Featuring Right thinking from a left brain, doing the job the American Media Maggots won’t, embracing ubiquitous, sagacious perspicacity and broadcasting behind enemy lines in Occupied Fornicalia from the veritable Belly of the Beast, the Bill Mill in Sacramento, Fornicalia, I continue to proffer my thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to utilize their studio and hijack their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursdays, thanks to my shameless contract, as well as appear on the Sack Heads Radio Show each Wednesday evening.
Tuesday’s show featured Dan Butcher of High Plains Pundit fame and media magnate extraordinaire, who weighed in on an odd poll I found on CampusReform.org (a great place to find the newest manner of Leftist campus insanity unchained) as well as various Constitutional issues.
If you care to watch the show on YouTube, please click on start.
Next Thursday we’ll be speaking to The Underground Professor, Dr Michael Jones, about Constitutional issues and — a grand surprise — a member of the band Possessed Tranquility, the group that composed and recorded my intro song to this very radio show!
Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin(on Twitter @BZep and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.
As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening later via podcast.
Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives in podcast? Go here. Want to watch the past shows on YouTube? Please visit the SHR Media Network YouTube channel here.
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.
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.
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 sick, alter 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.
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?
Simply two examples of immature, pablum-spewing Leftist mouth-breathing bigots (def: a person intolerant toward those holding differing opinions) whose thoughts have no basis in reality, history or common sense. This, mom and dad, is what your money gets these days. You’ve heard of The Walking Dead? These are The Walking Ignorant. They look like people, but they’re simply pre-programmed.
Thank you, Tucker Carlson. Next up to bat.
WOW!AMAZING!Hillary Fan Rants Against Trump,Gets SHUT DOWN with 1 Perfect Common Sense Logic Question!Social justice warrior gets blown away pic.twitter.com/al10FFANxH
Whoever first coined the term “snowflakes” for the current crop of university babies set to “DELICATE” was a branding genius because the word fits so perfectly. Hence, my job being to fundamentally “change” America, one diaper at a time.
Just as Leftists in Europe via Angela Merkel and the the Leftists in DC via Pelosi, Soros and the DNC are all doubling down on ridiculous — clearly they have learned absolutely nothing from their recent experiences — so are Leftists on college campuses and universities, ably abetted by their professors and administrations.
Play the videos and gaze at the results of throwing good money away.
From the Middle East to Eastern Europe to Asia to Mexico, countries brace for major changes.
Donald Trump’s stunning election victory will provoke immediate tensions across several continents, and force Republican foreign policy elites to make quick decisions whether to work for a man most strongly opposed as unqualified, according to foreign policy experts and GOP insiders.
The mere fact of Trump’s election will produce political instability in Asia, Europe, the Middle East and Latin America, experts say, as world leaders scramble to prepare for potentially radical shifts in American foreign policy and brace for global financial panic.
Aaaargh, the sky is falling! Where are our My Little Ponies, our safety pins, our diapers, our safe spaces, our coloring books, our Play-Doh?
Oh wait. The sky wasn’t falling; in fact, the stock market completely rallied around Donald Trump and produced its first Dow of 18,000.
The sky isn’t falling. Unless you’re Iran.
That agreement was already under pressure in the run-up to Iranian elections early next year and Trump’s victory could deal a blow to moderate supporters of Obama’s signature foreign-policy agreement.
“I don’t actually think he’ll rip up the deal, but I also didn’t think he would win this election,” a senior Obama administration official said late Tuesday night.
Good news. Trump is going to rip the Iran deal a new arshole.
Foreign policy veterans may be in especially high demand at the State Department, where career foreign service officers have talked for months about whether they could serve under a President Donald Trump—a debate many considered academic but which now presents them with a grueling choice between their values and their country.
The prospect of mass resignations “is a real thing,” according to one career diplomat who has had several such conversations with State Department colleagues.
Note to Leftist State Department personnel: don’t let the door smack your betraying asses on the way out. You’re as replaceable as oil filters in a Yugo. There are young bucks who can’t wait to take your spots because, if for no other reason, your federal salaries are grand. Make your hashtag #StateResignationsRUs.
Further — and I simply cannot contain my glee — people at the EPA are likewise coughing up phlegm and new life forms entirely.
Americans cheer as Trump destroys the EPA without even trying
EPA staffers were in panic mode at the news of Donald Trump’s election victory.
In the wake of the president-elect’s promises of sweeping reforms at the bloated federal agency, employees were in tears and were offered counseling, E&E News reported.
“People are upset. Some people took the day off because they were depressed,” John O’Grady, president of American Federation of Government Employees Council 238, said. The union represents thousands of employees of the Environmental Protection Agency.
“People were crying,” O’Grady, who works in EPA’s Region 5 office in Chicago, added. “They were recommending that people take sick leave and go home.”
Your federal tax dollars at work, paying for those amoebic pussies to take time off work. On the other hand, EPA employees taking time off work = saving jobs for ranchers, farmers and people who actually labor for a living.
Trump had vowed to repeal many of the agency’s far-reaching rules enacted under President Obama, including the Clean Power Plan which cuts power plants’ greenhouse gas emissions. Trump’s EPA transition team will be lead by Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a top climate change skeptic.
“If you look at the seven stages of grief, I’m still in denial. I will not look at the news. I will not read the news,” one EPA employee said, according to E&E News.
“I think it’s a sadness and a worry about just how far someone will go, especially when you never believe anything he says,” an Energy Department staffer said. “Many of us have worked in both the Bush and the Obama administrations, and I don’t think that we feel like it will be like just going back to Bush again.”
Right. Because the EPA needs to regulate each and every rain puddle. It needs to regulate who can catch water in a barrel. It needs to regulate everyone for everything.