Leftists: speech is brutality

As long as it fails to correspond to their version and values attached to speech. Any speech. All speech.

And to think we once had a First Amendment.

Stop. Did you realize that the United States is the only major Western country that does not have an official and onerous “hate speech” criminal law on its books?

In my mind, that bespeaks much more about all of those other countries than it does about the United States.

But isn’t some speech the equivalent of brutality? Can’t much of speech be the equivalent of brutality? Let’s consult a Leftist psychology professor.

When Is Speech Violence?

by Lisa Feldmann Barrett

Imagine that a bully threatens to punch you in the face. A week later, he walks up to you and breaks your nose with his fist. Which is more harmful: the punch or the threat?

The answer might seem obvious: Physical violence is physically damaging; verbal statements aren’t. “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

But scientifically speaking, it’s not that simple. Words can have a powerful effect on your nervous system. Certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sickalter your brain — even kill neurons — and shorten your life.

Wait. So can eggs. Cow farts. A blue ringed octopus. Loose lug nuts. The cargo door from a 747. A bee. Bad spinach.

If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech — at least certain types of speech — can be a form of violence. But which types?

There you go. Speech is in fact violent. With that in mind, I wonder just what kinds of speech Leftists will consider violent because, after all, the author is quite the Leftist herself? Moreover, who will make these weighty decisions?

This question has taken on some urgency in the past few years, as professed defenders of social justice have clashed with professed defenders of free speech on college campuses. Student advocates have protested vigorously, even violently, against invited speakers whose views they consider not just offensive but harmful — hence the desire to silence, not debate, the speaker. “Trigger warnings” are based on a similar principle: that discussions of certain topics will trigger, or reproduce, past trauma — as opposed to merely challenging or discomfiting the student. The same goes for “microaggressions.”

Ah, here we go. Safe spaces. Coloring books. Safety pins, trigger warnings and microaggressions. The only things truly required at universities any more are drool cups. And sippy cups.

The scientific findings I described above provide empirical guidance for which kinds of controversial speech should and shouldn’t be acceptable on campus and in civil society. In short, the answer depends on whether the speech is abusive or merely offensive.

Again: define “abusive.” In whose eyes? And who makes that ultimate determination?

What’s bad for your nervous system, in contrast, are long stretches of simmering stress. If you spend a lot of time in a harsh environment worrying about your safety, that’s the kind of stress that brings on illness and remodels your brain. That’s also true of a political climate in which groups of people endlessly hurl hateful words at one another, and of rampant bullying in school or on social media. A culture of constant, casual brutality is toxic to the body, and we suffer for it.

Wait. Are these hateful words. Is this an advocacy of violence?

A history of violence? On whose side?

What of the loving and peaceful Diablo College professor Eric Clanton? Correct me if I’m wrong, but this appears to be actual violence committed by a Leftist on camera.

Then there is Leftist professor Kevin Allred from Montclair State University who Tweeted last Friday night, July 28th: “Trump is a fucking joke. This is all a sham. I wish someone would just shoot him outright.”

What does that sound like to you? Just a wee tinge of violent speech? Enough to nut up a snowflake? Not necessarily for, you see, it is all quite topic-dependent.

To me it sounds like the environment one customarily encounters on any given campus in the United States when any student, singly or in a group, begins speech which is conservative in nature. In this aspect Barrett makes a perfect point. But not the one she intended.

That’s why it’s reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a provocateur and hatemonger like Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at your school. He is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse. There is nothing to be gained from debating him, for debate is not what he is offering.

Let me unpack the obvious here, something few people point out. Milo is or isn’t anyone’s particular cup of tea. Frankly, I enjoy his willingness to display pushback right in the revered houses of “education” so unfailingly determined to restrict speech. But the reason debate isn’t generally acquired in a Milo campus presentation is because of two aspects: 1. He thinks on his feet with remarkable rapidity, and 2. He is quick to throw facts and situations back at the commenters and questioners in the audience. Leftists don’t operate in the sphere of facts but instead of emotions.

That was pretty emotional, I’d wager. Thanks, professor. Nice advocacy of violence.

By all means, we should have open conversations and vigorous debate about controversial or offensive topics. But we must also halt speech that bullies and torments. From the perspective of our brain cells, the latter is literally a form of violence.

Then Barrett encountered a problem. She appeared on the Tucker Carlson show.

Leftists are at least nothing if not consistent. They only deign to answer questions fitting their narrative. And certainly not the questions I posed as did Tucker: define abuse and tell me who becomes the ultimate determinant of same?

Leftists would resoundingly answer in unison to the one question: government should be the determinant by way of laws restricting speech. Damn that First Amendment.

Oddly enough an article exists in New York magazine countering Barrett’s argument.

Stop Telling Students Free Speech Is Traumatizing Them

by Jesse Singal

One fairly common idea that pops up again and again during the endless national conversation about college campuses, free speech, and political correctness is the notion that certain forms of speech do such psychological harm to students that administrators have an obligation to eradicate them — or, failing that, that students have an obligation to step in and do so themselves (as has happened during recent, high-profile episodes involving Charles Murray and Milo Yiannopoulos, which turned violent).

Agreed. Just ask snowflakes. I love that word. It’s so apropos.

So it’s weird, in light of all this, to see the claim that free speech on campus leads to serious psychological harm being taken seriously in the New York Times, and weirder still to see it argued in a manner draped in pseudoscience. Yet that’s what happened. In a Sunday Review column headlined “When Is Speech Violence?” Lisa Feldman Barrett, a professor of psychology at Northeastern University, explains that “scientifically speaking,” the idea that physical violence is more harmful than emotional violence is an oversimplification. “Words can have a powerful effect on your nervous system. Certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sickalter your brain — even kill neurons — and shorten your life.” Chronic stress can also shrink your telomeres, she writes — “little packets of genetic material that sit on the ends of your chromosomes” — bringing you closer to death.

Is this the same science to which Al Gore shakingly refers? The same science the Australian Weather Bureau used to cobble together false climate numbers?

This is a weak and confused argument. Setting aside the fact that no one will ever be able to agree on what’s “abusive” versus what’s “merely offensive,” the articles Barrett links to are mostly about chronic stress — the stress elicited by, for example, spending one’s childhood in an impoverished environment of serious neglect and violence. Growing up in a dangerous neighborhood with a poor single mother who has to work so much she doesn’t have time to nurture you is not the same as being a college student at a campus where Yiannopoulos is coming to speak, and where you are free to ignore him or to protest his presence there.

Thank you. Finally, someone points out the Captain Obvious aspects of campus speech and pretty much speech everywhere.

And that’s this. You have two legs and at least something of a brain. You can decide to leave the room, turn off the television, stop reading, leave the website, put down the magazine, turn off the iPad, etc. Any number of logical adult decisions can be made. Logical. Adult. Decisions.

This is apparently a concept with which Leftists, snowflakes, raindrops and all makes and models of emos are stultifyingly unfamiliar.

Nowhere does Barrett fully explain how the presence on campus of a speaker like Yiannopoulos for a couple of hours is going to lead to students being afflicted with the sort of serious, chronic stress correlated with health difficulties. It’s simply disingenuous to compare the two types of situations — in a way, it’s an insult both to people who do deal with chronic stress and to student activists.

Thank you. Again more shocking clarity and honesty.

Now, it would be just as much of a stretch to say that a single column like Barrett’s could cause students to self-traumatize as it would be to say that an upcoming Yiannopoulos appearance could traumatize them. But in the aggregate, if you tell students over and over and over that certain variants of free speech — variants which are ugly, but which are aired every moment of every day on talk radio — are traumatizing them, it really could do harm. 

Yes. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

And there’s no reason to go down this road, because there’s no evidence that the mere presence of a conservative speaker on campus is harming students in some deep psychological or physiological way (with the exception of outlying cases involving preexisting mental-health problems). This is a silly idea that should be retired from the conversation about free speech on campus.

From whom does trauma occur to others? Leftists.

From whom does violence on campus occur? Leftists.

Who cannot brook or tolerate opposing viewpoints, thoughts or exposition?

Leftists.

BZ

 

Thoughts on Garland

AFDI Garland EventOn Sunday night in Garland, Texas, two avowed Muslim gunmen, at the behest of ISIS (as ISIS is claiming), attempted to kill as many people as possible at the “Draw Muhammad” art contest held at the Curtis Culwell Center.  The center is owned by the Garland Independent School District, which took a huge risk in hosting the event.  I would suggest the risk was worth the exposure.

In response, one Garland Police Department traffic officer shot both gunmen dead with his issue Glock .45 semi-automatic pistol.  A security guard was shot in the leg and was subsequently discharged from the hospital fairly rapidly.

Jihadis 0, Garland PD 2.

Kudos to Garland PD for their response and caretaking of the event.

This “contest” was held at the behest of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, of which Pamela Geller is president.  Pamela Geller has a blog entitled Atlas Shrugs, which she has written for a number of years.  She is considered by some to be a hate monger, and the Southern Poverty Law Center (a hotbed of Leftists in any event) classifies her AFDI as an anti-Muslim hate group.  PayPal has branded her blog a “hate site.”

Pamela Geller is also the executive in charge of the Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA), which was instrumental in physically halting the planned Muslim “community center” to be built within short sight of 9/11’s ground zero in New York City.  This was an attempt, by Islam, to show the rest of the world how powerful it is, bringing down the Twin Towers and erecting a monument to Muslims adjacent.

Though things came out relatively well in Garland — who can fail to enjoy the schadenfreude inherent in sending two Jihadis to their virginal rewards — Geller was resultingly excoriated throughout the media and the nation for daring to hold the event at all.

She insists it’s about the First Amendment.

Many, in response, say she needlessly “poked the bear” and should be removed from public view, at the very least.

Others, like ISIS, have now indicated Pamela Geller is on their assassination list.  I’d submit Geller is not shocked to read or hear of this.

Bismillah Ar Rahman Ar Raheem posted:

To our brothers and sisters fighting for the Sake of Allah, we make dua for you and ask Allah to guide your bullets, terrify your enemies, and establish you in the Land. As our noble brother in the Phillipines said in his bayah, “This is the Golden Era, everyone who believes… is running for Shaheed”.

The attack by the Islamic State in America is only the beginning of our efforts to establish a wiliyah in the heart of our enemy. Our aim was the khanzeer Pamela Geller and to show her that we don’t care what land she hides in or what sky shields her; we will send all our Lions to achieve her slaughter. This will heal the hearts of our brothers and disperse the ones behind her. To those who protect her: this will be your only warning of housing this woman and her circus show. Everyone who houses her events, gives her a platform to spill her filth are legitimate targets. We have been watching closely who was present at this event and the shooter of our brothers. We knew that the target was protected. Our intention was to show how easy we give our lives for the Sake of Allah.

We have 71 trained soldiers in 15 different states ready at our word to attack any target we desire. Out of the 71 trained soldiers 23 have signed up for missions like Sunday, We are increasing in number bithnillah. Of the 15 states, 5 we will name… Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, California, and Michigan. The disbelievers who shot our brothers think that you killed someone untrained, nay, they gave you their bodies in plain view because we were watching.

The next six months will be interesting, To our Amir Al Mu’mineen make dua for us and continue your reign, May Allah enoble your face.

To those Death Bastards I respond: may Allah shite on your face.  And by the way, “wiliyah” means an authority.  Islam intends to take over the United States.  It intends to become the sole authority in the United States.  Uber alles.

Please understand: the wonderful thing about Islam is that it tells you precisely what it wants to do and how it means to do it.  You have to simply take them at their word.  Americans are stupid enough not to get the message.  I believe Geller understands the message.  Last time I checked, Geller isn’t packing.  She isn’t looking for people to kill.

AmjemISIS says they have 71 soldiers in 15 of our states already.  Frankly, I don’t doubt it; all they’d have had to do is get their ankles slightly moist, as our southern border — courtesy of Mr Obama — is wide open.

That said, where is it that I happen to stand?  A number of people have asked, via phone calls and texts and Twitter and emails.  They have said: “where is your post about Garland?”

So: here it is.

For me, it’s pretty simple.  I stand for the First Amendment.  And I stand for the Second Amendment as, without it, there would be and will be no First Amendment.

As an aside, that is why Leftists are doing their very level best to gut the Second Amendment, by attacking private firearm and ammunition ownership on every level, non-stop.

People — WesternersGOWPs — say we must take the “high ground” with regard to Islam and the kid-gloved handling of same.

I say: Muslims, Islamists, respect nothing but strength and iron will.  Anything less invites attack, which is why Islam attacked Bill Clinton and attacked America again under Bush.  Because there was no significant response.  Clinton had the opportunity to eliminate OBL and passed.  Islam learned: Paper Tiger.  Islam isn’t stupid.

Does no one realize that Islam was created by men, is lorded by men, commanded by men, directed by men, and barbaric men respect nothing but raw, naked strength?  Women mean little in Islam; they are chattel.  Islam had its birth in the Middle East, in a challenging physical environment where only the strong survived.  Islam had its birth in tribes, in nomads, in bedouins.  Western culture isn’t thinking like Muslims; it’s thinking like GOWPs who wish to sit down at an ebon table and have a quiet tea over logical issues.

That’s not how Islam thinks.

Americans think differently.  As well they should.

Any American is free to draw any damned thing they want at any time and in any venue.  That is why we exist as a nation, why our forebears fought in WWII, and why this nation was founded.  Our precious American flag is stepped on and burned.  But do we shoot those persons in the head?  Are we to be more offended by persons who draw cartoons than those who burn our flag?  Nobody tells us what we can draw.  Nobody tells us what we can say.  We are Americans.

To me, the ability to conduct Free Speech, anywhere, at any time, in these United States, is paramount.

The First Amendment exists not to protect pablum speech, milquetoast speech, convivial speech.  It exists to protect challenging speech.  The protection of the First Amendment was hard-fought, and it needs to protected by every fiber of our collective bodies.

People accuse: Pamela Geller was trying to be provocative.  She was trying to make a point.

I readily admit: yes she was.

Islam Death CultAnd she drew Islam into the spotlight, for those sufficiently cognizant to realize that Islam isn’t a religion, it isn’t a race, it is nothing more than a Death Cult.

She makes her point here:

Even Chris Cuomo, of all people, took the challenge:

In a discussion on the Mohammed Art Exhibit and Contest, Cuomo said to CNN Political Commentator Marc Lamont Hill, “Here’s the criticism on your side is that the left is afraid of saying anything offensive about Islam. You don’t feel like that about Christianity. You attack the Catholic Church all the time.”

Hill responded that this is “different,” because “when you have a critique of the Catholic Church, you say ‘the Catholic Church is x’, that’s a critical analysis. If you say ‘Islam has some issues with patriarch or Islam has some issues with sexuality,’ I think that’s also appropriate. But drawing the Prophet Mohammed for the sole purpose of violating something that is a principle –”

Cuomo interjected, “but you wouldn’t punish somebody for Piss Christ, you wouldn’t do it, but you won’t put, on the media pictures of Mohammed because you don’t want to upset Islam, but you’ll put pictures of Piss Christ.”

Here’s the difference between Christianity and Islam: Christians won’t kill you for the slightest perceived offense.

I stand with Pamela Geller.

BZ

 

Kudos to Garland PD

Islam In GarlandAn alert local law enforcement officer in Garland, Texas, stopped what could have been a mass killing and a “win” for the propagandists of Islam and ISIS.

From the UKDailyMail.com:

Former terror suspect well known to the FBI is named as one of two gunmen shot dead by cops after attack on anti-Islam ‘draw Muhammad’ art contest near Dallas

by Wills Robinson and Ted Thornhill and Lydia Warren
  • Two suspects were gunned down after shooting a guard in the leg outside the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland
  • The FBI has named one of the gunmen as Elton Simpson, who was convicted of lying to federal agents about traveling to Africa five years ago – but a judge ruled it could not be proved that he was going to join a terror group
  • Simpson’s Phoenix, Arizona home has been surrounded and a bomb squad is carrying out a search 
  • The American Freedom Defense Initiative event had offered a $10,000 prize for the best caricature of the prophet; local residents had expressed their concerns about the event but organizers said they were exercising free speech
  • The security guard who was shot, Bruce Joiner, was taken to hospital in stable condition and has been released 
  • One traffic officer shot both men dead and has been praised by cops for potentially saving many lives 
  • ISIS fighter claimed on Twitter that the shooting was carried out by two pro-ISIS individuals 

A former terror suspect has been named as one of the gunmen shot dead by police after two attackers blasted an unarmed security guard in the ankle during an anti-Islam art contest in Texas on Sunday night.

Two men armed with assault rifles and wearing body armor were killed by a quick-thinking traffic officer after opening fire outside the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Dallas, at around 7pm.

A senior FBI official has identified one of the men as Elton Simpson, who was previously the subject of a terror investigation, according to ABC News.

Simpson, identified in court papers as an American Muslim, had been convicted of lying to federal agents about his plans to travel to Somalia five years ago, but a judge ultimately ruled it could not be proved that he was heading there to join a terror group. He was placed on probation.

The second gunman has not been named but KPNX-TV reported that the two shared an apartment in Phoenix, Arizona.

Garland Attack TweetWas ISIS involved?  No one knows quite yet.  But ISIS propaganda claimed one of the involved Garland shooters was named “Shariah Is Light,” @atawaakul.

Just who was responsible?

Investigators also searched the car that the two gunmen drove to the scene and found luggage and further ammunition inside. Some of the belongings were destroyed as a precaution but no explosives were found inside the vehicle, Garland Police Officer Joe Harn said on Monday.

Ahead of the attack on Sunday evening, several Twitter messages were sent out, and authorities believe Simpson was behind them. The last one was shared just half an hour before the attack.

Followers of ISIS had been calling for an attack online for more than a week after learning that the competition in Garland would feature a ‘draw Muhammad’ art contest, with a prize of $10,000 for the best caricature.

After the attack, the SITE Intelligence Group reported that an Islamic State fighter claimed on Twitter that the shooting was carried out by two pro-Isis individuals.

Frankly, I believe that ISIS elements are in fact within our borders.  It would be quite stupid to think otherwise, considering our porous borders under quisling Barack Hussein Obama, lover of most things Islamic, eschewer of most things Christian.

Further, however:

The Garland Independent School district, who own the cultural center, allowed the event to go ahead despite criticism from residents and local Muslims that it was a risk to public safety. 

To that I say: major kudos to the Garland Independent School District for deciding to support the First Amendment here in the United States.  They made a decision that few other school districts would have had the balls to make: support American foundational documents and do so with bravery, clarity and honesty.

The additional take out of all of this?  It will not be the Feds nor FEMA who will “save you” as a First Responder.  It will be your local cops, plain and simple.

BZ