We often discuss the twisted logic used on campuses where faculty and students will profess support for free speech while censoring or canceling others from speaking. However, Fairfax Bar & Grill in Bloomington, Indiana, has taken this hypocrisy to a truly impressive level. The bar recently declared that it supports free speech so it will throw out anyone who criticizes Anheuser-Busch or BudLight for its campaign featuring transgender figure Dylan Mulvaney. Owner McKinley Minniefield told Newsweek “I won’t tolerate hate speech, and I think that’s where I draw the line.” It is that easy, you just declare opposing views to be hateful and then ban them from the bar.
The logic of Minniefield is so conflicted that it is enthralling. On Facebook, the bar posted the following:
“We are tired of all of the hate. We are very open to debate and discussion and it’s truly a shame that we can’t have open conversations about this important political and cultural topic. Bars, in our opinion, exist as public spaces where ideas should be exchanged. Unfortunately, due to all of the bigotry and hatred that has surfaced around the Bud Light controversy, any patron wanting to voice their concerns about the issue will be immediately asked to pay their bill and leave our establishment.”
Just to repeat: “We are very open to debate and discussion . . . any patron wanting to voice their concerns about the issue will be immediately asked to … leave our establishment.”
Minniefield added later
“We do not and will not censor opinions, but we do require civility in this establishment. So if you can’t play nice, then get out of the sandbox. That goes for everyone! Let’s remember why we even gather at a bar — to enjoy each other’s company — and raise a glass to civility.”
According to his policy, “playing nice” means not voicing an opposing view on this controversy. Yet, being tossed out of the bar is not considered censoring an opinion.
Notably, the ban is not on those who are shouting or engaging in disruptive conduct. It is anyone who “voices their concerns” about the transgender campaign.
Clearly, the bar has a free speech right to set such standards. Heck, we just discussed a bar that faced a boycott from the left over showing a Harry Potter game. It solved the problem with a cringing apology and promising to ban any Harry Potter images. This is not a denial of the right of the bar owner to impose his own views on patrons, but a criticism in how that right is being exercised.
Notably, many of the same people defended the right of players to kneel during the national anthem as an exercise of free speech. Yet, some support this bar tossing out those who express opposing views on the Bud Light controversy. What is maddening is for Minniefield and the bar to do so in the name of free speech.
All businesses and sites face tough choices in what to remove in terms of speech. Many blogs and newspapers like The Hill have now eliminated comment sections because it is too much work to monitor and make these decisions. On this blog, we use a WordPress system to remove profanity. We also remove a narrow range of threatening, doxing, or offensive content. However, we tend to allow a far greater range of speech than most sites, including speech that we find personally offensive and wrong.
The line drawing can be challenging. For example, most would agree that someone using racist or anti-Semitic attacks in reference to another patron should be asked to leave. However, it would be more problematic to toss out someone who is making a comment that is deemed inherently racist or intolerant. Such judgment can be highly subjective and biased.
In this case, the use of transgender advertising campaigns raises a host of issues for customers. I understand how many view this as an objection to the status of Mulvaney and a denial of her identity. However, there remains a major debate in society over the involvement of corporations to push such social agendas. We have to be able to discuss these issues. Indeed, I can imagine no more appropriate forum for discussing the Bud Light controversy than a bar. If a patron becomes loud and disruptive on either side of that debate, the bar has every reason to issue a warning and, if necessary, ask the patron to leave.
As discussed earlier, this Orwellian logic is being used widely on our campuses. Years ago, at Rice University, I debated NYU Professor Jeremy Waldron who is a leading voice for speech codes. Waldron insisted that shutting down speakers through heckling is a form of free speech. It is not. It is a rationalization for stopping certain views from being voiced or heard in higher education. CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek showed how far this trend has gone. When conservative law professor Josh Blackman was stopped from speaking about “the importance of free speech,” Bilek insisted that disrupting the speech on free speech was free speech. (Bilek later cancelled herself and resigned). Even student newspapers have declared opposing speech to be outside of the protections of free speech.
So now bars are claiming that being tossed out for expressing your views on Bud Light is not censorship. It is merely “enjoying each other’s company.” It is more enjoyable without you sharing your opinion. So much for Bud Light’s slogan that it is “the perfect beer for removing ‘no’ from your vocabulary.”
The left says he has the right to do this, which I agree with, but they also say that a cake maker should be forced to bake a SPECIFIC cake for gay people??? Hypocrisy at its finest.
Hullbobby is as stupid as usual. Understanding context must have been very difficult in grade school.
The bar owner can limit talk about certain subjects, TALK hullbobby, TALK. Making a cake is a whole lotta of what we call, different. The bar owner is not making straight beer and being forced to make gay beer for gay patrons. Good grief, you really are stupid.
Those challenging Master Cake do not just want a cake – MC agreed to provide anyone gay or straight with any of its standard wedding cakes.
MC is about Cusotm Wedding cakes – Cakes that convey specif messages.
i.e. TALK. Or more accurately SPEECH.
Once again you prove completely ignorant of the FACTS.
“MC is about Cusotm Wedding cakes – Cakes that convey specif messages.”
Nope. Master cake did not want to provide a wedding cake. He was ok with providing a blank cake to anyone. A design is not a message. The very idea of offering a “ wedding” cake is what he was opposed to. Putting a specific pattern of frosting is what he was opposed to. None of that means he endorsed it. Which is what concerned him the most. Any type of work he applied to it in his mind constituted an endorsement.
He cited “sincerely held religious beliefs” as his excuse, but it’s clear those beliefs are entirely arbitrary. You’re a little loose with the facts.
Svelaz, you are entirely clueless and ignorant of more than a century of first amendment law.
This “The first amendment only applies to talk” argument was lost more than a century ago.
Some suggested reading. This ends with the 80’s – but that gets us far past your nonsense.
https://www.amazon.com/Girls-Lean-Back-Everywhere-Obscenity/dp/0679743413
Elsewhere on this blog at this moment Tinker v Desmoines is being addressed – Black Armbands are protected speech.
Shurtleff v. Boston
Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia
Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union
Sable Communications of California, Inc v. FCC
United States, et al. v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc.
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell
John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. v. Free Speech Coalition
American Booksellers Assoc., Inc. v. Hudnut
McIntyre v. Ohio Election Commission,
Stanley v. Georgia
Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist
……..
Like Mr. Phillips of Master Cake the bar owner is free to restrict speech in his establishmnt – though certainly not in Colorado – where MC was located, where he would be required to let others say things he found offensive.
And Patrons are free to go elsewhere.
The financial situation for AHB is getting worse by the week. Sales at distributors are down 17% and pours – sales in bars are down 21%.
Miller and Coors are reporting sales jumps of 18%.
There is a strong possibility that many of the partons that AHB has lost – will not come back.
Fairfax Bar and Grill may find itself with the same problem.
“Like Mr. Phillips of Master Cake the bar owner is free to restrict speech in his establishmnt – though certainly not in Colorado – where MC was located, where he would be required to let others say things he found offensive.”
False. Your penchant for false equivalencies seems to be, as always, intact.
My Phillips never claimed ti support free speech. He claims religious belief trumps state law. Because they are…sincere.
Others are not forcing him to say anything. A design is not a message anymore than a car design is a message.
Sales of Bud light will always rebound. Especially since beer drinkers tend to forget what they were raging about within a month. They always go back.
“My Phillips never claimed ti support free speech.”
False and irrelevant.
“He claims religious belief trumps state law. Because they are…sincere.”
No he claimed that Law can not trump religious beleifs except in the rarest of circumstances – and that is well established constitutional law.
“Others are not forcing him to say anything.”
That is debateable and irrelevant.
“A design is not a message anymore than a car design is a message.”
Of course it is. Burning a Flag is free speech wearing a black armband is free speech. Flying a flag is free speech.
“Sales of Bud light will always rebound.”
Ceraintly – because the market and population grow slowly.
Disney will ultimately recover its market value.
But there is an excellent probabilit that both Disney and AHB will take years possibly decades to recover lost market share.
“Especially since beer drinkers tend to forget what they were raging about within a month. They always go back.”
They may forget over time. But if they are now drinking Coors or Millero or ….. unless they are unhappy with Coors or Miller or …. most will not.
It is incredibly hard to get people to change. People who drink Bud Will Drink Bud till the day they die.
People who root for the Yankess will root for them until the day they die.
But if you get them to change – they are probably not coming back.
A few will over time. But not most.
I would note that Hullbooby said SPECIFIC cake – a cake conveying a specific message.
This is why Mr. Phillips won. Government compelled speech violates the constitution.
Is a cake with a specific message – just a Cake or is it TALK – speech ?
Is a sweatshirt with a message – just a sweattshirt or is it TALK – speech ?
“I would note that Hullbooby said SPECIFIC cake – a cake conveying a specific message.”
Hullbobby, like you conflate ‘design’ with message. It’s not the same as speech that is spoken. Nice try tho.
“This is why Mr. Phillips won. Government compelled speech violates the constitution.”
He “won” on very narrow grounds. He “won” due to the city showing ‘animosity’ rather than the law.
Charlie Craig and David Mullins went to Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, CO, and requested that its owner, Jack C. Phillips, design and create a cake for their wedding. Phillips declined to do so on the grounds that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs.
They didn’t ask him to put a message on the cake. They just wanted a custom design. Mr. Phillips did not want to essentially decorate the cake as a wedding cake. Offering bland run of the mill wedding cake that he also created makes no sense. If he was opposed to the idea of supporting the same-sex wedding he wouldn’t offering another plane Jane wedding cake either. It would still send the message that he somehow is supporting it by selling his more bland design. It’s clear he was being more of a bigot and was using his religious beliefs as an excuse.
“I would note that Hullbooby said SPECIFIC cake – a cake conveying a specific message.”
Hullbobby, like you conflate ‘design’ with message. It’s not the same as speech that is spoken. Nice try tho.”
Of course it is. First because most of the time – we are literally talking about WORDS. Such as with Lets Go Brandon Sweatshirts.
But also the WORDS on a cake.
Regardless, long long long ago we decised that expression – artistry – design are protected by the first amendment.
Whether we are debating the first amendment protection for erotic dance, or Andre Cerano’s “Piss Christ”
Whether you like it or not Expression
The abreviated proof you are an idiot.
https://veteransinpolitics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/American-flag-burning.jpg
No they ruled that the state was too hostile to his religious beleifs.
They ruled that it HAD to accommodate them
You constantly try to frame cases in terms of the intent of actors.
It was not the boards hostility with respect to Phillips that mattered, it was their hostility to his religious beleifs.
That is a violation of the first amendment
Regardless, public accommodation laws are unconstitutional. And the courts should have found that many decades ago.
It is irrelevant whether the issue is religion.
Just as the law can not bar the expressive work of artists Like Cerano and “Piss Christ” or Maplethorpe.
It also can not force artists to make work that specific people want.
Not is this limited to artistry.
Ultimately laws barring private discrimination are stupid – they are unenforceable.
Either you unconstitutionally prosecute people for admitting why they did something or you unconstutionally prosecute them for guessing why they did something.
There is no difference between public accomodation laws and Jim Crow laws.
There is no difference between government tellling people they Can not serve some disfavored group and government saying the MUST serve some disfavored group.
It is GOVERNMENT that can not discriminate. Not private actors.
Discriminatre is just another word for chose.
And we must make choices all the time.
We are not all equally good at making those choices.
It is virtually never possible to make those choices perfectly.
Whenever we make choices – that requires saying NO to people who FEEL they should have been our choice.
Fostering entitledment and victimization is idiocy.
And you wonder why the country is so bitterly divided ?
Because YOUR ideology is divisive.
You rant idiotically about making sense.
Yet, you never make sense.
Phillips choices made perfect sense,
and Colorado LOST because of that.
Read the decision – it is not their hostility to Phillips the court berated, it is their hostility to religion.
It is because Like you they choice to substitute THEIR judgement over what makes sense over his.
Svelaz is saying that a bar owner can restrict speech but a cake maker has to make a specific cake. This guy is a moron! Hey Moron, can Trump demand that Streisand sing at his inaugural ball? Well can he?
Hey fool, change the channel if you hate Turley so much, 95% of us don’t watch Joy Reid or the View, we just CHANGE THE CHANNEL.
Hope he likes an empty bar with no patrons. What an idiot.
In a college town?
Not a chance…
And yet . . .
https://www.westernjournal.com/bar-stood-bud-light-pays-big-price-resorts-begging-help/
Que Sera, Sera
He is aparently having difficulty.
He is appealing for patrons. He has lost too many regulars.
Just as with AHB – that is a big mistake.
This will all blow ever eventually.
The most important questions are:
Will the regulars come back – Will they come back to AHB ? to Fairfax Bar and Grill ?
Will new customers who are supportive become regulars ?
We do not know those answers, but they are likely not good.
John Say,
I have worked in food and bev off and on in my younger days.
Some restaurants and bars profit margins are so thin, one bad week can put them in dire straits.
Likely why he not only reversed from his initial position, but is begging for his regulars to return. Most interesting when one’s lively hood is at stake, what one will do.
As you point out, will the regulars return?
Or will they hold to their principles and take their business elsewhere. As I would do.
Same goes for AHB.
“Some restaurants and bars profit margins are so thin, one bad week can put them in dire straits.”
CDontra the left the actual profit margins in most businesses are small.
Walmart as an example makes about 1.5% net per sale. The deliver a reasonable return on capital by turning good in less than 90 days.
If you can sell everything in the store at 1.5% profit and do so 4 times a year – you make about 6%/year
But imagine what happens with slim margins like that if there is a significant hickup ?
“As you point out, will the regulars return?”
Time will tell. But AHB has made a huge mistake. Most people stick to certain products. They buy the same soda nearly all the time as an example.
It is really really hard to get them to change. But if you do and they stay with the new product for a few weeks. They are unlikely to return.
AHB has just given a massive gift to Coors and Miller and other brewers.
As well as a lesson to industry.
“Or will they hold to their principles and take their business elsewhere. ”
I do not think this is an issue of principle so much as an issue of disrespect – and that is part of what makes it so dangerous.
There are parts of this woke nonsense that we can all tolerate. But there are things we can’t.
I watch action movies. Increasingly there are more and more action movies with female leads. If the movie is good, I and many many others will ignore the fact that much of what we see is literally impossible. Of course it was also impossible when a guy was playing the lead, but it is 10 times as impossible with a female lead. You are just not taking out someone 60lbs heavier and 6″ taller than you who is not in horrible shape, even if you are in excellent condition.
But we can still ignore that.
But we see lots of woke movies Tank – not because of impossibilities or absurdities – but because they are bad entertainment.
We will tolerate preaching in our entertainment – when it is fairly close to our values. But get preechy too far from what we beleive and we will switch to another show.
Band loyalty is a really big deal in many produces – like soda and beer.
But it is not so big a deal in other areas – like entertainment where we can click to something else trivially.
AHB has driven away core customers, buy disrespecting them. It is not just that Mulvaney is LGBTQ+ – it is that he is totally at odds with most mud light drinkers.
Conversely Disney is in trouble because it keeps making bad woke movies.
But people will actually come bad to Disney if they make good movies.
McKinley Minefield: “We are tired of all of the hate. We are very open to debate and discussion and it’s truly a shame that we can’t have open conversations about this important political and cultural topic.”
Transgenderism is not an important topic. It is a contrived fundraising gimmick ginned up (pardon the pun) by leftwing activists.
Professor Turley: “Indeed, I can imagine no one better forum for discussing the Bud Light controversy than a bar.”
Yes, let’s hear what the chads and barflies have to say about this very important topic. I’m sure our troll class is well-qualified in this department. I just hope they passed their bar exams when they were stopped by the cops 🙂
It’s one thing when a shopkeep decides to limit political speech in his establishment, but in our increasingly oligarchic society, major corporations put their big, fat butt cheeks on the scales of public opinion on issues that are deeply unpopular with both the stockholders and voters, but that doesn’t stop these exact same corporations from demanding special perks that other businesses don’t get from state governments.
After 2,427 years, my cynicism is only growing. The West has fallen.
Diogenes, which of the two things are you referencing? The convening of the first democratic assembly in the New World or the other?
Alan, I was just referring to how old Diogenes is… er uh… was, had he lived.
No disrespect to Diogenes but I give preference to the convening of the first democratic assembly in the New World. That idea blossomed as did our tolerance toward others, but today the left is proving Diogenes right.
This is how dumb the left thinks we are and how dumb their voters really are: KJP and the LA Times say that the reporter for the Times did not give Biden a heads up about what she was going to ask…as we see the moron-in-chief holding a card with HER PICTURE on it, with the exact topic of the QUESTION SHE ASKED and with the words “QUESTION #! NEXT TO HER NAME AND FACE. Then the paper and the administration tell us that the question wasn’t planted and that it is just a coincidence that he picked her first and that she asked the question that was on his card.
The way they lie with impunity is one of the most frustrating things we have to deal with following politics today. That and morons like Svelaz arguing the most asinine points possible in a lame attempt to do his job as a DEMOCRAT OPERATIVE.
HullBobby,
Yeah, that pretty dumb.
While the LA Times and KJP try to gaslight the American public, we all see through it.
What is really dumb? People actually believe what the Times and KJP are saying.
Hullbobby says, “This is how dumb the left thinks we are…”
They don’t think you’re dumb. They KNOW you are dumb.
You didn’t know that a lot of press conferences and similar events are often scripted and managed? Trump did it all the time. Remember, trump showing off stacks of blank papers and file folders showing how much “paperwork” he has turned in for his tax “audits” is no different. He thought people would be dumb enough to buy it, it was aimed at his supporters which the left KNOWS are dumb enough and gullible enough to buy it. That’s why he peddled voter fraud BS. Because he knew and the left knew his supporters were a bunch of gullible idiots, a bunch of easy votes for him. Fortunately there aren’t that many and that has always been his problem. He always goes for the easy votes. A dumb looking red hat and a few insults and jokes is all it took. Amazing isn’t it? Stupid people are always the easiest to convince and Trump knew how to take advantage of it.
Svelaz, your asinine “argument” is that everyone does it when my point is that KJP DENIED they are doing it???? So does everyone do what Biden is saying he doesn’t do? Moron.
HullBobby,
Do you recall any president that had a cheat sheet, with the picture of the journalist on it, what question was going to be asked, or the order in which he was to call on journalists?
And on more than one occasion?
Upstate, of course not, only a Dem gets this treatment.
The cheat sheet is bad enough – Biden’s inability to follow it is really damning.
My father had vascular demensia.
This is a horrible way to go.
But what is aparetn is that neither his party nor his family gives a schiff.
If they had some decency they would have taken him home to be with the grandchilren that he does not recognize.
Hullbobby, the KJP can deny all she wants. It still doesn’t detract from the fact that it still happens and it’s done by both parties. Apparently YOU didn’t know that because you were just as gullible when trump did it. The fact that you didn’t notice shows how gullible you still are. Trump loves guys like you. Because you’re so easy to convince.
Hey Svelaz, are you saying that Jim Acosta gave Trump his questions in advance? You are reallygetting worse by the minute. Seek help, you need it.
No Hullbobby, you’re saying that.
KJP and the LA Times say that the reporter for the Times did not give Biden a heads up about what she was going to ask.
Like the cheating husband. When caught in the very act with his mistress, he denies it. Wife saw it with her own eyes, but he insists no other woman was in bed with him. After years of such abuse, Wife actually goes nuts – unless she stands up for herself and refuses to tolerate the husband’s lies anymore, and demands a divorce.
The bar business is taking a beating on Yelp with 1 star reviews in the majority
The only 5 star review is golden:
Timothy R.
Nashville, IN
4/27/2023
Bloomington has been in need of a gay bar since Bullwinkles went out of business. Fairfax fills that void.
😜
“Bar That Stood with Bud Light Pays a Big Price, Resorts to Begging for Help”
https://www.westernjournal.com/bar-stood-bud-light-pays-big-price-resorts-begging-help/
Estovir,
Okay, I will admit that was surprising.
Come a year from now, will the bar still be in business?
This part stood out to me,
“But I feel like every person we lost, we’ve so far gained a couple new people filling those seats every day,” he said.
Note, he uses the word feel. Why not state his actual sales?
He does not need to prove the merits of his choice to you or me.
But he does to his wife, children, and staff, who will all be worse off if his choice was poor.
He is learning a lesson of markets and politics the hard way.
I post politically. I also have several businesses.
I do not post under my real name.
I do nothing inside my businesses that would offend customers.
I am even careful about discussions of sports with customers, much less politics or religion.
The owner would have few problems if he said – keep it civil or take it outside.
But he said “Shut Up” to customers.
No matter what you think of your customers – disrespecting them is a bad idea.
Turley is also guilty about the hypocrisy he loves to point out and he’s just as bad. Turley loves to proclaim he’s all for free speech and proudly claims to be a free speech absolutist, but bans openly racist comments on his blog. Why? They may be offensive, rude, mean, and yes….hateful, you know like hate speech. It’s speech well protected by the 1st amendment.
He also has civility rules. The purpose for those rules is so discussions, ironically, don’t diverge into mindless insulto-o-ramas and ugly incoherent arguments. But, as a free speech absolutist knows it’s exactly what it’s supposed to be… a free wheeling- speech-for-all of ideas and viewpoints regardless on how offensive or mean they may be. It may be ugly and chaotic, but free speech nevertheless.
The bar owner is no different than Turley’s blog. He’s all for free speech BUT he’s also aware that DRUNKEN arguments about Bud light and transgendered support can get out of hand and as Turley should know alcohol and arguments don’t always end up being….civil. And as Turley knows, a bar owner CAN throw out those who may cause trouble if they start bringing up the subject of bud light and transgendered issues. He wants what Turley wants, civility and order in his bar and that may involve forbidding discussions about the bud light controversy. Just like Turley CAN and DOES censor openly racist comments and extreme vulgarity because HE doesn’t want his blog to become a racist bomb throwing and verbal brawling mess. Even if it’s protected speech. If a free speech absolutist like Turley can have limits on free speech, why can’t a bar owner who supports free speech have limits too?
Chastising the bar owner for doing something Turley has been doing for years is exactly why Turley’s massive hypocrisy is so obvious except to those who are as oblivious as Turley. It’s kind of elitist isn’t it?
🤡
for upvoting your own comments
How many gravatar accounts have you created, Paint Chips?
Ah yes, the hatefulness comes out again. You claim to be Catholic. When are you going to take Christ’s teachings seriously?
When are YOU going to criticize the right person (the one deserving of criticism)?
,
Apparently you are quite lacking when it comes to your comprehension skills Dim bulb.
The owner makes the statement that he or she is all about free speech, but then in the very next sentence says they will bar make anyone that exercises that right leave the premises.
Tell us, What is it like being on the bottom rung of the intelligence ladder?
Fudpucker, speaking of dimbulbs. Apparently you didn’t get the point of my post. Maybe you should try to use YOUR comprehension skills, if you have any to begin with, and re-read the post. You will be surprised.
“Turley loves to proclaim he’s all for free speech”
Turley is in favor of free speech. Free speech doesn’t necessarily include foul language and other things. One day you will learn its meaning, but that day is in the distant future. He even permits stupid comments like yours to litter his blog. But who cares, we all need a laugh, and your ignorance provides us with an unending stream.
“The bar owner is no different than Turley’s blog.”
Do you not understand the difference between political speech and other types?
Do you understand what was on the founder’s minds when they discussed speech?
You seem totally ignorant of both of those questions.
“If a free speech absolutist like Turley can have limits on free speech, why can’t a bar owner who supports free speech have limits too?”
But the former supports free speech involving ideas. The latter doesn’t. You never had an idea in your head, so you probably don’t know what I am talking about.
“why Turley’s massive hypocrisy is so obvious “
It is not surprising that you make such a comment. Turley has explained his own idea of free speech and is an expert on the subject. Do you realize how unintelligent you sound?
S. Meyer,
“Free speech doesn’t necessarily include foul language and other things.”
It always includes foul language and other things. It’s all protected speech. Even racist speech. Comedians prove it all the time. You didn’t know that?
“Do you not understand the difference between political speech and other types?”
Speech is speech S. Meyer. You’re free to say anything you want. Turley being a free speech absolutist is obligated to allow even racist speech. But he clearly won’t allow openly racist speech despite the fact that it is protected speech under the 1st amendment.
“But the former supports free speech involving ideas. The latter doesn’t. You never had an idea in your head, so you probably don’t know what I am talking about.”
Openly racist comments also involve ideas having a view against trans and Bud light supporting it is also an idea. That you can’t make that distinction shows how much you don’t think at all.
S. Meyer, you may be very stupid, but you sure are very entertaining read.
Svelas, Alan is both intelligent and entertaining. Alan is the wingman of truth and light.
I think the professor simply wants us to be civil. It is but a short step from uncivil to disorderly conduct, and free speech needs a safe space where reason prevails, not emotion or intimidation.
You like safe spaces, do you not? How about a space where people can speak respectfully without being shouted down, silenced, or threatened by college sophomores with their skulls pumped full of self-righteous BS?
I don’t know all the ins and outs of a private proprietor’s obligation to free expression, but the bar keeper should have no difficulty demanding civility without demanding silence. Perhaps he can’t handle the truth.
Thank you Diogenes. I am blushing.
“It always includes foul language and other things. It’s all protected speech. Even racist speech. Comedians prove it all the time. You didn’t know that?”
Look pinhead, free speech is a concept. It is not just two words put together. You know very little, do not research, and have little critical thinking skills.
What is ‘free speech’? Speech that is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Why do I say that? If you could think you would ask yourself, when was that phrase first used? Unfortunately, you are too stupid, so I will answer the question. 1765
Do you see the proximity to the Constitution of the United States? I don’t know if your brain can put 2+2 together.
That means free speech is not what you think it is. It is defined and has limitations. Keep on with your stupidity.
Question: “Do you not understand the difference between political speech and other types?”
Svelaz responds: “Speech is speech S. Meyer.”
Another example of your brainless stupidity. You are wrong. When the founders thought of free speech, they were most concerned with political speech. Read the Declaration of Independence. Read a history book. Go outside. Do anything but continue to speak your stupid thoughts. My youngest grandchild knows more than you and could figure this out with a bit of assistance. You can’t.
One of my favorite things the hypocritical left does is say things like, “we are tolerant…and we won’t allow those with whom we disagree to come here”. Or, “we are tolerant and we won’t abide the intolerant”. Or, “we are for free speech…and that is why we are banning your from speaking here”.
Hullbobby, it’s always funny how stupid the right is. “One of my favorite things the hypocritical left does is say things like, “we are tolerant…and we won’t allow those with whom we disagree to come here”. Or, “we are tolerant and we won’t abide the intolerant”. Or, “we are for free speech…and that is why we are banning your from speaking here”.
Turley is intolerant of openly racist comments but declares himself to be a free speech absolutist. He will censor openly racist speech and vulgarity. He’s all for civility and order in his blog, and supports free speech with all his heart, but won’t allow discussions involving openly racist comments and vulgarity. A bar owner who supports free speech is no different than Turley. He is all for free speech, but won’t tolerate discussions about Bud Light and the transgender controversy. He KNOWS drunks will get out of hand in a bar where there CAN be destruction of property, fights, and obnoxiously loud rambling about the issue.
Turley’s ban on openly racist comments are no different than what the bar owner is doing. Turley doesn’t want his blog to become a racist filled rant-o-rama and an insult ridden free for all. If Turley, a free speech absolutist can have limits on free speech, why can’t a bar owner who supports free speech have limits on free speech?
Turley’s hypocrisy is no different than that of the bar owner he is chastising.
At one point on the timeline, the religious mindset was the supermajority. In an effort to suppress dissent, they literally suppressed dissent. Consent was not optional. Being called a heretic was not only bad for business, it could result in madness, mayhem and murder. The anti-religious are now in the majority in this country and much of Europe. How did they get there? In part, by repetitively and mercilessly slamming the religious, and their ways, and their tactics. Now that they’re there, one might suspect that they’d rule in a benevolent manner that asks us to embrace the freedom their efforts provided. Instead, they adopt the same exact tactics of suppressing, until consent in no longer optional. Anytime I hear someone, from either side, employing such tactics, I always want to ask, “Have you ever heard of the gentle art of persuasion?” There are always going to be some “You just can’t reach,” but if I were in the role of an influencer, my M.O. would be, if I can convince some of my virtuous battle, I might have a proverbial soldier in the fight.
“The anti-religious are now in the majority in this country and much of Europe. Not “anti-religious” just those who no longer need religion to understand reality. Those who understand and have come to realize that religion is not that important have become the majority. The hypocrisy of the religious made it easier to leave it.
“How did they get there? In part, by repetitively and mercilessly slamming the religious, and their ways, and their tactics.”
No, religion’s constant hypocrisy and need to control every aspect of one’s life is what ultimately made more and more realize it was just another form of tyranny that’s not needed.
Religion relies on weak minds and the gullible to survive. It’s as simple as that.
No, religion’s constant hypocrisy and need to control every aspect of one’s life is what ultimately made more and more realize it was just another form of tyranny that’s not needed. Religion relies on weak minds and the gullible to survive. It’s as simple as that.
Svelaz – you tell me I shouldn’t tell the truth that Dylan Mulvaney is a man and his ditzy antics are offensive to real girls and women, many of whom have said so. Then . . . you go an generalize and mock all religious believers – literally billions of people – using false characterizations of what they believe and do.
I’m not saying you don’t have a right to do that, but if you do, you are not exactly consistent or believable to someone like me.
Oldmanfromkansas,
“Svelaz – you tell me I shouldn’t tell the truth that Dylan Mulvaney is a man and his ditzy antics are offensive to real girls and women, many of whom have said so.”.
I didn’t say you shouldn’t tell the truth that Dylan Mulvney is a man. What I’m saying is you don’t seem to have any concept of making good use of your judgment. Doesn’t religion say don’t judge others unless ye be judged? Jesus told everyone to treat other as they would treat him. Right. Will you have called Jesus a homosexual freak because he had long hair? It’s true, no? He’s never been with a woman and always hung out with men. You wouldn’t treat Jesus like you’re treating Mulvaney would you ? What’s more true? You should treat others like you would treat Jesus? Or. How YOU see fit?
That’s the kind of hypocrisy that turned many away from religion. It was not Jesus, it was his nutty fans.
Svelaz – Dylan Mulvaney is a public figure. He intentionally made himself a public figure. I’m not judging him, I’m commenting on his actions and how they affect other people. I’m telling the truth. He’s a man. He pretends to be a girl and engages in ditzy antics. His antics are insulting to real women and girls. The modern American culture frowns on and tries to marginalize anyone who refuses to say Mulvaney is a woman. AB’s marketing campaign could have been predicted to fail. It was adopted by an ideological executive who was blinded by her ideology into thinking it would succeed. All of these things are true. I would treat everyone, including Jesus, the same way by telling the truth about them, unless it was confidential. Dylan Mulvaney, as noted, has made himself a public figure (and earned big bucks) by what he’s doing. Telling the truth about that isn’t breaching any confidences.
I’m not sure what to make of your reference to Jesus’s long hair. Why would you assume I would think any male with long hair is homosexual? That thought has literally never entered my mind. You’re making things up based on your incorrect assumptions about what I think.
I’ll answer your other comment about fat shaming below.
Oldmanfromkansas,
“Svelaz – Dylan Mulvaney is a public figure. He intentionally made himself a public figure. I’m not judging him, I’m commenting on his actions and how they affect other people. ”
LOL! you are judging him. You proudly admitted it was your prerogative and that’s true. Commenting on his actions and behavior without knowing who he really is IS judgment. It’s ok to judge someone Oldmanfromkansas, nobody is saying you can’t.
“The modern American culture frowns on and tries to marginalize anyone who refuses to say Mulvaney is a woman.”
It also frowns on people denigrating and shaming fat people, ugly people, people with mental illness. Society moves on and recognizes that those OLD sentiments are no longer acceptable. It makes you a member of the minority who holds on to the old beliefs that judging others and denigration is ok because they involve certain truths.
“AB’s marketing campaign could have been predicted to fail. It was adopted by an ideological executive who was blinded by her ideology into thinking it would succeed.”
It didn’t fail. It got plenty of free publicity and a foothold in a new market.
“ I would treat everyone, including Jesus, the same way by telling the truth about them, unless it was confidential.”
BS. You would cower in fear because he would be judging you based on how you treated others. I doubt Jesus would have been ok with your behavior, treating others as if they were freaks. Is Jesus a freak too? Would you tell him point blank to his face? I don’t think so.
It didn’t fail. It got plenty of free publicity and a foothold in a new market.
The company’s stock and sales are down, while competing beers’ sales are up by around the same amount. Real successful marketing campaign, eh?
You gotta lose some money to make more money sometimes. Success isn’t always instant.
Mulvaney is a 26-year old man, who pretends to be a little girl, not a woman. Just as “blackface” is considered offensive, shouldn’t “womanface” or “girlface” be too? And his antics are so ditzy that he offends real women’s intelligence. In short, AB decided to promote a beer to men and women by choosing someone whom men find repulsive and women find offensive. To express that reality is now “hate speech.”
oldmanfromkansas,
It is being reported he thinks it should be illegal to misgender people.
Something about by doing so, trans people commit suicide.
Oldmanfromkansas, so what if she chooses to identify as a woman? It’s the whole idea behind individual liberty and freedom, right? How does it affect you? She is an American citizen and has the right to choose to be and do whatever she wants just as you do. Nobody is mocking you for your choices. Should we? I assume you don’t like being judged, why is judging someone else more permissible than judging you?
AB is also considered a citizen of this country, corporations are citizens according to our conservatives in the Supreme Court, and they have every right to choose how they want to promote their beer. If you don’t like it you have the freedom to choose something else, right? Will drinking their beer turn you into a woman? Here’s the bigger question, are you man enough, assertive enough in your masculinity that you can still enjoy drinking their beer despite the marketing? Obviously if you’re upset that you can’t drink Bud light anymore because the marketing “ruined your experience”, enjoying….Bud light, does it mean that going for the “heavier” beer can restore some semblance of masculine order in your life? Would a nice warm Guinness with a beautiful head wash down the unease and guilt inducing stares from others because you’re drinking ANY light beer?
It’s funny how easy so many supposedly strong masculine men lost their minds when the very beer they “used to love”, light beer, made them into such Nancy boys. Maybe, just maybe it hit too close to the truth and they all got triggered That they are all more feminine than they’d like to admit and that’s scary. I mean some went as far as shooting up cases of beer. I guess using a gun was therapeutic reassurance for whatever little masculinity they had.
Svelaz – Thank you for your thoughts. I agree Dylan Mulvaney has the right to pretend he’s a girl, I would never deny that. At the same time, I have a right to point out that he’s not a real girl, and that his ditzy antics are insulting to real women and girls, which I know to be true (I’ve heard them talk about it).
The second part of your comment suggests people should not point these things out or mock them. You suggest that to do so is being judgmental.
Sorry, but Dylan Mulvaney is just one example among many in which contemporary American culture (media, academia, government, the entertainment industry) is trying to shame people who tell the truth about these things by calling them names like trans-phobe and bigot. I refuse to go along with such lies. If you don’t like me saying the things I say, don’t read my comments. I’m not going to stop saying them.
Finally, you seemed to miss the point of my comment to which you responded. I was calling out AB for using a marketing strategy that was sure to fail. I’m sure the shareholders and employees of AB are thrilled that this particular marketing executive elevated her ideology over what was good for business.
oldmanfromkansas,
Great comment!
Go woke? Go broke!
“At the same time, I have a right to point out that he’s not a real girl, and that his ditzy antics are insulting to real women and girls, which I know to be true (I’ve heard them talk about it).
Absolutely you can point it out as much as you wish. Just as you should be able to point out how disgusting fat people are and why they are ugly masses of human undesirables, right? You would be ok with going up to people and calling them ugly fatties, right? It should be encouraged, no? They choose to be fat and if they don’t like to be mocked or ridiculed they should just lose some weight, right? It’s their choice after all. I’m sure you would agree wholeheartedly. There’s nothing wrong with making sure they know how YOU feel about them.
“Sorry, but Dylan Mulvaney is just one example among many in which contemporary American culture (media, academia, government, the entertainment industry) is trying to shame people who tell the truth about these things by calling them names like trans-phobe and bigot. I refuse to go along with such lies. If you don’t like me saying the things I say, don’t read my comments. I’m not going to stop saying them.”
Just as anyone can just decide to call you a woman or address you using female pronouns because they want to you should have no problem with it, correct? You can just ignore their comments and move on, right? Even when people begin to assume you may be a woman, it ain’t gonna bother you at all?
AN chose to cater to a new market and it ended up exposing a bunch of thin skinned “men” into fits of…rage? Scared to be seen as “girly”? It won’t be long before they will “forget” about the incident and go back to drinking Bud light. I’m sure many quietly go home and crack open a cold refreshing Bud light in the privacy of their own homes.
Just as you should be able to point out how disgusting fat people are and why they are ugly masses of human undesirables, right? You would be ok with going up to people and calling them ugly fatties, right?
I’m glad you brought this up because it’s a good teaching example of a really bad comparison. First, I would never go up to Dylan Mulvaney and say anything to him. Even if I found an obese person disgusting, I would never say that to them. I’d keep my thoughts to myself. Mulvaney is a public figure, he is performing publicly, and I’m commenting on (a) his performance, (b) how that performance is perceived by women and girls, and (c) why it was predictable that choosing him to promote Bud Light would be bad business strategy.
The second weakness in the comparison is that my comments are directed, not to his actual characteristics, but to his false portrayal of who he really is. He really is a man, and his portraying a girl simply does not correspond to who he is. If a skinny person wore a fat suit, I might similarly point out that that person isn’t actually fat, but is portraying a fat person. If I thought that person was confused and thought he really was fat, I wouldn’t go up to him and say, “Buddy you’re confused, you’re actually skinny.” But if he started making money as a promoter of products by portraying a fat person in a really idiotic way, I would probably comment that people who really are overweight are offended by that portrayal.
Just as anyone can just decide to call you a woman or address you using female pronouns because they want to you should have no problem with it, correct? You can just ignore their comments and move on, right? Even when people begin to assume you may be a woman, it ain’t gonna bother you at all?
Again, this is a bad comparison because I’m actually not a woman. Dylan Mulvaney actually is a man. So you’re comparing apples and oranges. As for whether it would bother me, it would seem weird to me, but I don’t think it would “bother” me other than to the extent I’m bothered when people tell any lies. So, if people insisted the sun rises in the west, that too would seem weird to me, but it would only bother me if they insisted that I also affirm that the sun rises in the west.
And that leads to the bigger problem, namely, that the culture at large is trying to coerce people who know the truth, to participate in the culture’s lies. This tactic was used by the government of the USSR to demoralize the population and control it. The same thing is being done today in America by the promotion of radical trans ideology. I will not participate in the lie.
I’m sure many quietly go home and crack open a cold refreshing Bud light in the privacy of their own homes.
Since you have this inside knowledge of what people do in the privacy of their own homes, I guess you have nothing to worry about then.
Oldmanfromkansas,
“I’m glad you brought this up because it’s a good teaching example of a really bad comparison. First, I would never go up to Dylan Mulvaney and say anything to him.”
But you’ll gladly say it behind her back. You are judging her with impunity because you’re protected by the anonymity of being able to say things behind her back. That’s the worst kind of judging there is.
“I would never say that to them. I’d keep my thoughts to myself.”
But you don’t. You freely express them here and only because it’s easier to judge when you’re safe from being held responsible for saying it in public as yourself in front of people you know.
“Again, this is a bad comparison because I’m actually not a woman.”
It wouldn’t matter if you’re not a woman. The person calling you a woman wouldn’t care if you were not. All they want is to call you what they want to call you because they can.
“oranges. As for whether it would bother me, it would seem weird to me, but I don’t think it would “bother” me other than to the extent I’m bothered when people tell any lies.”
It would certainly bother you if it occurred often enough an knowing they were intentionally being disrespectful. You wouldn’t like that. Guess what neither would they. Your intention of being truthful about what’s in front of you is more about being disrespectful in a backhanded kind of way and that is obvious. You don’t like them and that’s fine. It’s perfectly ok to have that view. But using the “I’m just being honest” excuse to be disrespectful is only going to get you called out in it. They know why you’re doing it. You know why you’re doing it.
“And that leads to the bigger problem, namely, that the culture at large is trying to coerce people who know the truth, to participate in the culture’s lies.”
Not trying to coerce, trying to point out that everyone deserves some form of dignity and respect even if they are weird, nuts or believe in a god. As you said yourself, “I’d keep my thoughts to myself”. If you can’t afford to give them the tiniest bit of respect then follow your instinct, keep those thoughts to yourself.
Oldmanfromkansas, the contemporary American culture (media, academia, government, the entertainment industry) is not trying to shame people who tell the truth about these things by calling them names like trans-phobe and bigot. It’s showing people who can’t exercise good judgment why they are not exercising good judgment and why they are making poor choices in airing those judgments. It’s not a crime or illegal. It’s just rude and inconsiderate. Just as it’s rude and inconsiderate to callout fat people and denigrate them for what they are. Do you think that’s ok?
Should we teach kids it’s ok to make fun of fat people, kids, how about stupid people and kids? It’s just telling the truth, right? Should kids be encouraged to be honest and call out truthfully what they see as true? Should we encourage kids to call an ugly person ugly to their face because it’s just the truth? It may be mean, but it’s true. We should be able to call retarded kids retarded because they are, right? It shouldn’t be shameful, right?
Just as it’s rude and inconsiderate to callout fat people and denigrate them for what they are. Do you think that’s ok? Should we teach kids it’s ok to make fun of fat people . . .
Again, a really bad comparison. Again, Dylan Mulvaney has purposely become a public figure making millions of dollars by pretending to be a girl. Nobody I’m aware of is advocating going up to his face and insulting him. But he’s the one who is insulting girls and women by portraying them as ditzy.
If someone said they identified as black and wore black face and acted like an idiot, and them made millions of dollars doing so publicly, and was endorsed in that performance by the President of the United States and many large corporations, people can rightly point out that, wait a minute he’s really white and he’s insulting blacks.
In such a situation, if blacks and other consumers boycotted the corporations sponsoring the person, would you compare that to in-your-face fat-shaming examples you keep bringing up? Perhaps you would, but it would a lousy comparison.
A 12 year old girl, not a woman. And he acted like a fool before he dressed up as a 12 year old and acted like a foolish little progressive girl. Watch you tube videos of him on Ellen, and The Price is Right. He wanted to be famous, and now he wants to jail people who don’t jump on the Trans bandwagon. Mental illness is a problem that YOU and yours are using to divide us more.
Wen Bars, so what? There are teenagers doing far more stupid things on YouTube.
Dylan Mulvaney can conduct HIS life as HE pleases – given that he does not actually harm others.
Just as I can call Mulvany HIM.
Just as Budweiser can honor him.
Just as AHB customers can boycott Budweiser for doing so.
AHB made a poor choice and they are paying for it.
They have disrespected and pissed off their customers.
You do not seem to grasp that Just as grown man can spend a year pretending to be a carciture of teenage girl
Budweiser customers can decide to have nothing to do with him or companies that support him.
Svelaz – you mock me and ohters for our choices all the time – as you have the right to.
And we mock you back – with far more justification – which we have the right to.
Just as AHB Customers have the right to mock Mulvany and to switch to Coors or Miller.
The fact that AHB is down 17-21% in sales in 2 weeks is pretty damning 0 considering that AHB has something like 70 different products.
Either BL sales are down far more than 21% or customers are boycotting ALL AHB products not just Budlight.
The left has won the culture war – as they should have, when they stuck to securing legal rights for minorities.
But as is typical of the left – you went WAY TOO FAR.
Personally I hate beer.
This has zero impact on me.
And only rarely drink alcohol, because it severly agrevates my heartburn and I do not like a good wine enough to ruin the rest of my night with heartburn.
So this is all no issue for me.
I personally have no real issues with Trans – so long as they stay out of those domains we have reserved exclusively for women – such as womens sports and HS locker rooms, as well as not seeking to sexually indoctrinate kids.
At the same time I find Mulvaney offensive. As some have said – he is engaging in “woman face”. Or more accurately “girl face”.
If that is your taste – fine. But do not try to force it on me.
And that is what AHB custormer are saying loud and clear.
Corporations are not citizens, they are not people. That is a legal fiction that was established more than 200 years ago.
The legal fiction exists purely to simplify the fact that corporations are the property of shareholders – who ARE people,
and have rights.
And people do not lose their rights because they act in concert with others.
Those of you on the left are the ones full of Schiff.
You can have a legal system where the legal fiction of corporate personhood does not exist.
But you can NOT pretend that because people have choosen to act as a group that the lose their rights.
Put simply rejecting the fiction of corporate personhod would not alter the fact that shareholder have rights and a corporation is just shareholders acting as a group.
Today it is those drinking bud light that have to endure the stares of others.
Those shooting Bud Light cans with asault weapons or running over them with steam rollers are not insecure in their masculinity.
They are having fun – a great deal, at AHB’s expense.
If you think that this is so impoant – go dring Bud Light yourself.
BTW All AHB products are being boycotted. Not just Bud Light.
This is pretty bad for AHB.
To Stem the flow they might have to release a TRump 2024 can or a Tucker Carlson Can, or an FJB can or a Lets Go Brandon Can.
Even that might not be enough.
They have already brought out the Clysdales, and american flags, and their hero Marine partriot CEO
all to no effect.
Whoppies calls for left wing nuts to step up has remained unanswered.
Even if this boycott ended tomorow – AHB will have lost a fortune.
But the worst problem is that the longer it lasts the less likely those they lost will come back.
Miller, Coors, etc are listening to Napolean
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. – Napoleon Bonaparte
I guess your rants about Phillips and Master Cake are because you are secretly a homophobe.
I guess your rants about Texas Porotect Kids are because you are actually a transphobe.
I guess your rants about DeSantis are because you secretly admire him,
I guess your rants about non-existant racism are because you are actually racist.
You don’t speak for all men and women. Some men may find Mulvaney repulsive and some women may find Mulvaney offensive. Other men and women do not find Mulvaney repulsive or offensive. Can you live with both opinions?
I don’t agree that being trans is analogous to blackface. Among other things, someone in blackface is not claiming to be Black, whereas a trans person IS claiming to be trans.
ATS, I am a Cynic. I believe Mulvaney found a way to profit at the expense of others.
He uses trans. You use deception.
S. Meyer, I doubt mightily that you practice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism_(philosophy)
David, based on the comments you make on this blog, why would anyone care what you think?
S. Meyer, because I am a wizard, i.e., a wise old man.
I have practiced acquiring knowledge for a lifetime, long by now.
David, I am glad you think highly of yourself. Someone needs to.
someone in blackface is not claiming to be Black, whereas a trans person IS claiming to be trans
Mulvaney is pretending to be a girl (not even a woman, but a girl). Whether he’s trans or not is beside the point. He’s pretending to be a girl, which he is not. I repeat, he is not a girl.
I’ve never watched Mulvaney. But if she’s actually trans (rather than cis pretending to be trans), then she’s not pretending. If you think she’s a “ditzy” trans, OK; it’s not as though there aren’t also “ditzy” cis women and girls.
oldmanfromkansas,
Why are you so convinced that Mulvaney believes himself to be a man and is just pretending to be trans? You can’t read his mind, so just what is it that convinces you?
As I’ve commented in our exchanges elsewhere, people may have different opinions but should be able to agree on facts.
Can you agree to the fact that people are born with diverse variations? Sometimes these are small variations like haircolor; sometimes these are more significant variations such as people born blind, or with dwarfism, or with a defective heart chamber, or missing a limb, or conjoined twins, or … (the list of possible variations is very long).
Can you agree to the fact that some people are born intersex?
Can you agree to the fact that some people are born with one of several sex chromosome variations (e.g., XXY, trisomy X, XXYY, XYY, XO)?
So with all of these variations, why are you so convinced that it’s impossible that anyone is trans?
Anon – I didn’t say it’s impossible to be trans. But even trans people are born either male or female. In my view they stay male or female – whatever they were born as – even after surgery, which doesn’t change their sex. I also didn’t say he is just pretending to be trans. I said he’s pretending to be a girl. He can see he’s biologically male any time he takes a shower. He is aware of that physical reality (I’m assuming his eyesight works reasonably well). He used to try to get attention as a gay man. I believe he is a gay man. He is also going public with incredibly ditzy antics that women and girls feel insulted by (I’ve heard women talk about it). I will never comply with a culture that tells me I have to affirm that he’s a woman or a girl. That would be a lie.
Now . . . about those letter combos – can you give me some informational, non-biased, source to learn more about them? I’m genuinely interested to know what that’s all about, but I doubt it would change my view on humans being either male or female. I don’t deny some people are gay from early childhood, but that’s a different matter which is fairly complex.
Kansas Elder, actually not *everybody* is ‘either male or female’. There are a few hermaphrodites. There are even more whose mind does not agree with their equipment, and it doesn’t appear possible to change their minds.
Here’s a bit more info about the frequency of intersex conditions:
https://isna.org/faq/frequency/
That website looks useful more generally.
There are a few hermaphrodites.
True, but the number is minuscule and doesn’t change the basic definition of what a human being is. To make a comparison: a baseball game has nine innings, or I should say at least nine innings since it can go into extra innings. On a very rare occasion it’ll be rained out in the 8th or 9th inning and, in such cases, it’s considered a legit game because there have been at least 7 full innings. That doesn’t change the basic definition of the game of baseball as having at least nine innings.
It’s not a minuscule #.
Depending on how one defines intersex, estimates are as high as 1 in a 100 Americans are intersex (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/16324-intersex). But even if you go with a much lower estimate of 1 in 5500, “restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female,” that’s still ~60,000 Americans.
Something that is a low % can still be a sizeable number if you’re looking in a large population.
Kansas Elder, actually not *everybody* is ‘either male or female’. There are a few hermaphrodites
And there is a reported case of a CalTech PhD grad, albeit 1960s, who argued that atmospheric carbon dioxide ppm adheres to the basic sciences and human life. He never learned about Dalton’s Law, Boyle’s law, that the bulk flow of air down pressure gradients explains how air is exchanged between the external environment and the lungs. Breathing entails alternating dynamics of high and low pressure in the lungs. Furthermore this poser from CalTech argued that atmospheric pressure at sea level (760 mm Hg) is vastly different from atmospheric pressure in an elevated city like Spokane (~759 mm Hg +/- 4 mm). Any scientist knows that these are insignificant considering oxygen has an atmospheric partial pressure of 160 mm Hg, drops to 100 mm Hg upon inspiration, which, per Boyle’s Law, drives it to red blood cells in the capillaries surrounding alveoli. Arterial blood contains Oxygen with a partial pressure 100 mg. This all happens precisely because carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are nill.
Happily, he is an outlier, just like hermaphrodites. Scientists and intelligent people never argue from the position of outliers.
David, you should consider registering for an online basic chemistry course to become familiar with Boyle’s Law. Maybe you can find a hermaphrodite to sit with you.
Estovir, but I grew up in Los Alamos, NM, where the average air pressure is only around 77.2 kPa, to use proper scientific units.
And PV=nRT to you, too.
Re: what you call “letter combos,” here’s one discussion: https://www.childrenscolorado.org/conditions-and-advice/conditions-and-symptoms/conditions/x-y-chromosome-variations/
When you say “even trans people are born either male or female,” how do you determine whether someone is male versus female? For example, do you believe it’s determined solely by their sex chromosomes? Do you believe it’s instead determined solely by the existence of a vagina or a penis? Do you believe that it’s some combination?
For example, according to you, is an intersex person male, or is that person instead female, and what’s the basis for your determination?
“I also didn’t say he is just pretending to be trans. I said he’s pretending to be a girl.”
What’s the difference for you when you’re talking about a male to female trans person? It sounds like you’re saying Mulvaney’s brain cannot possibly be telling Mulvaney that they’re female, or if it is, the brain is wrong. Am I understanding that correctly?
“He can see he’s biologically male any time he takes a shower.”
How do you know what Mulvaney sees? People are born with all sorts of variations: https://www.urologists.org/article/conditions/intersex-conditions
But suppose that Mulvaney’s brain tells them that they’re female, and their body was born with a penis. Why do you preference the information from the penis over the information from the brain?
It’s certainly possible that Mulvaney is knowingly lying, and their brain isn’t telling them that they’re female. But “possible” doesn’t mean “guaranteed.”
Do you believe it’s instead determined solely by the existence of a vagina or a penis?
Yup.
But suppose that Mulvaney’s brain tells them that they’re female, and their body was born with a penis. Why do you preference the information from the penis over the information from the brain?
Because the physical is real, whereas the mind can get confused. If Joe’s brain tells him he’s a cat, but his body is human, I conclude he’s human, and that his mind is confused.
In the old days, when the mind and body disagreed, it was considered a problem with the mind and it was treated as such. Now it’s considered a problem with the body and the body is mutilated. In my opinion, the prior approach was the right one. There’s a book about that. I doubt you’ll be interested but just in case, here’s a link:
https://www.crossway.org/books/the-rise-and-triumph-of-the-modern-self-hcj/
And thanks for your links, I’m looking at them now.
“Yup. [I believe it’s instead determined solely by the existence of a vagina or a penis] … the physical is real, whereas the mind can get confused.”
There’s a physical brain in each person’s head. The mind is no less physical than the person’s reproductive system. And it may be that the mind understands better what gender that person is that the person’s reproductive system. As I pointed out yesterday, we’re learning more about the biology of trans people, such as: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205084203.htm
Also, what about someone who is born intersex?
“In the old days, when the mind and body disagreed, it was considered a problem with the mind and it was treated as such.”
And in the old days, when the person’s body and sexual orientation “disagreed,” it was also considered a problem with the mind, and the person was shamed for being gay. The old days are not so great in many ways. Biology is more complex that many people want to admit.
“the body is mutilated”
Which of the following do you consider mutilation: circumcision? when someone who identifies as female has a breast augmentation or breast reduction? when someone who is born with a micropenis has surgical enlargement? when someone with clitoromegaly has reduction done? tattoos?
How do you distinguish between what you consider mutilation and what you find acceptable intervention?
“If Joe’s brain tells him he’s a cat, but his body is human, I conclude he’s human, and that his mind is confused.”
That isn’t a valid analogy, as a human embryo never develops into a cat. But a human embryo CAN develop into someone who is blind, or someone with a heart defect, or someone who is intersex, or someone with dwarfism, or someone with sex chromosome variants, or … or … or any other of the very human variations. Instead of pretending that your false analogy is valid, deal with the actual human variations that occur. Deal with the complexity of actual human biology.
The mind is no less physical than the person’s reproductive system. And it may be that the mind understands better what gender that person is that the person’s reproductive system.
The brain is no less physical than the person’s reproductive system, but the mind is. The mind is the whole area of a person’s thoughts, emotions, and self-concept. The self-concept can be non-aligned with the physical body, and in that case the self-concept, while it exists, it does not correspond to objective reality. Just as my concept of how many people live in New York City can exist, but be different than the actual number of people who live there.
The old days are not so great in many ways.
True, and they were better than now in other ways. I guess my point is that I agree with how a mind-body disconnect was perceived then; I disagree with how it is perceived under the current modern thinking, which ultimately goes back to Rousseau and Enlightenment thinking, which was flawed. It’s a long subject not fit for a single comment.
As for what I would label mutilation: I can’t give you a comprehensive list or evaluate every one of your examples. What I can do is tell you a few examples of what I believe is and isn’t. Circumcision: no, that is more akin to cutting one’s nails than chopping off a finger. But the following are yes: chopping off a male’s genitalia; female genital mutilation as practiced by certain religious sects; chopping off a girl’s breasts. If there is a cancer that makes mastectomy necessary, so be it. If it’s minor breast reduction or augmentation, so be it. But chopping off a healthy girl’s breasts just because, in her adolescence she expresses confusion on gender issues, that is beyond the pale.
That isn’t a valid analogy, as a human embryo never develops into a cat.
It’s not a perfect analogy, but it illustrates the point. The point is that what a person thinks he is, isn’t necessarily what he actually is. Pressuring me to call a man a woman just because he (erroneously) thinks he’s a woman is qualitatively similar to pressuring me to call him a cat because he (erroneously) thinks he’s a cat.
“The brain is no less physical than the person’s reproductive system, but the mind is.”
The mind has no existence except as a function of the brain. The mind is as physical as the brain is. The “thoughts, emotions, and self-concept” correspond to brain activity.
“The point is that what a person thinks he is, isn’t necessarily what he actually is.”
Granted, people sometimes believe things about themselves that aren’t true, but I don’t agree that it’s as simple as you’re making it out to be, precisely because there are so many ways in which human development can diverge from what’s most common. It’s a fact that sex chromosome variations exist. It’s a fact that brain development varies. It’s a fact that some people are intersex. I think some people’s brains are telling them that their body doesn’t match their brain, and unlike you, I preference what the brain tells them over what the reproductive system is. Our brains are the center of who we are as people. A man can be castrated and remain a person, but you cannot cut out someone’s brain and have them remain a person. One person can have two hearts, but if you have a single organism with two brains, you’ve got conjoined twins. Brain death is death of the person. …
This is correct.
I preference what the brain tells them over what the reproductive system is.
What you’re saying is that, if a person’s brain enables them to think they’re something they’re not, you’ll go with what they think rather than what they actually are. Or maybe you’re saying what they actually are is, in fact, whatever they think they are.
I’ll never be able to affirm that type of reasoning. It gets rid of reality as an objective fact, and makes it subjective – subject to whatever the person thinks reality is. That sounds kind of eastern and new-agey to me. I will never embrace that way of thinking.
The mind has no existence except as a function of the brain.
Apparently we disagree on fundamentals, at a metaphysical level. I believe the brain enables thought, but that the whole area of thoughts, emotions, and self-concept are part and parcel of the soul, which – while enabled by the physical brain – are not to be conflated with the physical brain.
oldmanfromkansas,
I’m saying that what they think they are … may be what they actually are. One of the research articles that I noted earlier — https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/ — talks about how “the brain structures of the trans people were more similar in some respects to the brains of their experienced gender than those of their natal gender.”
There is no evidence that souls exist. It’s actually kind of ironic that you say “I’ll never be able to affirm that type of reasoning. It gets rid of reality as an objective fact” and then claim to believe in souls, when it’s not an objective fact that souls exist.
As for the neurosurgeon’s book, his brain didn’t “completely shut down” or “die.” He was in a medically induced coma, which isn’t brain death. There are some critiques of the claims listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_Heaven#Reception I’d have to read the book and the critiques to come to my own conclusion about it. But it’s striking that you accept what Alexander says about his experience yet don’t accept what trans people say about their experiences.
Brains have hallucinations in much greater frequency than the aberrations you present.
There is a book by a neurosurgeon whose brain completely shut down when he went into a coma. Yet his mind continued to work. He had a pretty wild experience, he could even see exactly what the doctors working on him were doing. It’s definitely worth the read since he’s a medical doctor with expertise in the brain.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/books/dr-eben-alexanders-tells-of-near-death-in-proof-of-heaven.html
Despite the title, it’s not a Christian testimony. Just the first-hand testimony of a (non-Christian) brain surgeon whose brain died and then came back to life.
Based on my year’s course on Psychobiology from Rodger Sperry, later Nobel Laureate in Medicine or Physiology, no, his brain did not “completely shut down”.
An interesting review, thank you.
Anon – I read the web page. It looks like there are a number of different combos, such as a boy with an extra X or a girl with a missing X, to name just two. It also looks like they are pretty rare. Do you know . . . is it possible to tell for a given person what whether their chromosomes have one of these abnormalities, say, just by examining their cells microscopically? Also, I’m hesitant to attribute the pronounced recent rise in trans persons to these abnormalities, as I don’t see why there would be a spike in them in recent times as compared to times past, and I don’t see why it would be regional. The number of kids claiming to be trans has increased dramatically since the iPhone and social media, and the more probable explanation is that they’ve been influenced and are seeking popularity. There are social pressures in a school environment where kids coming out as trans get celebrated and become popular, whereas cis-gendered get no such social brownie points. It doesn’t take much imagination to see how this influences adolescents who are insecure, confused, and desperately want social affirmation and popularity.
These variations are diagnosed with a genetic analysis. My impression is that it’s similar to the kind of analysis that would result in a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, except that sex chromosome variations occur on a different chromosome than Down syndrome (Down is result of triploidy in chromosome #21, whereas the sex chromosomes are #23).
Something can be “pretty rare” but also generate sizeable numbers when the overall population is large. For example, if a condition’s prevalence is about 1 in 1000, that’s still over 300,000 Americans.
“I’m hesitant to attribute the pronounced recent rise in trans persons to these abnormalities”
Me too. I’m simply pointing out that biologically, our bodies produce all kinds of variations. Given that there are variations in sex chromosomes, and there are variations in the development of sexual reproductive organs, why wouldn’t there also be variations in whether the brain and the chromosomes and the organs “match” or not. As for the recent rise, it’s certainly possible that some are people who aren’t actually trans but want attention. But I expect that the more significant number comes from people recognizing that they don’t have to be silent any more about being trans. As an analogy, consider how much stigma used to be associated with being gay (and depending on one’s family, that sometimes still exists). People who were gay didn’t say so openly. Now many more gay people are openly gay. I think the same is true for trans people: we’re in a period of time when it’s becoming more acceptable to openly speak about being trans, so we hear about more trans people not because they’re more numerous but because they feel freer to talk about it.
Anon – well said.
A spice shop owner in our area had a wonderful business. Then he decided to incessantly rant about politics on the company Facebook page. The next year he closed shop. He went out of business.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. People don’t care about your political stance if you are a business owner. They go there for a reason, they need or want something.
I would not go there for anything…except to burn the place down.
If you wish to burn someplace down, you wish to be a criminal.
What’s interesting is that the “hateful content” this bar won’t tolerate includes things like “women are being canceled.” You can agree or disagree but to basically deem any objection by women to the fact of every sports competition being won by males “hateful” is absurd.
We have seen in the news and even here on the good professor’s blog about a national divorce. MTG mentioned it, but after she did, one article pointed out that according to national census data and even recent IRS data shows a national divorce was already occurring before MTG’s comment. People have been leaving Blue states or cities for Red ones.
Is this the next step?
If you are critical of X,Y or Z you are not welcome.
If you do not support X,Y, or Z, this is not the establishment for you.
If you do support X, Y or Z then you are welcome.
Flip side, what if a bar quit selling AB products totally? Would we expect to see protests out side the bar? Bullhorns inside? Vandalism?
When will the right bring a lawsuit to make the bar comply as the left does when a baker declines to back a cake. Don’t conservatives have a right to be served in this public bar.
Anon – I doubt any such lawsuit will be filed. The bar is not the government, so there’s no first amendment issue. And public accommodation laws generally do not prohibit discrimination based on political viewpoint.
oldmanfromkansas,
I would argue that conservatives would just not go to the bar, rather than file a lawsuit.
You know, kinda like just change the channel.
Anon (AND) – this is yet another example of the gaslighting I was talking about. The bar owner gaslights conservatives and makes everything mean the opposite of what it actually means.
Actually the owner Mckinley is very eager to share his opinion on Bud Lite and other topics; he recommends you call at 812-824-8552 any time.
👍🏽
It’s similar in some ways to Turley. He claims to be a “free speech absolutist,” but he has Darren delete comments that are legal speech (e.g., from Bug). Do you also consider Turley to be a gaslighter?
Nothing more than avoiding, shaking the tree to keep the apples from raining down on his head. For the moment one still has the liberty to vote with one’s feet. there may come a time when we realize that there is no longer anywhere to run.
Bloomington, Indiana is the Hoosier stronghold of Austin, Texas. Not a lot useful things go on there anymore or on the IU campus. Most of the best Academics in the State migrate up to Purdue where they build rockets, aircraft and land many men on the moon, deal with the development of pharmaceuticals, world class research in Agriculture, Veterinary School (read human research mainly done by vets, esp drugs), Nuclear research.
As you get within 30 miles of Bloomington a brain cloud descends and causes muddled thinking. If you leave quickly it is unlikely to be permanent.
For a while I lived in a small town dominated by a large university. It was an island of deep blue surrounded by counties that were mostly red. People in the town – even (and especially) the liberals – referred to it a “ten square miles surrounded by reality.”
Gotta be Ithaca, NY
I would have guessed Ann Arbor.
It could be Ithaca, Ann Arbor, Madison, Ames Iowa, Lawrence Kansas, or any number of similar places. But wise lawyer’s guess is a particularly good one.
It figures. That is where John Mellencamp is from.
Meh, it is his bar.
Due to the location I am sure he will not feel any kind of economic downturn for his policy.
I would never step foot in it.
OT, but somewhat related, “Ultra Right” beer is doing record sales.
True it’s his bar, and he has a legal right to censor conservatives views. But I agree with the professor that it is infuriating because it is yet another example of leftist “logic” that makes everything the opposite of what it is, and gaslights anyone to the right of Fidel Castro. It is legal, but it is one more pinprick among thousands causing the death of thought and culture in the west.
This has probably already been pointed out, but the hit to his bottom line has been sufficient that he has issued a couple of FB posts begging for people to return to the bar.
Minniefield made a calculated business decision. He owns a bar in a big college town. Actually, he was smart to adopt the hard woke temper tantrum policy of banning opposing points of view with which they disagree. I hear that Bullhorns are a hot commodity in Bloomington these days. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
That bar owner may have a great future ahead in the Democrat party. Heck, if AOC could go from bartender to House rep, there are really no obstacles — or standards — he has to worry about.
Bloomington, Indiana, home of Indiana University. Enough said.
Drink real beer – that’s the answer