The chancellor of the University of California (Davis), Gary May, is under fire for comments that he made before the recent riot at the school by Antifa and other protesters. May uses a video to attack conservative Charlie Kirk and to emphasize that “counsel” told him that the school’s hands are tied in trying to stop the event. Conservative sites like The College Fix have accused May of spreading the very “misinformation” and hate that he accuses Kirk of spreading through his speeches. There are serious questions raised by May’s inflammatory and inaccurate rhetoric before the violence at the University Credit Union Center.
At the event, police and students attending the event were assaulted, leaving at least one officer injured. The protesters smashed windows, hurled eggs, and used pepper spray to attack the event.
Just before this violence, May decided to issue a statement condemning Kirk and accusing him of being someone who has “advocated for violence against transgender individuals” and spread “misinformation.”
In the video message below, May states:
“Thank you for sharing your distress at a student group hosting a speaker who is a well-documented proponent of misinformation and hate, and who has advocated for violence against transgender individuals. as a campus that is committed to our principles of community. UC Davis stands with our transgender and non-binary Aggies in opposition to this hateful and divisive messaging. UC Davis did not invite this individual and is not sponsoring this event.”
There are elements of the videotape that I appreciate. I think it is appropriate to acknowledge how difficult such speeches and viewpoints can be for members of the community. It is also reasonable to note that some may feel that such views are devaluing or isolating, but that the university remains committed to protecting the rights of all of its members from the left to the right of the political spectrum. However, May’s remarks are very odd (and at points ominous) in a number of respects.
First, and foremost, May accused Kirk of calling for violence against transgender individuals — a very serious and potentially defamatory statement. May gives no evidence that Kirk has ever advocated violence of any kind against transgender people. The remark may be based on a recent article (picked up by many in the media and social media) that said that Kirk called for the “lynching” of transgender individuals. The Sacramento Bee yesterday apologized for that claim.
Bee opinion writer Hannah Holzer (a Davis alumni) wrote the piece titled “Another fascist is coming to UC Davis. How should the community respond?” and described Kirk as a “vocal transphobe and Donald Trump fanatic” and added that, “among his most atrocious comments, Kirk suggested transgender people, who he has referred to as ‘garbage,’ ought to be lynched.’” The Bee later doubled down on the claim on social media, tweeting, “Charlie Kirk has called for the lynching of trans people, a comment that should warrant the cancellation of his speaking engagement at UC Davis.”
It was untrue and Kirk legitimately threatened to sue. The comment was actually made in a response to a statement from female college swimmer Riley Gaines about how trans swimmer Lia Thomas had exposed male genitalia in front of women in the locker room. Kirk responded that “someone should have took care of it the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and 60s.” He said that he was referring to such exposure leading to arrest by police in prior years. You can reach your own interpretation of these remarks, but Kirk did not in fact refer to lynching or expressly endorse violence. The counsel for the Sacramento Bee clearly made that evident to their client and the newspaper publicly retracted the false claim.
May’s statement was also troubling in his effort to signal the displeasure of the university and its reluctance in allowing such a speech. While noting that the University is “committed to the First Amendment,” he added that it is “required to uphold it.” That is certainly true as a state school. However, at various points, May indicates that he sought legal advice on whether they had to allow the speech and that he was told that they must do so “even if the speaker’s intended speech is loathsome and hurtful to me and to others in our campus community.” He repeatedly emphasizes that “counsel” has told him that there is a “heavy burden” that they must shoulder to shutdown the speech and that they cannot satisfy that burden.
A few hours later, the violent protest unfolded.
May’s conflicted and concerning comments are reminiscent of the response of another chancellor in a free speech controversy. In 2014, pro-life advocates Thrin Short, 16, and her sister Joan, 21, were manning a table with literature opposing abortion on the campus of the University of California at Santa Barbara. Suddenly, Feminist Studies Associate Professor Mireille Miller-Young appeared with her students and attacked them and destroyed their display. Miller-Young later pleaded guilty over the criminal assault. Nevertheless, faculty and students supported her actions, even supporting the claim that the pro-life advocates are akin to “terrorists.”
Even without the criminality, Miller-Young engaged in an act that should be anathema for any academic or academic institution: she was trying to silence others on campus. Miller-Young has acted in a way that is anathema to all intellectuals. The Shorts videotaped her after she appeared to organize students in yelling “take down the sign.” They say that she grabbed the sign and walked off–ignoring the protests of the teenagers. Campus police were called and Short says that she was pushed by Miller-Young three times — leaving bruises on her wrists — at an elevator confrontation. On a video, Miller-Young is seen taking the sign with graphic images and saying “I may be a thief but you are a terrorist.” At the elevator, she can be seen shoving the teenagers and blocking them.
That is when Michael D. Young, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs issued a statement that appeared to condemn the pro-life advocates over the incident while feigning support for free speech. The problem it would seem is not Miller-Young as much as these troublesome “outsiders” and “evangelical types” who come to “create discord” and “promote personal causes and agendas.” They are told to “ignore” the “provocative and offensive” speech of such people and not engage in name-calling and more direct actions. Thus, the community is asked to show restraint when people come to campus to speak in “offensive, hateful, vile, hurtful, provocative, and perhaps even evil” ways. In the end, you are not sure if Miller-Young was the culprit or a victim in these alleged criminal acts.
It is common for administrators to give a nod to free speech before eviscerating the underlying principles. We saw that recently in the comments of DEI Dean Tirien Steinbach, who prefaced her condemnation of a conservative federal judge speaking at Stanford by noting her support for free speech.
The May statement has many of the same signaling and mixed messaging. Not only does he repeat a false allegation against the speaker, but makes clear that Kirk (and by extension the faculty and students attending the event) are hateful and unwelcomed. The video is clearly designed for the university to take a side rather than calling for the community to support the diversity of opinions and free speech on campus. What is notable is that May is not speaking as an individual in this capacity. He has a right to express his personal opinion. Instead, he is speaking as the representative for the university at large to condemn the underlying views of Kirk and his supporters.
I am not here to defend Kirk. He does not need my defense and, more importantly, the test of free speech is to defend the right despite objections to the content of the speech.
As a free speech advocate, I often defend those with whom I disagree, including comment on the left on “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. I also supported the free speech rights of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. Yet, those extreme statements from the left are rarely subject to cancel campaigns or university actions. There remains a sharp difference in the response to controversial conservative figures on campuses.
May’s comments are likely to be celebrated rather than condemned at Davis. However, they reinforce the viewpoint of intolerance at many schools. The First Amendment may have forced this state school to respect free speech, but there is little evidence of support for its underlying principles and purpose in May’s comments. It is tolerance for free speech “on advice of counsel” only. That is hardly a resounding defense of the principles of free speech in higher education.
73 thoughts on “Davis Chancellor Under Fire for Attack on Charlie Kirk Before Riot”
“[T]he recent riot at the school by Antifa . . .” (JT)
Still believe that Antifa is *not* a terrorist organization?
When you initiate violence to achieve a political end, you are by definition a “terrorist organization.”
May’s diatribe is reminiscent of “Will somebody rid me of this meddlesome priest?”
He was clearly using code words to summon the troops to wreak mayhem on Kirk.
The excuse for shutting down speech is almost always based on some variation of the “comfort” theme. Speech other people disagree with makes them uncomfortable. It is uncomfortable for the “(fill in the blank) community” to have this speaker here. The DEI dean at Stanford was uncomfortable going to the front to denounce the invited speaker to his face so she had to write down her remarks.
Universities are supposed to make people uncomfortable by forcing them to deal with difficult ideas. That’s how the mind gets trained to think instead of just feel. That’s how universities (used to) produce thoughtful citizens instead of spoiled brats and ignorant fools. Universities have lost their way. They now mainly produce spoiled brats and ignorant fools, and society at large suffers as these indoctrinated dweebs worm their way into corporations, the military, the professions, the clergy, and so forth, destroying once-solid institutions.
I see May’s background is in actual reality. Electrical Engineer. Albeit tempered, because it seems almost all of his work was at academic instututions. Real work, none the less. He has only recently joined the mire of academic administration. Looks like he wasn’t agile enough to send his DEI administrator as a shield to his office.
Chancellor May is another “diversity” hire and victims have to stick together, so defending the trans cult is part of the victim solidarity package. I have wondered why the Democrats chose the trans hill to die on, but this case makes it clear: support the trans cult and you’ve got the votes of millions of deluded students.
support the trans cult and you’ve got the votes of millions of deluded students.
No, I don’t see that. Remember it was only back in 2008 California amended their Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a women? If you believed the media, you would have to believe 60% of Californians were gay, and 95% supported gay marriage.
A very small minority are interested in trans. There is little doubt it is a social contagion, and immunity will build. 2% of the population are homosexual, a fraction of that number . What is happening today is like pet rocks, and mullets. A style option.
Students are picking a team, despite some of the members, not because of those members. Never forget, college students have been indoctrinated since they were 3 to mindlessly accept all manner of weirdness.
A wide majority believe bathrooms and showers need to be sex specific. Men do not belong on women teams, and other comon sense rules of social behavior.
“I think it is appropriate to acknowledge how difficult such speeches and viewpoints can be for members of the community”
I appreciate the Professor’s rigorous defense of free speech but I don’t understand the above statement. Who is to determine what type of speech is “difficult for the community”? The most pathetic sensitive snowflake in the crowd or some Maoist thug? Charlie Kirk is no extremist and is not even what I would call a provacateer. These despicable pseudo revolutionary thugs need to be punished including expulsion and the Chancellor immediately removed and possibly prosecuted for instigating a riot. Turley in his acquiescence to the sensitivity of these so-called communities is going down a slippery slope. As Pompeo wrote “Never give an Inch” to these Maoist thugs.
Our universities have become cesspools. They no longer serve their purpose and need to be weaned from the taxpayer teet.
This is frankly an outrageous act and speech. In any sane world this individual would have been fired. One begins to see even more why people are fleeing California. If I was an inhabitant of California and I had children of college age I would seriously be in trouble because I simply could not condone sending any of my children to a state supported school run by these individuals. Not in good conscience and so I would have to send them to private schools or out of state (and pay private school costs). Yeah I would leave the state. Seems Charlie Kirk is one of those people that the DOJ is so worried about causing right wing terrorism. And I suppose the black shirted and masked Antifa protesters are protecters of our freedom.
I always found it interesting that the DOJ can seem to penetrate every right wing conspiracy in the USA such as the threat against the Michigan Governor and the Proud Boys on J6 but they just seem to have so little luck penetrating Antifa. Oh I think those guys were busy battling misinformation on twitter, meta and such. Not enough time to fight the real terrorists.
I mean with their previous arrests and unmasking and identifications there should be a database of these individuals and all their common acquaintances and they also have a great way to track financing also. Yet no announcements of major arrests all around the country of Antifa Cells. Truly strange. Almost like there is a Antifa Liaison in the DOJ.
GEB – Merrick Garland explained why the DOJ can’t counter the Left’s violence: they commit such violence in the dark. Garland explained that the FBI has a so-called “sundown rule” – they are unable to investigate any crime committed after sundown. Why? He explained that it’s harder to see the perpetrators in the dark than during the daytime. I never realized that.
GEB wrote, “I always found it interesting that the DOJ [and the FBI] can seem to penetrate every right wing conspiracy in the USA such as the threat against the Michigan Governor and the Proud Boys on J6 but they just seem to have so little luck penetrating Antifa.”
I agree completely and I think it’s signature significant.
Signature Significance: Signature significance posits that a single act can be so remarkable that it has predictive and analytical value, and should not be dismissed as statistically insignificant.
GEB and Steve Witherspoon: Agree, and here are a few examples of other signature-significant statements (IMHO):
BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors said, “Myself and Alicia [Garza, BLM co-founder] in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists.” https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/the-agenda-black-lives-matter-far-different-the-slogan
And yet, Cullors, in 2021, delivered a UCLA graduate ceremony speech, and a few years ago, Garza was permitted to deliver her speech to graduating students at San Francisco State University.
Or how about this one:
Yusra Khogali, Black Lives Matter Toronto co-founder, “called white people ‘sub-human’ and said they suffered from recessive genetic defects.'” https://www.ibtimes.com/black-lives-matter-most-controversial-quotes-statements-2492936
(my point being that right-wing ideology is apparently more threatening to America than Marxism.)
May’s remarks are stupid and a violation of his duties as a UCB administrator.
But aside from the possible defamation of Kirk his remarks are otherwise protected speech.
Stupid speech. but Protected.
While the consequences of his remarks are foreseable.
They do NOT constitute incitement to violence.
It is important that those of us not on the wing nut left do not play into their hands
The problem with Mays remarks is not his words but his duty to students not to leave them worse off and weaker than he found them.
Not to amplify their irrational fears.
It is not society May is failing – it is UCB students.
And he is doing so precisely in the parts of his remarks that Turley supports.
Again – those are protected free speech. They are not incitement to violence.
But they are part of a larger educational experience that makes UCB students fragile, axious and depressed.
And that is the opposite of what a university is supposed to do.
May failed in his duty to his students.
I would like to know why someone like Charlie Kirk doesn’t actually sue the Sacramento Bee for saying he called for the lynching of trans people? I know the NY Times v Sullivan case creates a high bar, but this seems to be pretty egregious and I think it should be pursued. It seems to be to be “actual malice” as stipulated in the case.
He should sue both the Bee and this left-wing twit – and UC Davis. Conservatives should wage all-out lawfare in scorched-earth fashion until left-wingers are deterred from shutting down free speech in the public square. Ideally, a public-interest law firm or three should spring up to handle such cases for free.
If you want proof that this guy is part of the grift just ask how much he earns as salary for being a cog in the racial machinery that is today’s universities. I am guessing that he “earns” in the neighborhood of $200,000-$300,000 with benefits that regular people could not even understand. HE probably is already a little lefty fascist but when you add in the financial benefits to be accrued you get a lying video complete with claims that actually helped to cause violence.
IT’S ALL A GRIFT. Anytime you see accusations of racism just think of and follow the money. The rich women on the View, grift. Robin DeAngelo and Ibram Kendi, grift, Joy Reid, grift, Al Sharpton, grift, BLM, grift, Joe Biden, grift, DEI departments, grifts and the reparations “movement”, grift. All of these people and groups are MAKING MONEY. It is a scam and the little girls and soy boys of the left are feeding this ruinous monster.
His earnings are closer to 800-850K.
Please don’t refer to his pay as “earnings.”
May is not a grifter. He is just a typical left wing nut.
His salary is not really that high in California terms.
I have problems with his remarks – but they are STILL protected speech – aside from the possible defamation of Kirk.
My problems are NOT that he is close to “inciting violence”. There are not even with his remarks specifically – but more with them as a reflection of his administration.
I recently shared work by Prof. Haidt – and several others that addresses the dramatic spike in anxiety and depression that we have seen in the past decade.
Not only is this increase dramatic it is also fairly narrowly constrained. It is limited to those on the left, it is limited mostly to young adults, and it is worse in women.
There are many factors causing it – social media appears to be a factor. But that does not explain the concentration in the left or among women of the left.
The explanation of that is that it is specifically tied to this whole woke safe spaces. trigger warnings anti-free speech culture.
Unsurprisingly when you tell people they need protected – they become fearful and anxious.
And that is my problem with MAy’s remarks.
Nothing he says is unacceptable. It is all protected free speech (except the possible defamation).
It is not incitement to violence.
But it ABSOLUTELY continues to tell students who are already irrationally fearful that their unjustified fears are rational.
The problem with his remarks is EXACTLY the portions that Turley thinks are acceptable.
It is not Kirk that has a cause of action against May – but UCB students whose fears and dysfunction May is amplifying.
This speech is emblematic of that – but the problem is NOT this speech – it is the entire culture that UCB administrators are allowing that his
HARMING their students.
John Say, you keep saying that what he said is protected speech, EXCEPT FOR POSSIBLE DEFAMATION! What exactly did Trump do in his Jan 6th speech that this leftist grifter didn’t do in his? Yes, he is a grifter.
Have I said there was something wrong with Trump’s J6 speech ?
May has ONE specific issue – He defamed Kirk.
I do not recall Trump defaming anyone.
May has a separate issue that mostly does not have to do with this event, but that his safe spaces and emotional harm PRattle is actually KNOWN to make people weak, depressed and anxious. He failed in a duty to students.
The role of college is not to pamper students and protect them from ideas that offend them.
It is prepare them to go out into a world where they will not be pampered and will have to deal with ideas that offend them.
If you are looking for an ACTUAL Conspiracy related to this – here is one.
I’m really curious how the political partisans on both sides of the political aisle that comment on this blog will react to this speech by the chancellor of University of California Davis Chancellor Gary May, will they condone it or will they condemn it.
This video speech reminds me a lot of the speech that President Trump delivered on January 6, 2021 where he too made what are smeared as false claims and encouraging others to protest peacefully against that which they believed to be wrong and what happened, this protest also turned into a violent riot.
I’m going to pay really close attention to what is written in this thread on both sides of the political aisle. Remember, bias makes can make you stupid and sometimes it makes you appear to be box-o-ricks stupid, so look in the mirror before you post comments that reveal your hypocrisy.
And what do you see? Even your brief statement revealed your bias.
pudnhead wrote, “Even your brief statement revealed your bias.”
You just made a claim and I expect you to support it with an explanation. How does my comment reveal my bias as you claim?
Your parallel makes sense in that Trump was, in your mind, representing the protestors on the Capitol and may is representing the protestors here at Davis. Beyond that, whataboutism.
Neil Bobacon wrote, “Beyond that, whataboutism.”
You’re certainly welcome to that opinion if you like but to not pay attention to the partisan double standards and hypocrisy regarding freedom of speech in two very similar speeches would be ethically and morally wrong. By the way, I didn’t bring this up as a deflection or to discuss it, I brought it up to let people know that I will be looking for partisan double standards and hypocrisy.
My opinion; I think what both President Trump did and what Chancellor May did was ethically wrong and socially condemnable, but both speeches fall fully within the confines of freedom of speech and have been shown by legal experts in case after case that it’s not illegal speech inciting violence.
We could sit here and recount all the past iterations of “ethically wrong and socially condemnable” acts, but doing so is simply whataboutism and you are trying to deflect the focus to minimize the impact on your narrative.
We could talk about clinton’s rapes or epstein parties, we could talk about all the hollywood donors’ actions, etc etc. But this is a new one.
To compare the two in the same sentence no matter what your beliefs has taken you opinion down quite a number of notches.
If only your comparison to Trump was actually apt.
The Claims about Kirk were:
Provable false – with very little effort.
Irrelevant – whether you like it or not speakers who engage in “hate speech” get to speak too.
Further UCD is a public institution and Kirk was speaking at a Government provided public forum.
Government is actually OBLIGATED to assure that is safe.
With respect to Trump:
We keep getting this idiocy that Trump was lying.
A lie is a know false statement – Trump did not lie.
Were his claims false ? Even today we really do not know.
Because real inquiry was completely thwarted everything about the 2020 election remains a matter of belief.
Further even if – as did NOT happen Trump was ultimately PROVEN wrong – discovering in the future that you were wrong in the past is NOT lying.
I know those of you on the left have problems with this.
The Collusion Delussion was a LIE – because those who sold it to us KNEW it was a HOAX from the start.
The Claim that the hunter Biden laptop was russian disinformation was a LIE – because those who sold it to us KNEW it was not from the start.
A FEW of Trump’s claims regarding 2020 have proven False – DVS Tabulators in Antrim County. Windham County and Maricopa County accurately counted ballots (not Votes). It is highly unlikely that the claim that DVS rigged the election is true – BUT that STILL remains unproven.
Some claims have been proven True – we have many many many sources of evidence of illegal Ballot harvesting. Some of those have resulted in successful prosecutions. But todate the SCALE of that ballot harvesting is not established. There are many many highly unusual things that occured in 2020 that have not been explained. And that those of you on the left continue to bury as deep as you can.
If you wanted to discredit Trump all you had to do was welcome Transparency.
You did not. And that combined with the numerous other BIG LIES by the left over the past decade are excellent reasons that most of the country – including 27% of Democrats believe there was cheating int he 2020 election sufficient to alter the outcome.
I hammer on TRUST repeatedly here – on issue after issue.
People do not TRUST the administration in elites schools – because they have not been trustworthy for a long time.
Because they have not suppressed violent protestors seeking to crush free speech.
UCB administrators do not have a foundation to be truested.
With respect to the 2020 election – Democrats have sold so many BIG LIES – there is no foundation to Trust them.
Do I trust Trump (or republicans) Nope.
Do I trust him more than you ? Absolutely.
Trump did most of what he said he would do as president. Contra those like you – he did constantly shill BIG LIES.
Is he trustworthy – no. Is he far more trustworthy that the left, the media, democrats – absolutely.
That has not changed.
That is why he has not gone away.
People continue to trust him more than you.
If you want to be trusted – that is EASY.
Don’t hide the truth
Don’t force your values down everyone else’s throat.
But you do all of those things constantly.
You should not eb surprised that you are not trusted.
With all due respect you are using the word “you” a lot in that comment referring to my comment, you need to reread what I actually wrote, not what you “think” I wrote.
Then correct me.
If I have actually misunderstood you – I will apologize.
If I have misrepresented you – I will apologize.
Both happen on occasion – both are common when someone posts satirically, ironically or sarcastically.
All those are hard to read over the internet.
I and others often make errors by projecting the views of a group onto an individual.
Most posters do that to me.
Regardless, What I posted is correct. The only question is whether it is correct about YOU.
If not – please correct me.
You seem to be expecting me to shinny up your shovel handle and join you while you dig absurd rabbit holes, I’m not going to engage your ridiculous trolling extrapolations about me or tumble into your bottomless pit of a rabbit hole.
I’ll say this once to you, you’re welcome to your own opinion but you’re wrong about me. Now go troll someone else.
You too are entitled to your own opinion
and you are not obligated to prove anything.
I made claims regarding you, and I provided evidence.
You responded that my claims were false – BECAUSE YOU SAY SO.
You are perfectly free to do so.
But you are not credible.
You are infact proving my claims.
I have noted that if I am incorrect – I will apologize, and correct my errors.
But I am not doing so solely based on your unsupported claim I am wrong.
You can call me whatever names you want.
But credibility comes from evidence, Facts, logic, reason – not insults.
I can handle honest debate with people I disagree with who make intelligent arguments.
I have directly engaged with noteworthies on the left -0 such as Robert Reich, and Lawrence Tribe,
And many others – intelligent people (though you would not know that from their twitter feed) even if I think they are wrong.
making intelligent arguments.
There is very little of that here from the left.
Your not giving me or anyone else reason to beleive that you are among the intelligent people capable of good arguments.
Just as you choose when and too whom you post.
So do I.
I’m tired of your trolling nonsense John.
John Say wrote in an earlier accusational screed…
Those things are baldfaced unsupportable lies about me.
I respectfully replied to that accusational comment…
John Say wrote in this comment…
Yes John you made claims about me, utterly false claims (lies) about me, and no John you have not provided evidence that I Steve Witherspoon engage in the behaviors you claimed I did. You have NOT supported your lies, John, you’ve doubled down on them like a typical internet troll. It appears to me that you’re a liar trying to incite arguments. You are an internet troll extrapolating things to complete absurdity and making up false accusations of others trying to suck them down your absurd rabbit hole. I’m not playing your f’ed up trolling up game John. Your comments will be completely ignored from this point on.
If you want to redeem yourself then you can publicly apologize for making up lies about me and I’ll consider it. Here is an to use as reference.
I apologize to Steve.
I do not know what I am apologizing for, because he refuses to tell me – or anyone else.
Purportedly I misrepresented him – if so I am sorry, but I still have no idea what I misrepresented – because he refuses to identify what has offended him.
What he thinks is incorrect.
It is like Hunter Biden’s laptop. Steven is howling mad – and it is my fault, but he will not even identify what he is angry about.
I expect I will misrepresent Steve in the future – because Steve is keeping what he is upset about secret.
Except that it was lies, damn lies at that.
I expect I will have to apologize
again and again
Never having a clue what or why I am apologizing.
Then go to sleep Steve because you are very irritable when you are tired.
Start with John’s statement: “If only your comparison to Trump was actually apt.”
John was correct.
I also find your analogy extremely weird.
There is much wrong With May’s remarks. But they are not incitement to violence.
I would disagree with several things that Turley said – Many of us are TIRED of the idiotic claims that speech you do not like is violent of harmful to others.
That is absolute nonsense.
I recently linked multiple times to Work by Prof. Haidt that incorporates alot of work by others regarding some very obvious trends in the US.
The FACT is that the Left in this country has Scared themselves $hitless.
Were are in the midst of an epidemic of anxiety and depression.
That epidemic STRONGLY correlates to:
Age – the younger you are the more anxiety and depression you are suffering.
Sex – female rates of anxiety and depression are double that of mails.
Political identification – There is no discernible increase in anxiety and depression among conservatives. While that of “liberals” is almost 3 times that of conservatives. In fact rates of anxiety and depression in some conservative demographic have gone DOWN,
There are several causes of this – but one Significant one is the rising prevalance of safe spaces, trigger warnings, equating speech with violence.
Who would have though that when you call speech violence – peoples fear of violence increases.
At this moment in time – Rural and Suburban conservatives has slightly elevated fears of violent crime – driven by the epidemic of crime in this country.
But that Crime is NOT occurring in rural and suburban areas. It is exclusively rising in big cities. In fact it is not even rising throughout big cities. It is rising in approximately 4% of the neighborhoods in big cities. We have a HUGE crime problem in a very small part of the country.
Conversely those on the left are convinced that J6 was a close call, a real insurrection that members of congress were very nearly killed, and that this is just the beginning. That hordes of white supremecist MAGA republicans are preparing to do violence to them. There is ZERO evidence of this. These are fears and anxieties you have talked yourself into. Nor are those faux fears the only ones – living in a fearful bubble has left you weak and anxious and depressed, and fearful of nearly everything. At the least racist moment in history at the least racist country in the world – you are deathly afraid of racism. Nor is that the only declining ism that you are convinced is on the rise.
The FACT is you do not live in reality. You are terrified of things that do not exist and will not happen, and oblivious to the fact that those you hate are not a threat.
I knew there was a reason that I rarely pay any attention to comments, you have a bad habit of extrapolate things to absurdity.
You’re welcome to your opinion.
As I said – if I am wrong about something – correct me.
I have offered you the opportunity to do so.
You are free to refuse.
But I do not owe you more than to correct error that you identify.
I am not obligated to read your mind.
If I have misrepresented you, as I said – show me. I will correct and apologize.
If I have made factual errors, or logic errors – show me. I will correct and apologize.
But absent more than the claim that I am wrong about something – without even identifying what.
I must presume that I have not misrepresented you or made factual errors.
And I would surmise that those reading this thread are likely to conclude the same.
Though that is their business.
One could reasonably argue that May’s handwringing about being constrained from acting in his official capacity was a form of incitement: to wit, “y’all are going to have to handle this yourselves.”
Sound familiar? People who actually have some knowledge of history in the 1930s might recognize this sort of intimidation and violence as being a tool to suppress the opposition. They are the fascists, not Charlie Kirk.
This year marks 90 years since the National Socialists came to power in Germany. The cascade of atrocities that occurred in those first months quickly proved that though they came to power legally, they would disregard the rule of law to maintain power and quash the opposition. On the 24th is the 90th anniversary of the Enabling Act. Monday is the 90th anniversary of the opening of Dachau concentration camp, first used for critics of the regime and political prisoners. Obviously, memory ceases long before 90-year anniversaries arrive.
This month is also the 95th anniversary of the founding of the muslim brotherhood. Many similarities between it and the lqbtruxvbv+ movement in particular and the overall anti-racist charade installed since that most racist of racists, obamma rose to power.
“The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
Replace the word “community” with “cult” and this is not far from Jim Jones and the People’s Temple in the manner of human behavior.
It should be a matter of fact that speakers and groups who come to the university to speak are not necessarily endorsed by the school. But officially inciting the students is?
Since the House of Representatives controls the purse strings and is now in MAGA-dominant Republican hands, public funding for academia (and media like NPR) should be withheld until robust equal-access free speech policies with meaningful enforcement mechanisms are enacted by the recipient entities. Enough of leftist fascism at taxpayer expense!
NPR has seen such a drastic down turn in revenue (corporate donations) they had to cut 10% of their staff!
It is okay. They can just learn to code!
Go woke, go broke!
Slimy, toxic, black activists like May are the poster children for the Ku Klux Klan.
And the left in general is becoming just a bunch of political jihadis–just as intolerant and increasingly as violent. People aren’t leaving California–they’re fleeing.
Swing voters need to figure it out fast. Biden won’t protect them. He’ll pander to whichever side looks to be winning. There’s no conscience there. There’s barely any sentience.
And here’s a video the Democrats didn’t want swing voters to see. Some insurrection, huh?
Do you swing voters understand now? When they do it, it’s “mostly peaceful protests.” When anybody else opposes them, it’s a “VIOLENT INSURRECTION!!” It’s “RACISM!!” Etc. etc. etc.
I know people did bad things on Jan 6, and they will be rightly punished, but Jan 6 has been wildly exaggerated for political reasons.
“Slimy, toxic, black activists like May are the poster children for the Ku Klux Klan.”
Diogenes, you are a brave man to state the facts that stand out.
Thank you, Alan.
Gary May is a good little obedient pawn spewing the new woke agenda. Simply redefine any conservative view as “misinformation” or “inciting violence” and you are free to censor anyone with whom you disagree and throw as many temper tantrums as needed. He wouldn’t have been appointed Chancellor if the University had any doubts about his true ideological persuasion. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
Attacking the right to free speech with lies is abominable. Our liberal press encourages the lies by ignoring or supporting the propaganda. Thank you for publishing the truth.
Medea Banjamin’s book tour stop in Seattle cancelled by Univ. of Washington bookstore: https://www.codepink.org/medea_benjamin_censored_and_canceled_in_seattle
ralphiesmom: A good time to note that the only members of Congress who are actively opposing Biden’s war in Ukraine are conservatives…and not the RINO types. Unfortunately, Code Pink is largely alone on the left in opposing the war. Many so-called peace groups (including Vets for Peace) refused to go to Washington for the Rage Against the War rally because it was organized by activists from left and right. The “purists” on the left can’t even rage against war without taking a purity test.
The ‘politically correct’ individual for the position of Chancellor has obviously been appointed in this case. He appears to have satisfied all the proper Biden talking points.