was not free – it was rooted in slavery – long predating the rise of white northern europeans. It is highly likely that slave labor – or at the very least not easpecially free labor in service to the governments of the era produced all the man made wonders of the world.

                    Slavery has existed for all human history. As has barter, and money for all recorded history. None of these ever resulted in consequential improvement in the human condition.

                    The condition of blacks in the US between 1981 and the present has improved more than standard of living has risen for any group for the entirety of human history prior to 1500. Improvements in standard of living of 1% in 1000 years were exceptional prior to 1500. Improvements of 1% per year are considered horrible today anywhere in the world.

                    That has been brought about entirely be free people engaged in free exchange.

                2. Svelaz presumes that division of labor, that free exchange themselves justify as much government as he wishes to impose.

                  Svelaz is correct that without any government free exchange and division of labor become incredibly inefficient.
                  We can not be productive if we are concurrently under threat of theft and violence.

                  He is completely incorrect in presuming that the social contract – the foundation of government justifies more government than is necescary to secure actual liberty.

                  He like all leftists has neither read nor understood Locke, nor any of the social contract authors or thinking.
                  He is unfamilar with the declaration of independence – which is a critical and amazing document – that nations accross the world have used as the justification for their existance.

                  The declaration of indepence near perfectly states the purpose and duty of govenrment and where government and the power of government come from.

                  It then goes on to provide the obligations and duty of government and the means to measure governments success in meeting its obligations and when we can determine that government has failed and can be opposed by force if necescary.

              2. John say,

                ““Sam, those who claim taxation is theft often forget that they too benefited from someone else’s “theft””

                So what ?”

                So what? Well if the sentiment is that you don’t like being taxed because it is theft then you are obligated to return that money YOU used to get an education use the roads, etc, because you benefited from stolen money. Which makes it a crime.

                Should those who benefited from someone else’s “stolen money” return said “stolen money” which was not theirs to benefit from?

                “If a thief robbs a bank, and gives some of the processes to the destitute – is the theif any less guilty of theft ? Are those who he gave some of what he took guilty of his theft ?”

                Well the problem is what you call “theft” is actually not theft. It’s how WE as a people chose to operate our government. You don’t think it is theft if the government taxes you for spending on the military do you? What about infrastructure or education? someone else’s “theft” allowed YOU to benefit the use of highways and infrastructure.

                As I pointed out to Sam. If you want to prevent government from “stealing” from you. Quit your job and move to Alaska and homestead. You have limited government, your own land to hunt and grow your own food. No electricity needed to be self reliant. You can even build your own home however you like. No pesky building codes or environmental rules to worry about. Alaska is the perfect limited government afficionado’s dream come true. Just pointing out that there are options other than moaning about “theft”. It’s much easier to moan about it, than to actually do what what they claim should be.

                “Theft is a crime, those who steal are criminals. They are morally wrong.
                They are wrong whether they steal from the rich or the poor.”

                But they are NOT stealing. Taxation is not a crime. Taxation is what WE all agreed to in order to have a functioning society. But if you don’t agree to that that is perfectly within you right to do so and I have pointed out the very attractive options you have…in Alaska.

                “Government does not exist to provide for us – not food, not water, not electricity. Government exists to prevent others from using force to take from each of us what is ours.
                We are obligated to pay government for that and that alone.”

                Nope, Not entirely true. Government exists to provide our society with a means to continue as a society. That means ensuring everyone who is part of is has basic necessities and rights. Not just protections. otherwise there would be chaos. Let’s face it, the days of frontier living are over. The idea of self sustainability is valid up to a point, but not as it once was when it was all about living far away from any government authority. That is no longer possible with the exception of places like Alaska or Montana and Wyoming. Areas where there is lots of land and are very sparely populated.

                ““Get some land and support yourself, make your own electricity, pump your own water, make your own furniture, make your own food, etc. nothing really stops you from doing that and that will effectively stop your “theft” from happening,”

                First – that will NOT stop theft from occuring.
                Next – why am I obligated to do as you claim ?
                I do not “make my own electricity” – I make other things, and I exchange what I make for electricity.
                I do not pump my own water – I make other things and exchange what i make for water.
                I do not make my own furniture – I make other things and exchange what I make for water.”

                Well that “theft” you are talking about is taxes. If you live in this country and wish to benefit from others who are offering you those things in exchange for things you make you are required to pay taxes just as they are. But again if you don’t want anything “stolen” you can always make do with out some luxuries such as electricity or furniture. you don’t have to pump water if you set up near a river. You can carry it too. At the very least you will be your very own boss on your own land. If you live in Alaska. Hey even there you get free money from the oil they sell. Sounds like a good deal if you are all about stopping that theft.

                1. You keep telling us all that slavery is wrong and then arguing for public slavery.

                  Their masters take what slaves produce and return to those slaves what they see as fitting.

                  That is indistinguishable from your approach to government.

                  Jefferson allowed his slaves to keep what the produced on their own from sun down to sun up.
                  That made his slaves more productive and slavery more tolerable.
                  Nearly all slave owners provided food and healthcare to their slaves – who had longer life expectancy than white indentured servants and free poor whites.

                  Did any of that make slavery moral ?

                  The fact that you return some of what you steal does not mitigate the immorality of your theft.

                  I would note that though the american revloution was about more than taxes – it most defintitely WAS about taxes.
                  throughout the 18th and 19th centuries – even the draconian taxes of the british never exceeded 5% of what people produced.
                  Today your idea of government steals 30-50% of what people produce.

                  “Well if the sentiment”
                  Not a sentiment. You constantly fixate on emotions. This is not about emotions – it is about morality.

                  “is that you don’t like being taxed because it is theft then you are obligated to return that money YOU used to get an education use the roads, etc, because you benefited from stolen money. Which makes it a crime.”

                  The most bizzarre argument I have ever heard – every criminal in the world can use it.
                  Aparently in Svelaz world we are all criminals because we directly or indirectly might benefit from the criminality of others.

                  Did roads not exist before governments ? Did education start with government ?
                  You are under the delusion that because things are a specific way in this brief moment of time, that they must always have been.

                  Education has been outside the domain of government for most of human history – and still is in much of the world.
                  The same is true of roads. large scale Government roads and government education are relatively modern projects.

                  I would further note that opposition to government theft and opposition to education and roads are not intrinsic.

                  I am a libertarian – not an anarcho-capitalist. I fully support the social contract. Though the Lockean social contract is voluntary.

                  Government provides the rule of law for citizens who join that government voluntarily, and in return citizens are obligated to pay taxes to support government delivering the rule of law.

                  It is a contract – a voluntary one. But government is NOT free to take our money for whatever it wishes to do.

                  When government takes what we produce – that is theft. When government decides what we can keep – that is slavery.

                  “Should those who benefited from someone else’s “stolen money” return said “stolen money” which was not theirs to benefit from?”
                  Government should cease stealing for purposes that are not the domain of government.

                  As with the nonsense about reparations – there is no means to actually correct for the past historical misconduct of governments or those who lived a century ago. Thje best we can do is cease committing the same crimes.

                  “Well the problem is what you call “theft” is actually not theft.”
                  Confiscating what is not yours through force or threat of force is THEFT.

                  “It’s how WE as a people chose to operate our government. You don’t think it is theft if the government taxes you for spending on the military do you?”
                  Yes, The social contract is voluntary. We are not obligated to pay for government, but we are not entitled to the protections of government if we do not. While those who do pay are. I would suggest reading Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State, Utopia” – but I doubt you can comprehend more than a few pages of moral, logical and epistemological discussion. You could try reading Locke – he is more comprehensible.

                  “What about infrastructure or education?”
                  Not the business of government.
                  We know how to do both perfectly fine without government.

                  “someone else’s “theft” allowed YOU to benefit the use of highways and infrastructure.”
                  Ah, now you are claiming I am morally culpable becuase I get the benefit of some small portion of what was stolen from me.

                  Theft is theft. It is not justified by a good purpose.
                  It is not justified by the vote of a majority.

                  When the Mayan’s selected someone to sacrifice to apease the gods and bring about a good harvest – was that moral ?

                  You seem under the delusion that the will of the majority determines morality.

                  The overwhelming majority of germans supported Hitler.

                  The Hutu who massacred the Tutsi – vastly outnumbered them.

                  Can the white majority in this country vote blacks back into slavery ?

                  Whether you like it or not there are fundamental truths.
                  There is right and wrong, not merely the will of the majority.

                  Slavery is not moral – even if it is better for most slaves. Theft is not moral – just because the victim sometimes benefits or the majority approves.

                  “As I pointed out to Sam. If you want to prevent government from “stealing” from you. Quit your job and move to Alaska and homestead.”

                  The same arguments were made for millenia to justify slavery.

                  Regardless, you keep conflating self sufficiency with the immorality of theft.

                  I MIGHT choose to leave NYC or chicago to escape the violence and lawlessness of those cities. But I am not obligated to do so.
                  Further government is actually obligated to provide the rule of law in those cities.
                  The first duty of chicago and NYC – the first and primary obligation of government in the social contract is barring some from using force to get their way from others. That – not roads and infrastrucure is the first obligation of government.

                  “”You have limited government, your own land to hunt and grow your own food. No electricity needed to be self reliant. You can even build your own home however you like. No pesky building codes or environmental rules to worry about. Alaska is the perfect limited government afficionado’s dream come true. Just pointing out that there are options other than moaning about “theft”. It’s much easier to moan about it, than to actually do what what they claim should be.”

                  You really are stupid and clueless. I have no problems with those who actually chose as you push. But no one is obligated to.

                  Further – if as you say all this is a choice – then I choose to say right where I am and deny YOU the benefits of government.
                  I will procure my own education for myself and my children – YOU are free to do the same.
                  I will choose whether to buy electricity or not and how much – you are free to do the same.
                  I will choose what to save for my retirement.
                  I will choose what to spend on insurance.

                  And you are free to do the same.

                  What you are NOT free to do is steal from me to provide for yourself or others.
                  If you want something from me you can persuade me to exchange or give it freely.

                  “But they are NOT stealing. Taxation is not a crime.”
                  Of course it is.

                  “Taxation is what WE all agreed to in order to have a functioning society.”
                  None of us have agreed to all that you wish.

                  “But if you don’t agree to that that is perfectly within you right to do so and I have pointed out the very attractive options you have…in Alaska.”
                  And I have pointed out that you are not free to live off of others. You are not free to use force to take from others – not even through government.

                  This is a stupid argument on your part. It justifies every evil thing any government has ever done.

                  “Nope, Not entirely true. Government exists to provide our society with a means to continue as a society.”
                  Both false and untrue. There is very little that is necescary for all of us to do quite well and very little of that is provided by government.

                  “That means ensuring everyone who is part of is has basic necessities and rights.”
                  Rights yes – securing rights IS the sole obligation of govenrment.
                  Necesities – no. That is neither the role of government nor even possible.

                  “Not just protections. otherwise there would be chaos.”
                  You keep postulating things that are obviously false.
                  There is chaos now in many of our cities – YOUR idea of government has failed.

                  Conversely, when government focuses on securing our rights – there is NOT chaos.

                  “Let’s face it, the days of frontier living are over.”
                  Beat the crap out of that straw man.

                  “The idea of self sustainability is valid up to a point, but not as it once was when it was all about living far away from any government authority. That is no longer possible with the exception of places like Alaska or Montana and Wyoming. Areas where there is lots of land and are very sparely populated.”

                  You really are ignorant of the world. this particular debate is not about self sustainability.
                  Further government has a tiny role in overall sustainability.

                  No matter how much government steals from us – government produces only one thing – the rule of law. All else is produced outside of government. Even the roads and other things you fixate on – are not produced by government – they are produced by private actors.

                  Government does ensure that a small portion of us do not control the rest by threat of force – that is the rule of law.

                  It is an impediment to providing for our necescites. We not only do that for ourselves – but we each decide for ourselves what we think are necescities.

                  “Well that “theft” you are talking about is taxes. If you live in this country and wish to benefit from others who are offering you those things in exchange for things you make you are required to pay taxes just as they are.”

                  False. and obviously so.
                  If I want food – certainly a necescity – I can grow it. But I can also produce something else of value and exchange that for what I want. Such as food.
                  I am nearly entirely free to make my own choices – to buy food, or cloths or a home or a car or an iphone. or …

                  I also hire people to work for me. I agreed to pay them, and they agreed to produce what I want from them.
                  Government ahs a very small role assuring that we both live up to our obligations, but for the most part – so long as no force is used, employment is self regulating. If my employees do not deliver on their committments – I fire them. If I do not deliver what I promised – they quit. The same is true with my clients. The role of government in all of this is tiny.
                  And that is necescarily so – as government is horribly inefficient and if we are wise we want it that way.

                  The concentration camps is what you get when government is efficient.

                  “But again if you don’t want anything “stolen” you can always make do with out some luxuries such as electricity or furniture. ”

                  I have actually designed and made alot of my furniture. Architects tend to do that. But that is not a requirement, and government has nothing to do with furniture and little to do with electricity.

                  Target and walmart are down the road from me, and Ikea a bit further, they will happily trade my little green slips of paper which I aquired by producing those things I am good at for what I want from them. Just as I might want a chair or a lamp from them – they want my little green slips of paper – which they will use to buy what they want.

                  It is a virtuous circle and govenrment has little to do with it.

                  “You don’t have to pump water if you set up near a river. You can carry it too.”
                  You really are clueless. You keep making this bizarre argument that everything produced in the modern world is the result of government.
                  Governments role is tiny. In my state public utilities (which are privately owned but highly regulated) still have a monopoly on power distribution. But power production is private. I can buy hydro power or nuclear power or wind or solar as I chose, or I can focus on cheap or expensive as I please. Regardless power is not produced by government.

              3. John say,

                “Actual theft is a justification for the use of force – often DEADLY force – You are saying that if government is stealing we are free to kill those in government.”

                No. YOU are saying that.

                1. “No. YOU are saying that.”

                  Svelaz – please read your own posts – which was quoted when you replied.

                  You are the one arguing that theft is justified when others benefit.

                2. I would further note that you are mostly WRONG about the benefit to others.

                  When government takes $1 from private hands – either through taxation, debt, or inflation, we are all $1 poorer.

                  You are litterally trying to sell Bastiat’s broken windows fallacy.

                  As Economist Robert Barro has documented – government Never creates value equal to that it takes. Usually it is not eve close.

                  There is no limit to the ability of private actors to finance worthwhile projects. We have seen private capital projects approaching a trillion dollars in scale. When a weather satelite in the caribean failed early and the US government refused to launch an already existing replacement the reinsurance industry funded the development of a private replacement and was prepared to launch in privately when the US government suddenly decided they did not want private competition in weather satellites and lofted the spare that the had previously been unable to find a place for.

                  Throughout the world Dams and massive “infrastructure” projects are financed and performed privately.

                  Prior to the Brooklyn bridge all major bridges int he US were privately constructed. The Brooklynn bridge started privately – but Tamney hall and Boss tweed got involved – and that was the start of government involvement in significant infrastructure in the US.

                  Even the Hoover Dam was started privately. The power grid int he US was initially constructed privately – until FDR forceably took it over.

                  95% of the US was electrified completely privately in 20 years. The remaining 5% took almost a century under govenrment and is still not complete.

                  Government is incredibly inefficient. That should not be news.

            3. You are constantly arguing that details are important – that we must know the details of marxism or critical race theory before we can criticize them or know that they will fail – likely with copious bloodshed.

              Yet your own arguments are without any understanding of fundimentals – much less nuance. ‘

              You claim I must live independently to avoid theft by government.

              What does that mean ?

              You imply I must produce everything I need for myself. Why ?
              Must I produce my own air or rain ? Or am I free to rely on nature for those ?

              If I am good at producing furniture but not so good at growing vegetables, am I free to trade chairs for tomatoes ?

              You seem to think that i am not – atleast not without subjecting myself to theft by government for doing so ?

              Why ? If you expect that I will explore the nuances of schemes that have never worked – why are you entitled to ignore free exchange which has worked for all of human existance ?

          2. Those on the left fail to grasp this.

            Further almost NOTHING is a benefit to everyone.

            Government involvement in college education does NOT benefit everyone.
            At most only those who go to college.

            Government loans only benefit those who are eligable – certainly not everyone.

            Government loan forgiveness only benefits those who got loans.

            Most of what government does only benefits a few – NOT everyone.

            That claim is a red herring.

            1. John Say,

              ” Government involvement in college education does NOT benefit everyone.
              At most only those who go to college.

              Government loans only benefit those who are eligable – certainly not everyone.”

              Actually it does benefit everyone. Because those who end up in college eventually contribute to society as a whole. You have engineers who create new ways to do things that benefit workers in making their work easier or more efficient. Scientists who create new materials or inventions that benefits everyone else when they use them. Academics who further enrich our understanding of our own society and it’s issues that allow us for move to a solution or identify a problem. It certainly benefits everyone.

              Government’s involvement in higher education is about ensuring access to everyone, not just the privileged few who could afford the expense of higher education which was solely a private school. Public Universities changed that.

              “Government loan forgiveness only benefits those who got loans.”

              Nope, it also benefits those who will now get money from those students able to spend the money they otherwise would have been paying back to the government. That money would have gone to buying a house, a car, starting a business, spending on vacations, etc. all benefits that would grow an economy and everyone else. It’s not surprising just how limited your thinking is. That is why you are always dealing with absolutes and literal interpretations. Because of your limited ability to think beyond your own needs.

              1. “Actually it does benefit everyone. Because those who end up in college eventually contribute to society as a whole.”
                Not this idiotic argument.

                Do plumbers not contribute ? Do mason’s ? Janitor’s ?

                Everyone does not contribute to society as a whole. That is your first problem.
                Your next is that society as a whole benefits though not equally from all those who contribute – whether they have a college education or not.

                “You have engineers who create new ways to do things that benefit workers in making their work easier or more efficient.”
                Should everyone become an engineer ? Where BTW did James Watt get his engineering degree ?

                “Scientists who create new materials or inventions that benefits everyone else when they use them.”
                Should everyone become a scientist ?
                Where did Thomas Edison get his degree ?

                “Academics who further enrich our understanding of our own society and it’s issues that allow us for move to a solution or identify a problem.”
                Today that is wishful thinking.

                “It certainly benefits everyone.”
                Name something from the left that has benefited everyone ?

                “Government’s involvement in higher education is about ensuring access to everyone, not just the privileged few who could afford the expense of higher education which was solely a private school. Public Universities changed that.”
                Not governments job. Nor has it succeeded.

                The cost of a year of public school in the US is about 13,500. The cost of a year of catholic school is about 2500 – the results are about equal. There is a prestigious private school in my area that costs 7400/year – about half what a public school does.

                It does not seem to me that your argument about costs is doing very well.

                Government involvement in schools have not improved them. But it has made them much more expensive.

                “Nope, it also benefits those who will now get money from those students able to spend the money they otherwise would have been paying back to the government.”

                You have zero understanding of economics. This is a very old left wingnut chestnut. It has been refuted many times.

                If what you claim were true – the USSR would actually have worked. Cuba would have a higher standard of living than the US.
                Venezuela would not have gone from the gem of south america to a $hithole.

                Here is one of many explanations as to why you are full of schiff. These are almost 200 years old, and still correct.

                http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html

                After that try reading “that which is seen and that which is not seen” or “the broken windows fallacy”.

                Everything that government gives to anyone MUST come from somewhere.
                It MUST be taken from a more productive use BEFORE, it can ever be used in the ways you claim.

                Money does not grow on trees – as we are starting to see once again.
                Govenrment can not spend without taking.

                Robert Barro – the #4 IDEAS RESPEC ranked economist in the world created the worlds most comprehensive database of government spending. Barro found that government spending delivers a $0.25-35 return for each $1.00 spent (as compared to the private return)
                The best government ever does is about .6-.7 in war production.

                Svelaz – you have been poorly educated.

                You are the proof of the problems with public education.

      2. John say,

        “ In left wing nut world Racism and Anti-racism have morphed into the same thing.”

        That’s false. Your uninformed opinion does not constitute a fact here.

        When you have conservatives constantly conflating socialism with communism, Marxism, and authoritarian ism without recognizing their true distinctions when making an argument it cannot be expected of them to recognize the differences or even the nuances of what racism and anti-racism entail. It is always seen thru the perspective of a victim or persecution rather than a acknowledgment of an injustice that is rooted in a truth. The truth is often perceived as a personal accusation instead of simply a recognition of a real problem.

        Pointing out an issue is not an accusation as many conservatives seem to believe.

        1. Kind of like when the left accuses Conservatives of being racists? It is all hyperbole.

          1. While color bias is intrinsic, prejudice is, indeed, progressive.

            That said, Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, without diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment), not limited to racism, sex-ism, ageism.

        2. “The goal of Socialism is Communism.” Vladimir Lenin.

          Socialism, Communism, Marxism are all on the same spectrum. All examples of authoritarianism, though of course not the only ones. What does the progression of Socialism to Communism matter when discussing the racism inherent in CRT? CRT judges people negatively based on race. That’s literally racist. The end.

          Who has denied that racism against black people existed? Slavery was ubiquitous throughout human history until the West abolished it. Slavery is still commonly practiced in African countries, India, and Asia.

          The conservatives: If you work hard, you can make it. Judge people based on character, not race.

          The Left: you are born oppressor or oppressed, based on race. Judge everyone based on race. White people owe black people, even if none of their ancestors owned slaves for 1,000 years. Descendants of the Holocaust, the Holodomor, and the Irish Potato Famine where the average lifespan of the Irish was only 19, all owe black people an apology for their skin color, and Reparations. If you aren’t where you want to be in life, it’s due to racism, and you are helpless to improve your lot.

          It’s the most racist, ignorant drivel one can imagine. There is something wrong with someone’s character to propose teaching school children that they are born bad if they’re white, and that black children shouldn’t trust or like white children. Parents across the country have said that kids went from playing with all the kids of any color, to segregating, hating themselves, judging others, feeling like they’re not good enough because of their skin color.

          This is disgusting. Just stop.

        3. “John say,

          “ In left wing nut world Racism and Anti-racism have morphed into the same thing.”

          That’s false. Your uninformed opinion does not constitute a fact here.”

          Of course it is – it is self evident. It is evident both in theory and in practice.

          Oregon as an anti-racist measure is discriminating in distribution of vaccines on the basis of race.
          The federal governement as an ant-racist measure is discriminating in providing economic releif on the basis of race.

          That is racism. The left’s idea of “anti-racism” is racism. Both in theory and in practice.

          In fact the core of modern leftism is inherently discriminator.
          You can not favor “historically disadvantaged” groups without disfavoring others.

          “When you have conservatives”
          Still not a conservative.

          “constantly conflating socialism with communism, Marxism, and authoritarian ism”

          “Democracy is the road to socialism.”
          Karl Marx

          That would be the same Karl Marx that wrote the communist manefesto.

          Are you completely clueless. Communism IS socialism. There are not nuanced distinctions – one is a form of the other.

          Further, Communism, socialism, and all forms of statism suffer from EXACTLY the same flaws.
          All forms of “central planning” – regardless of what “ism” you pretend distinguishes them fail in the same ways.

          The intellectual argument ended in the 40’s – and all forms of central planning LOST.
          The MORAL argument ended in the 60’s when we saw how bloody the USSR and CCP were.
          These were reinforced with Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.

          We here less about the Bloodshed in Vietnam after we left – but it was real and brutal.

          Regardless, even in the more modern era – Venezuela should be a object lesson.

          Statism of ALL FORMS varies in the degree of bloodshed that results.

          Venezuela was less bloody than Cambodia.

          But it is always brutal, and it always fails economically.

          The so called Nordic Social democracies FAILED – they abandoned their purportedly benign socialism as unsustainable 40 years ago.
          While they still have relics left – such as universal health care, they are in general more capitalist than the US.
          Regardless, they are NOT socialist. Sweden as an example has real school choice – you go where you want.
          There are as many private schools are public schools. Government is mostly out of education.

          Both India and China legged far behind the rest of the world – Until they started to embrace economic freedom.
          Oddly china did so first and now has double the standard of living of India.
          But BOTH have gone from the bottom of the third world to the bottom of the first world by embracing economic freedom.

          When I was a child – India and China were more impoverished than Africa.

          I would further note that in the 30’s and 40’s hong kong and singapore were little more than asian fishing villages.
          Today they have the highest standard of living in the world.

          There is NOWHERE in the world that you can find whatever it is you wish to label your faux utopian ism that has not dramatrically under performed free markets. There are few places where ANY flavor of your faux utopian ism has not resulted in BLOODSHED.

          There is not some conflation issue. Marxism, Communism, Socialism. Whatever label you wish to apply, whatever nuanced differences you wish to claim DOES NOT WORK – ANYWHERE EVER!.

          Absolutely All killings are not murder – there are nuanced differences.
          But in ALL CASES, someone ends up DEAD.

          Whatever label you wish to apply to your faux utopian ism – in EVERY CASE people end up significantly worse off in the long run that free markets, and in MOST cases – it is BLOODY, and in many cases it is VERY BLOODY.

          The current amerian marxism that we are seeing and that you are atleast defending mirrors the most bloody forms of leftism that have ever existed – BEFORE they gained sufficient power.

          Apt comparisons are being made betweent eh modern american left and the cultural revolution in China.
          Those comparisons are not perfect – but they are very good.

          So not only are your purported nuances meaningless – all forms of statism FAIL.
          You are also incorrect as what is being pushed right now most closely tracks the worst most bloody forms of statism.

          “without recognizing their true distinctions ”

          Then you would be able to articulate those distinctions ?

          The rhetoric and conduct of the modern left most closely resembles that of the Maoist cultural revolution.
          When it is not using 1984 as a howto guide.

          So what are these distinctions you claim and how do they distinguish the modern leftist form of marxism from that of the russians or chinese or cambodians ?

          “when making an argument it cannot be expected of them to recognize the differences or even the nuances of what racism and anti-racism entail.”

          When you argue “nuances” – if you expect to be taken credibly – you had better be able to identify those “nuances”.

          I would note that there are “nuances” between manslaughter and premeditated murder.
          Both are crimes in which someone dies.

          Catagorically what you are pushing is only distinguished by as you say “nuance” from very vile things.

          Why is it that you expect those “nuances” to transform your favored form of racism or statism into something that works, when all other forms do not, and many are extremely bloody ?

          There are few instances in the real world where nuance is the difference between genocide and utopia.

          “It is always seen thru the perspective of a victim or persecution rather than a acknowledgment of an injustice that is rooted in a truth.”
          It is the left that is pushing an ideology of victimhood and persecution.

          “The truth is often perceived as a personal accusation instead of simply a recognition of a real problem.”

          The Truth is that communism, socialism all forms of central planning, even simply “big government” – FAIL.

          “Pointing out an issue is not an accusation as many conservatives seem to believe.”
          What issue ? What accusation ?

          Thus far you have been accused of being stupid – because you continue to sell failed nonsense.
          That accusation is true. I am making it, and I am not a conservative.

          1. John Say,

            “Oregon as an anti-racist measure is discriminating in distribution of vaccines on the basis of race.”

            False. You’re conflating anti-racism with targeted distribution to areas that are under served which are predominantly minority areas. That is not racist. Vaccination rates in minority communities has been a nationwide problem due to vaccine hesitancy and the disinformation that fuels it.

            “The federal governement as an ant-racist measure is discriminating in providing economic releif on the basis of race”

            That is not racism John, that’s simply distribution according to a demographic that has been historically neglected. If you argue that is racism then you clearly would agree that providing economic relief to a majority of white individuals and the relief on minorities is less then it is racism as well. Your argument if flawed.

            “That is racism. The left’s idea of “anti-racism” is racism. Both in theory and in practice.”

            False. What you think is racism is not based on experience or understanding of what it is. This is why your arguments are flawed the moment you post them.

            “In fact the core of modern leftism is inherently discriminator.
            You can not favor “historically disadvantaged” groups without disfavoring others. ”

            The left is not disfavoring others in order to favor historically disadvantaged groups. What you see as disfavoring is applying equal favor. The right often perceives itself as being disfavored when one group who has been historically disadvantaged getting the same benefits as their own group. Ensuring equal access, and equal application of the rules is not disfavoring another group when that group has always had the benefit of being the favored group the majority of the time. The right thinks it is being discriminated against because it is not being given the attention it believes it deserves because another group who has been under served finally gets fair treatment.

            ““Democracy is the road to socialism.”
            Karl Marx

            That would be the same Karl Marx that wrote the communist manefesto.

            Are you completely clueless. Communism IS socialism. There are not nuanced distinctions – one is a form of the other. ”

            Yes there are nuanced distinctions. It seems you are the one who is clueless here. Socialism is more compatible with democracy than communism due to the fact that communism is creating an equal society thru authoritarian rule. Socialism is compatible with liberty as well. Scandinavian countries are Socialist democracies where liberty and freedom are sustainable.

            You are referring to central planning as the flaws in communism and socialism. Clearly you ignore that not all Socialist countries are centrally planned I give you the Scandinavian countries as an example. This proves that socialism does indeed have it’s variances and many have been successful while others have not. You rely heavily on forms of socialism where authoritarians determine every aspect of government as an example. Obviously leaving out the other socialist countries where democratic systems prevail and have more successful societies.

            “There is NOWHERE in the world that you can find whatever it is you wish to label your faux utopian ism that has not dramatrically under performed free markets. There are few places where ANY flavor of your faux utopian ism has not resulted in BLOODSHED. ”

            False. Demnark, Sweden, Finland. All have been successful forms of socialism and certain aspects of their systems have been superior to our own in regards to education and healthcare. In fact those countries consistently rank as the highest in personal liberty and freedom.

            “When you argue “nuances” – if you expect to be taken credibly – you had better be able to identify those “nuances”.

            I would note that there are “nuances” between manslaughter and premeditated murder.
            Both are crimes in which someone dies.

            Those nuances are readily identifiable to anyone who really understands racism, especially those who are have been subject to it fort a long time.

            Yes there are nuances between manslaughter and premeditated murder and those nuances determine the level of punishment. It’s the same with the right’s perception of what racism is. All they see racism as an issue of color not the subtle biases and assumptions based on those biases. Those who experience it first hand are more tuned to those subtleties than those who have not been subject to racism.

            “Why is it that you expect those “nuances” to transform your favored form of racism or statism into something that works, when all other forms do not, and many are extremely bloody ?”

            As I explained above nuance can make a big difference in perception. Those who are tone deaf on nuances will never understand the real impact nuance makes. Those on the right who argue on racism and other such subjects rely on simplicity rather than complexity because it is not easily grasped that there is more to just simple explanations. So considering nuance is seen as too complicated to consider because things are “supposed to be simple”.

            ““It is always seen thru the perspective of a victim or persecution rather than a acknowledgment of an injustice that is rooted in a truth.”
            It is the left that is pushing an ideology of victimhood and persecution. ”

            Nope, here you are clearly deflecting precisely because you are arguing from a victim’s point of view. “Pushing an ideology” tells us you are the victim of an attempt to have an ideology “pushed” on you. You demonstrated exactly what I pointed out. Thank you.

            ““Pointing out an issue is not an accusation as many conservatives seem to believe.”
            What issue ? What accusation ?” Obviously you don’t grasp the concept of a rhetorical question and then you accuse me of being stupid, the irony of your statement and the subsequent retort clearly points out the nonsense is all yours.

            1. Long pointless diatribe in which you deny reality.

              Racism is making choices – ESPECIALLY GOVERMENT making choices BASED ON RACE.

              Oregon’s distribution is NOT based on geography. It is based on RACE.
              The Biden administrations SBA grant policy is based on RACE.

              It is RACISM and was found to be that by the courts – though only a blind man would argue otherwise.

              There is no better way to create racial conflict and hatred in this country than to divide the country based on race.

              1. John Say,

                “Racism is making choices – ESPECIALLY GOVERMENT making choices BASED ON RACE.”

                False. Discrimination is making choices. Racism is discrimination against race.

                “Oregon’s distribution is NOT based on geography. It is based on RACE.
                The Biden administrations SBA grant policy is based on RACE.”

                You’re right, it is based on race, but it said race is concentrated on a given geographic area.

                As it has been pointed out to you many times. You don’t have the capacity to make distinctions. You have no appreciation for nuance. Biden’s distribution IS based on race because HISTORICALLY those he is targeting have been Historically neglected and often are more hesitant to take the vaccine due to the history of white people abusing them for medical reasons. Remember the sterilizations that occurred to blacks when they were not to told they were being given such drugs. They have reason to be suspicious and those suspicions have lingered for years. Biden’s administration is trying to make sure they get vaccinated at a higher rate than they are so they will not have a bigger issue of higher infections in their communities. The complaining from whites is that they are not getting the attention they think they deserve after many already refuse to vaccinate. Only after some other group is getting more attention they complain, because they are black.

                The court’s were right to call it racism, but the courts were not also considering WHY the government was doing it. They were only considering the complaint. Not the government’s reasoning.

                1. ““Racism is making choices – ESPECIALLY GOVERMENT making choices BASED ON RACE.”

                  False. ”
                  Nope.

                  “Discrimination is making choices.”
                  Correct. All choices are discrimination – including choices driven by race.

                  “Racism is discrimination against race.”
                  Correctish. Regardless, you have proved my point. “Racism is making choices based on race”.

                  “”Oregon’s distribution is NOT based on geography. It is based on RACE.
                  The Biden administrations SBA grant policy is based on RACE.”

                  You’re right, it is based on race, but it said race is concentrated on a given geographic area.”
                  Nope.

                  “As it has been pointed out to you many times. ”
                  You claim to have made lots of points – but you do not actually make them, you just claim to have made them.
                  Get a clue – it is not the same.

                  “You have no appreciation for nuance.”
                  Government is force. There is very little room for nuance in the use of force.

                  Is it OK with you if someone maime’s you – rather than outright killing you ?
                  Plenty of nuance – still a crime.

                  “Biden’s distribution IS based on race because HISTORICALLY those he is targeting have been Historically neglected and often are more hesitant to take the vaccine due to the history of white people abusing them for medical reasons.”
                  this and myriads of other factors are all available to individuals acting on their own, But NOT when acting as government.

                  Like it or not, there is no historical exception to the prohibition against murder.

                  And you keep trying to use history as a talisman – and yet you are ignorant of it.

                  As you keep ignoring the conditions that the english subjected the irish too for nearly a milenia were WORSE than slavery.
                  In a Single English inflicted famine more Irish were killed than there were slaves in the US at one time.

                  If historic opression is your loadstone – the irish are going to top your list of oppressed peoples.

                  “Remember the sterilizations that occurred to blacks when they were not to told they were being given such drugs.”
                  No, I do not remember – as you are conflating multiple things badly.
                  As best I can tell, you have confused Buck v. Bell with the Tuskegee experiments.

                  Regardless, if you are going to cite history – atleast get it right.
                  Absolutely Margret Sanger Founder of Planned parenthood was actively selling black genocide.

                  “They have reason to be suspicious and those suspicions have lingered for years.”
                  Sure do. And there are lots of white people who are suspicious. And even lots of people on the left who are suspicious.

                  I am fully vaccinated – a personal choice. But I am also aware that this vaccine was developed at “warp speed”, that it has NOT undergone the safety tests that are normal. that it is new technology. That we have taken a giant step into the unknown.

                  And I have very little trust of the WHO, the NIH or the CDC, and certainly not Biden.
                  Yet I made my own evaluation and took the risk knowingly and got vacinated.

                  In a year or a decade that could prove to have been a big mistake – or a very wise choice.
                  It is my gamble, I make it. I was free to choose.

                  As are you and blacks and others. We do not have identical levels of suspicion – no two people do. You do not seem to get that we are NOT equal. We are each unique. Though we ALL have good reason to distrust government.

                  If you are black – I can not advise you. You must make your own choices. Some of the racial medical malpractice you note is real.
                  Though you are clueless about it. It is near certain we know less about the effects of the vaccine on minorities than whites.

                  Life is not fair – get over it. Presuming your claims are correct – you were born with schmoozing skills that most of the rest of us do not have.
                  That has value. But you were clearly shortchanged on intelligence. Recognize your own strengths and weaknesses.

                  “Biden’s administration is trying to make sure they get vaccinated at a higher rate than they are so they will not have a bigger issue of higher infections in their communities.”
                  That is called racism.

                  Though frankly Biden and his minions are sufficiently incompetent they can not even manage that right.

                  “The complaining from whites is that they are not getting the attention they think they deserve after many already refuse to vaccinate.”
                  Do you understand that your own argument contradicts itself ?

                  If you are an adult and want vaccinated right now – you can easily get vaccinate.
                  White or black – there is no need for Biden to discriminate.
                  The US is giving away surplus vaccine to foreign countries.

                  People are not complaining because they are being shortchanged – atleast not with respect to vaccines.
                  They are complaining because YOU are RACIST.

                  “Only after some other group is getting more attention they complain, because they are black.”

                  Government is barred from considering group status in anything it does.

                  “The court’s were right to call it racism,”
                  Therefore it is unconstitutional – full stop.

                  “but the courts were not also considering WHY the government was doing it.”
                  Typlical left wing nut. Right and wrong are determined by WHAT you do not why.

                  Even the christian god who knows what is in each man’s hearts judges us on WHAT we do, not why.
                  Matthew 25:31-46

                  “They were only considering the complaint. Not the government’s reasoning.”
                  Which is ALWAYS how the courts should act.

                  An act of government is constitutional or not.

                  If it is not and the majority of us beleive that is wrong, we can change the constitution.

            2. More of this leftist NONSENSE.

              Please actually read Orwell – both his distopia’s and his other works on words and their meaning.

              Words exist to efficiently communicate ideas.

              When you start arguing ROT like “What you think is racism is not based on experience or understanding of what it is.”
              Racism is NOT defined by experience – atleast not as you pretend it is.

              It is making choices based solely or primarily based on RACE.
              It is EVIL – regardless of how it is applied.
              It is EVIL regardless of what race is being discriminated against.

              Trying to change the definition does not alter the fact that what you have tried to exclude from the defintion is still EVIL.

              If you wish to play word games – you still LOOSE.

              Regardless of what label you give to favoring one RACE over another – it remains EVIL – no matter which way you play it.

              I would note that what YOU call “anti-RACISM” is actually extremely dangerous.

              The Nazi’s exterminated Jews because of the mere perception that Jews were manipulating the system in their favor.

              Do you think that your “Anit-Racism” where you are ACTUALLY manipulating the system in favor of a minority is not going ot provide fodder for some budding Hitler ?

              “White Supremecy” in the US – “White Racism” in the US is nearly dead. This is the least racist country in the entire world.
              This is the least racist moment in world history.

              And the left is determined to END that.

              The Biden administration is Wrong to be actively seeking out “white supremecists” groups – there is to this point no consequential organized or disorganized white supremecy in the US.

              BUT – the Left SHOULD be afraid of the rise of white supremecy and should QUIT doing everything in its power to bring it about.

              Your so called “Anti-racism” – is RACISM – and it will bring about even more RACISM.

              You can not get arround this by playing WORD GAMES.

              1. John Say,

                “Please actually read Orwell – both his distopia’s and his other works on words and their meaning.”

                I have actually read Orwell and his many works and they are my favorites. Just as I have read Ayn Rand and all have valid ideas but are also ideas based on a fantasy that does not always translate into reality.

                “When you start arguing ROT like “What you think is racism is not based on experience or understanding of what it is.”
                Racism is NOT defined by experience – atleast not as you pretend it is.”

                Nope, that is false. Those who experience racism first hand or have done so or a long period of time KNOW what it is and it’s many iterations. Those who haven’t such as yourself can only imagine what it is based on your limited or no experience. So why is it that those who have experienced it the least or none at all seem to have a “better understanding” of what it really is?

                You really don’t. What you ARE doing is trying to justify someone else’s true experience of racism based on your own limited or non-existent experience and proceed to dictate what racism is. The fact that you are straining to justify it by bloviating about the need to “actually” read Orwell or some other works makes my point more clear about what you are really not understanding.

                The rest of your frothing at the mouth rant isn’t winning any arguments.

                “Your so called “Anti-racism” – is RACISM – and it will bring about even more RACISM.

                You can not get arround this by playing WORD GAMES.”

                Funny you mention word games when you are doing them yourself. Rant away John, rant away.

                P.S. Don’t forget to wipe the spittle from the corner of your mouth when you are done.

                1. “I have actually read Orwell and his many works and they are my favorites. Just as I have read Ayn Rand and all have valid ideas but are also ideas based on a fantasy that does not always translate into reality.”

                  I honestly doubt you have read either, but it is impossible to prove a negative. It is however trivial to prove you did not comprehend Orwell.

                  Regardless, cut the crap. Of course no dystopia perfectly predicts reality – though so many elements of 1984 in particularly and animal farm to a lessor extent are present in the current politics and tactics of the left. Just as the paralells to the cultural revolution in china are excellent.

                  The FACT that the current left is adopting the tactics of REAL dystopian events as well as those of numerous fantasy dystopian events is damning – to you.

                  This is not about nuance and exactly the way these tactics translate into the real world.
                  It is not important that the bad ideas that Orwell decries are not functioning in precisely the same bad way as Orwell predicted.
                  What is important is that the left – and too often YOU are using those tactics. There is no translation necessary there.

                  “Nope, that is false. Those who experience racism first hand or have done so or a long period of time KNOW what it is and it’s many iterations.”

                  Actually demonstrably false. You are echoing numerous errors. The first being CRT nonsense that there is no objective reality.
                  Nearly often the best analysis of events are NOT by those who “experienced” them – whose perspecitve is distorted by emotions, but those writing from a distance.
                  Next, then why is it that the very minorities that you claim have expertise with racism first hand – are so racist ?
                  Lets skip the “anti-racist” racism against whites. What of the racism of the left against jews that has been so prevalent recently ?
                  What of the fact that the plurality of anti-asian hate crimes are by blacks ?

                  If as you say those who purportedly experienced racism are the experts – why are they engaging in racism against others ?

                  I would further note that there is no one living who experienced slavery in the US. There is probably no one living whose parents or grand parents experience slavery in the US. There are very few living people of any race that have experienced a lynching. There have been almost none in the country since the 50’s and few then.

                  There are myriads of statistics that demonstate that if racism of consequence still exists – and that is debateable, that its effect on blacks is unmeasureable. Black immigrants to the US succeed at much the same rate as white natives. Native blacks succeed at the same rates as similiarly situated whites.

                  When you claim that those who have experienced racism KNOW it when they see it – and you make that claim in a world were the evidence of consequential racism is spartan, YOU undermine YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS.

                  You are openly admitting that your expertise is seeing racism where there is none.

                  The “personal truths” claim is another logical fallacy from CRT.

                  There is True and false. Sometimes we can not perfectly know what is true or false. But our lack of knowledge – or your disagrement with me does not change what is true and what is not.

                  There is no “personal truths”. There is only the truth of reality.

                  Your experience (or lack) may help you learn the truth (or not), but it does not change what is true, and what is not.

                  There is not “my truth” and “your truth”, there is only “the truth”, and both your and my views, opinions, arguments can be weighed by the extent to which they acurately reflect THE TRUTH.

                  “Those who haven’t such as yourself can only imagine what it is based on your limited or no experience.”
                  Svelaz, you have no idea what I have experienced. It is very unwise for you to presume.
                  I have experienced a great deal of prejudice in my life.

                  Those ont he left keep trying to claim that all – or atleast some prejudices are the same – you equate racial prejudice with sexual prejudice with homesexual or transexual prejudice with prejudice against the handicapped or the overweight.

                  You have made an ideology out of the commonality of the experience of prejudice by others – why then would you presume falsely that I or anyone else has no experience of prejudice ?

                  “So why is it that those who have experienced it the least or none at all seem to have a “better understanding” of what it really is?”
                  So why is it that those like you presume that no one you disagree with has experienced prejudice ?
                  It is litterally a part of leftist dogma today that there are myriads of forms of prejudice.

                  “You really don’t. What you ARE doing is trying to justify someone else’s true experience of racism based on your own limited or non-existent experience and proceed to dictate what racism is. The fact that you are straining to justify it by bloviating about the need to “actually” read Orwell or some other works makes my point more clear about what you are really not understanding.”

                  No Svelaz – YOU do not get to define everything and exclude all but those you favor politically from the debate.

                  AGAIN, there is only ONE reality. SOME of us use our experiences to understand that reality – some do not.
                  You clearly do not.

                  I would note that your “true experience” nonsense is pretending that emotions are truth. They are not. They are reactions. They vary between people – irrespective of the reality they experience.

                  “The rest of your frothing at the mouth rant isn’t winning any arguments.”
                  I do not need to “win” this argument – you are doing an excellent job of losing it all by yourself.

                  “Funny you mention word games when you are doing them yourself.”

                  Nope. Svelaz, My use of words is consistent. No matter what words we are talking about.
                  Descrimination based on race is racism – regardless of the race of the perpitrator or the victim.

                  All words have the same meaning regardless of who is using them and what their ideological goals are.

                  “Don’t forget to wipe the spittle from the corner of your mouth when you are done.”

                  It should not surprise that someone who confuses emotion with reality would badly presume to know the emotions of others.

                  I am having great fun watching you trip yourself up.

            3. Svelaz – do you actually read what you write ?

              First you claim that it is OK to seek out minority groups for vaccination.

              Then you later claim that your actions are NOT racist, because they are EQUAL.

              You can not have it BOTH ways.

              Actual “anti-racism” requires making choices without considering race.

              When you consider race – you are RACIST.

              1. “Svelaz – do you actually read what you write ?

                First you claim that it is OK to seek out minority groups for vaccination.

                Then you later claim that your actions are NOT racist, because they are EQUAL.

                You can not have it BOTH ways.

                Actual “anti-racism” requires making choices without considering race.

                When you consider race – you are RACIST.”

                Boy John, you really have a reading comprehension problem. As I noted before your pure lack of skill in determining nuance and distinguishing context.

                Yes you CAN have it both ways when context is considered. You just want to see things only in black and white.

                “When you consider race – you are RACIST.”

                Nope. When you consider race as a means to exclude from participation or opportunity and it involves a minority group THAT is racist. When you consider race you are just considering…race.

                You keep making yourself more foolish every time you respond. Maybe you should quit while you are ahead. We wouldn’t want to upgrade that to complete idiot would we?

            4. One of the fundimental intellectual failures of the left – and most specifically why I am NOT on the left, despite sharing many values, is that for the left – for YOU the ends justifies the means.

              You are open about it.

              I would like to see people vaccinated. It is likely we completely agree on that.

              Though unlike YOU I am cognizant of the fact that vaccination is not utopian nor without risk.

              I agree with many on the left that these vaccines were RUSHED and therefore have more unknowns and a higher risk.

              I disagree with the left that Government should get to decide what risks each of us are willing to take.

              We have vaccines now – for which I am glad and we should all think Trump for bulldozing the red Tape.

              These Vaccines should be called the “Trump Vaccines” – because without Trump we STILL would not have them.

              But my wish to see many people get vaccinated does NOT allow me to justify using FORCE to do so.

              You say many minorities are vaccine hesitant – likely true. SO WHAT ? That is their right.
              Many on both the left and right are “vaccine hessitant” – SO WHAT ? That is their right.

              If you want people to get vaccinated – you must persuade them – not force or coerce them.

              Those of you on the left do not understand that.

              Freedom requires that people make their own choices – free from FORCE or threat of force.

              Their own choices about vaccines, about masks, …..

            5. A master orders his slave to help someone in need.

              Who acted with moral merit ?

              The master had good intentions, but his evil means negate any merit.
              The slave was forced to act, and whether the act was good or evil is entitled to no praise or blame.

              You can not acheive morality through force.

              You definitions – whether of anti-racism or anything else, are inherently wrong – and irrelevant.

              Even where your “intentions” are good – when you use force – government you poison the results.

              You can not change what is and is not moral by changing the meaning of words.

    2. Sleazy, Facebook has a special carve out protecting them from lawsuits do to a posting by one of their participants. You tell us that Facebook can block a politician but if Turley blocked your posts you would scream bloody murder and tell us all about how you have been abused. I guess that with you it depends on whose post is getting gored.

      1. TiT, “ Sleazy, Facebook has a special carve out protecting them from lawsuits do to a posting by one of their participants.”

        Yes they do. But what that doesn’t do is prevent Facebook from removing content if it violates the terms and conditions. If that “carve out” were removed it will give Facebook a bigger incentive to censor because anyone could sue them for something someone said. It doesn’t stop people from still agreeing to their terms and conditions. In fact they can amend those terms and protect themselves legally.

        “ You tell us that Facebook can block a politician but if Turley blocked your posts you would scream bloody murder and tell us all about how you have been abused. I guess that with you it depends on whose post is getting gored.”

        If Turley blocked me it would mean I violated the terms of the agreement I signed in order for me to be able to post here. I recognize that’s his prerogative because it’s HIS site. Not mine. I signed an agreement for the privilege, not the right, to post here.

        I’m not like some conservatives throwing tantrums over something they stupidly agreed to in the first place.

        At least I KNOW what i signed and what I agreed to.

        1. That “carve out” was conditioned on providing a neutral public platform – that is a legal term of art that means constrained by the same censorship standards as the US government.

          1. John Say,

            “That “carve out” was conditioned on providing a neutral public platform – that is a legal term of art that means constrained by the same censorship standards as the US government.”

            Nope. Because Facebook’s 1st amendment rights don’t magically disappear because of an FCC rule. They can provide a neutral platform which is still a private one and one in which they set the terms and conditions. which everyone who chooses to use it agrees to those terms and conditions. and they include the right to censor content they deem in violation of said terms.

            They are not bound by the same restrictions the 1st amendment imposes on government. Because as you well know a narrow interpretation of the constitution only mentions government, not private companies OR anything else besides government entities.

            By your own philosophy of narrow interpretation your argument is irrelevant.

            1. “Nope. Because Facebook’s 1st amendment rights don’t magically disappear because of an FCC rule. ”

              Just to point out the hypocracy of the left – I thought you rejected Citizens United ? I thought corporations were not people and have no rights – first amendment or otherwise ?

              Atleast be consistent in your arguments.

              Regardless you are WRONG. First every contract in existance surrenders rights in return for something else. We are all free to do so.

              When I am hired as an employee I typically surrender my first amendment rights at the workplace.

              Next, there is no first amendment right to censor others. FB’s first amendment rights are not being interfered with by prohibiting them from censoring others.

              Further – if you were actually correct – then the DMCA would be unconstitutional.

              BTW this has nothing to do with the FCC – the DMCA was passed by congress and signed by the president.

              “They can provide a neutral platform which is still a private one and one in which they set the terms and conditions. which everyone who chooses to use it agrees to those terms and conditions.”

              Nope. NPP is a legal term of art. In law NPP is the censorship standards that apply to the government.
              The government and all agents of government are obligated to use NPP standards for all censorship – the same standards as the govenrment itself. These can not be modified – even with the consent of the other party.

              You can agree to allow a private actor that is not a government agent to violent your rights in return for some benefit.
              You can not agree to allow government or government actors to violate your rights.

              This is pretty basic law.

              “and they include the right to censor content they deem in violation of said terms.”
              Nope.
              SM can absolutely do as you claim – legally and constitutionally – though not morally, if they are 100% a private actor, but they are not.

              “They are not bound by the same restrictions the 1st amendment imposes on government.”
              They are when they are acting as agents of government – such as when they receive a priviledge from government.

              Look this is really simple – if you successfully were to prove you are right – then the DMCA is unconstitutional.
              I actually agree with that.
              But the courts have not.

              “Because as you well know a narrow interpretation of the constitution only mentions government, not private companies OR anything else besides government entities.”
              Nope. This is really trivial.

              There is a township near altanta in Georgia that contracts out to private companies nearly the entirety of government functions.
              Policing, roads, code enforcement, parking enforcement.

              Are the private companies hired by that municipality free to violate your rights ?
              Of course not. They are government agents. They are just as bound by the constitution as the government itself would be.

              The same is true when government gives a private actor a privilege or benefit that is not available to everyone.

              “By your own philosophy of narrow interpretation your argument is irrelevant.”
              Nope.
              Further – even if you were right – all that would mean is that government can not act through agents and government can not give private actors benefits or privileges.

              You can not circumvent narrowly interpreting the law or constitution, by broadly interpretting it elsewhere.

              I would note that this is another one of the myriads of problems with CRT.

              CRT imagines the entirety of western law and history as irredeemably polluted by racism. This of course ignores the fact that the main body of western common law was created during a racial monoculture. To the extent that the anglo-saxons were racist in the 11th-16th centuries – that would be racism against celts.

              Regardless, CRT seeks to pitch it all and start over. If you think that will work – you are an idiot.

              I have made a number of legal arguments above and in other posts with you. These are all rooted firmly in centuries of western legal tradition – tradition that we have already been fraying – before this CRT nonsense.

              There is no absolute requirement that legal tradition is the ONLY way to do things. But it does have the benefit of centuries worth of polishing and resolving of internal conflicts. Put simply it works pretty darn well. Can we do better – possibly. And a part of that legal traditon is that it is modified SLOWLY and CAREFULLY over time.
              The requirement for narrow interpretation of the law UNIVERSALLY is more pragmatic than ideological.
              If the law is not understood narrowly – with respect to government powers and privildges, you are certain to rapidly have massive conflicts and irresolvable problems. Ultimately you end up with something too close to what we have where judges are constantly deciding each case based on their guts and not the law, and you get radically different outcomes in different places. That is lawlessness, and will ultimately cause everything to rip apart.

              You rant about Jan 6. but seem to ignore the fact that this country was born of a revolution against arbitrary and capricious government.
              Read the declaration of independence – there is very little about taxes in it. The US was not born of a tax revolt. It was born in response to arbitrary and capricious government.

              Anyway, you can try to change the US legal system as has been done in the the past century, by tearing it apart from within.
              Or you can do as CRT seeks to do, by starting over from scratch.

              You are not likely to get anything that actually works either way.

        2. Just to be clear – though many of your arguments are garbage – and I am demonstrating that point by point,

          I actually agree with you that SM may censor content as they please – constrained only by their TOS – which they are NOT free to change every few minutes.

          Ultimately the best outcome – and the one we will get sooner or later is the demise of FB and the giants of social media.

          I am not happy with Parlor, or Gab or the social media competitors, nor republicans as a whole, because they do not grasp how to win this fight.

          The real answer is Peer2Peer. No one owns it, no one controls it, no one can censor it.

          Think the technology of BitCoin merged with social media.

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

          Gilmour is one of the actual creators of the internet.

          P2P technology prevents any company or government from controlling whatever is implimented over P2P,
          while allowing people to use and profit based on the value they contribute.

          Republicans MUST ultimately embrace technologies like P2P and BitCoin specifically because they can not be controlled.

          They will get their soon enough.
          They will get their faster the stupider the left and SM behave.

          In a similar vein Democrats and SM should ponder one of the themes of the Arthurian legends “Man bears the seeds of his own destruction”.

          Or in a different form – “sometimes the god’s punish us by giving us what we want”.

          Nutacha rants about “blaming democrats”.

          Well “You are in control” – You are responsible. That is how it goes.

          Or “you made your bed, now you can lie in it”

          1. John Say,

            “Just to be clear – though many of your arguments are garbage – and I am demonstrating that point by point,

            I actually agree with you that SM may censor content as they please – constrained only by their TOS – which they are NOT free to change every few minutes.

            Ultimately the best outcome – and the one we will get sooner or later is the demise of FB and the giants of social media. ”

            I’m pleased to hear you agree on that point. Then why they arguments that what they are doing in regards to censorship is illegal or unconstitutional? Just on the post above you argued that Facebook is “constrained by the same standards as the US government”. Which argues that they are bound by the same prohibitions the 1st amendment imposes on government. Here you admit they really don’t by stating that they may sensor content as they please constrained only by their TOS.

            They are indeed free to change anytime they want however. In fact this happens all the time. Every time you agree to have your phone updated or sign up after signing out of a platform you are first required to review new terms and conditions before proceeding. The majority of people simply click on the “I agree” button and continue on to their everyday postings. This is where problem lies. People stupidly agreeing to things they don’t read.

            1. “Then why they arguments that what they are doing in regards to censorship is illegal or unconstitutional?”

              Please carefully read my actual arguments.
              Unconstitutional has a specific meaning – with very few exceptions only government can act unconstitutionally. When I say unconstitutional – I am refering to the acts of government or government agents.

              When you accept a priviledge from government – such as the protection from lawsuits, you become a government agent.
              S230 of the DMCA requires that SM provide a Neutral Public Platform in return for immunity from defamation lawsuits.
              That means that SM is bound to the same censorship standards as government otherwise they act unconstitutionally.
              But even if S230 did not exist – when government provides SPECIAL – Unequal priviledges – you become a government agent and are bound to the constraints that apply to government.
              Public schools act unconstitutionally when they censor. Public colleges act unconstitutionally when they censor. Private colleges that accept government funding are constrained by the same censorship rules as government.

              My libertarian preference and principles would have government OUT of all these things.
              Government money to education just makes education more expensive – that is all. We know that. The same is true almost EVERYWHERE government money flows. I do not care whether Rutgers engages in censorship – that should be between those who give Rutgers money and the university itself – and government should not be part of that at all – including providing money.
              But so long as government finds private education – private educators are government agents.

              Further just about all private colleges have the equivalent of SM TOS’s – these have for half a century guaranteed students free speech.
              When a university censors students in violation of their own codes of conduct – they breach their contract with students.
              In otherwords they act illegally. And just like SM colleges are not free to change their “TOS’s” at whim. Colleges even more so than SM

              Contracts are incredibly important to libertarians. And they are fundimental to the rule of law.

              The very existance of government is justified SOLELY by the social contract. Government is obligated to protect the rights of citizens – by force if necescary, and citizens are obligated to pay government to do so – and NOTHING ELSE.

              Many actions that are NOT unconstitutional, are still illegal – because of contracts.

              Finally, there are situations where you can act constitutionally, and legally and still violate someones right to free speech.

              All censorship is not unconstitutional.
              All censorship is not illegal.
              All censorship is not morally wrong – but nearly all is.

              Outside of some very narrow domains – all SM censorship is morally wrong – whether it is legal or constitutional.

              It should not be illegal for you to shoot heroine or commit adultery, but those things are morally wrong even if they are legal.

              So actually read what I write.

              You have constantly ranted badly about “nuance” where nuance does not apply – yet you are conflating as the same things that are distinctly different, and much more than just nuanced.

              Unconstitutional, illegal, and wrong are NOT the same things.

            2. “Just on the post above you argued that Facebook is “constrained by the same standards as the US government”. Which argues that they are bound by the same prohibitions the 1st amendment imposes on government.”

              Correct.
              First the DMCA applies and obligates them to provide a neutral public platform in return for protection from defamation claims.
              Next because they are provided a privilege by government they are a government agent and constrained with respect to infringement on rights in the same way as government.
              Both of these are trivially fixable – repeal the DMCA it is bad law and SM does not need it.

              “Here you admit they really don’t by stating that they may sensor content as they please constrained only by their TOS.”
              Why do you presume that there is only ONE constraint on SM prohibiting them from censoring.
              There are MULTIPLE constraints. They have the two as a result of the DMCA that bind them to the same rules as govenrment.
              They have there TOS’s which are a contractual obligation,
              And they have a moral obligation that is not otherwise legally enforceable.

              You keep accusing me of missing nuances – you are missing bolders.

              “They are indeed free to change anytime they want however.”
              Nope, this is established law. And it is not specifically related to Social Media.
              Nearly every contract specifies that it and only it governs the relationship.
              And yet nearly always the representations of the parties used to secure the contract are legally binding.
              Either as part of the contract or as a separate Tort.

              This is easier to see in the context of colleges. If I send my Son to UofP because they have a code of conduct that asserts nearly absolute free speech. UofP’s assorted policies and codes have a greenlight by FIRE in all areas except sexual conduct where like many universities they do not have due process, and having spent a hundred thousand dollars or so for two years education, UofP changes their codes unacceptable such that students either face censorship or must go elsewhere – there is a strong tort claim against UofP

              When a college accepts a student the terms of the mutual agreement are binding for the duration of that students education at that school.

              “In fact this happens all the time. Every time you agree to have your phone updated or sign up after signing out of a platform you are first required to review new terms and conditions before proceeding. The majority of people simply click on the “I agree” button and continue on to their everyday postings. This is where problem lies. People stupidly agreeing to things they don’t read.”

              I would suggest that you learn something about contracts. These types of contracts are called contracts of adhession and have extremely weak binding power. Generally when you offer an agreement, and later modify it unilaterally where the other party must either accept or lose the benefits of the original contract, the unilaterly modification is either void or very weakly enforced by the courts.

  12. “That creates a direct conflict between free speech and diversity policies. What is interesting is that the language would seem to prevent a group like the Federalist Society from “addressing” Critical Race theory or other mandates topics from an opposing viewpoint. Rather it states that the event must explore such subjects “through the lens of Critical Race Theory, diversity and inclusion, or cultural competency.”
    ********************************
    It’s why the term “student government” is an oxymoron (emphasis on the latter two syllables) and just a cop-out by the school. Oh and I don’t see why the “lens” of CRT has to be a rose-colored one. How about we discuss the fraud that is CRT through a very clear CRT lens? it won’t be pretty.

    1. Mespo, CRT is not fraud. Conservatives have been deliberately twisting the narrative of what CRT is because they really don’t want to discuss it. It’s an uncomfortable topic, and rather than honestly delve into the issue it is being falsely portrayed as an attack on anybody who is white.

      Turley as usual parses his words in a manner that conveys a narrative that is misleading.

      For example, his statement that this issue creates a conflict between free speech and diversity policies is misleading. He said, “ What is interesting is that the language would seem to prevent a group like the Federalist Society from “addressing” Critical Race theory or other mandates topics from an opposing viewpoint. Rather it states that the event must explore such subjects “through the lens of Critical Race Theory, diversity and inclusion, or cultural competency.”

      The key words here, “would seem”, falsely imply that the federalist society would be prevented from offering a different point of view. Nothing states it would prevent them from doing so. It would be important in any discussion to have differing views. It’s the whole point of that requirement.

      Also. Turley’s claim focuses only on one of the multiple options as if it is the only option and he disingenuously neglects how the other options allow for such discussions to be not just looking thru the lens of CRT.

      Turley is being disingenuous with this issue.

      1. Have you been living under a rock? It’s not conservatives who don’t want to discuss CRT. In fact, attend one of those mandated CRT sessions that corporations and academia love, and try to “discuss” it. You will be told that you’re a racist even for hinting that there’s an alternative POV. It’s a Kafka trap and a power grab. That’s why the crusaders silence all opposition.