The Critics Respond, Part Forty-Five

Why and wherefrom the trigger warnings, and whose innocence or interest are they meant to comfort, defend, and preserve? Who is afraid of whom or of what, and why do the trumpetings of doom keep rising in frequency and pitch? — Lewis Lapham, “Petrified Forest”

It was just coincidence that I happened to finally get around to my newest issue of Lapham’s just after squabbling online with one of the Best&Brightest’s fussier members, but the contrast between the two could not be more stark. That goes for the men behind the statements as well. Lewis Lapham, as I don’t expect any of you to know, is the former editor of Harper’s and a Renaissance man whose intellect continues to shine brightly and forcefully although he is now in his ninth decade. “Arthur Dailey” is, by, a Canadian citizen who claims to be a wealthy human-resources executive and investor.

It is only reasonable that these two individuals would come at the free-speech issue from divergent, if not entirely opposing, places. “Arthur” spends his days protecting the interests of his company in a country where feelgood socialism tends to dominate the public discourse. Mr. Lapham, with his outstanding and thoroughly recommended current publication, seeks to discover truth and beauty by juxtaposing the best of classical and modern writing. He is also a staunch defender of traditional American values, if not necessarily friendly towards the Republican Party and/or the current President.

My sympathies are naturally with Lapham here. I’m an American by birth and culture. I believe in the unrestricted freedom of speech and in the latterly controversial idea that the truth is best discovered when no voice, however distasteful, is silenced. Towards that end, I believe that nothing should be held as sacred or above discussion — even if, in a bit of an ouroboros-esque twist, we are talking about free speech itself. So lets give Arthur’s ideas a workout, shall we?


The above quote by Arthur is excerpted from several reactions on his part to the use of the phrase “frat-mattress” in a TTAC piece written by brother Bark. This phrase, which appears tens of thousands of times on the Internet in pieces by men and women both inside and outside the so-called Greek system, is commonly understood to refer to a woman who will have sex with pretty much anybody as long as they are part of a particular fraternity, or part of the Greek system in general. If you attended, or are attending, a school with a significant Greek presence, chances are that you know someone like this. It’s worth noting that the phrase implies consent as inherent to the concept. A woman who is sexually assaulted at a fraternity is not a “frat mattress”. In order to get that name, you have to come back to the house every weekend of your own free will.

Let me for the record state that I don’t think much of traditional social fraternities or sororities. I had some brief acquaintance with the system in school and I never saw it do any good for anybody. There was a lot of cruelty, a lot of drunken behavior, a lot of peer pressure to do awful things to yourself and to other people, not to mention some remarkably unpleasant consequences handed out seemingly at random to people who probably did not deserve them. During my freshman year I had two friends who spent a total of five days in the ICU from acute alcohol posioning. I also knew of a few women who were pressured into making choices that they later regretted.

With all of that said, I can’t say that I’d consider “frat mattress” any more deserving of a “hate speech” label than, say, “track rat” or that beloved sobriquet of the modern age, “bro”. In fact, I’d argue that “frat mattress” is less hateful than “bro” or “tech bro” or “brogrammer”, because the former implies some specific choices made again and again while “bro” is commonly thrown at anybody who has the nerve to be white and male in public.

At some point in the argument, “Arthur” claims that

Third, freedom of speech is not an absolute. As we all have seen/learned hate speech is not protected. And in the jurisdiction that owns/publishes this site, there are strict rules regarding written/spoken harassment in the workplace. The type of pejorative phrase used, falls under that definition and under the applicable statute, anyone can then make a complaint regarding it. The editor should probably not have allowed that phrase to have been posted.

Arthur may well be right about the law in Canada, but here in the United States we don’t have to follow the rules of Justin Trudeau’s Technicolor Dreamcoat. Let me tell you what the Supreme Court just unanimously said:

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

That opinion was written by Justice Kennedy, who is not exactly a right-winger. So while Arthur is free to play Thought Police in Canada, here in the States he’s free to go fuck himself.

Of course, things get stickier when we consider that TTAC is owned by a Canadian media corporation. Canadian laws prohibit discrimination based on… this is gonna be a long list, so hold on… “race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, creed, political opinion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, age, and conviction for which a pardon has been granted.” You may not publish anything that discriminates against any of those people.

Does “frat mattress” qualify here? It seems to me that in order for it to be hate speech, as Arthur notes, somebody who feels discriminated against by the phrase would have to complain. In other words, somebody would have to step forward and say that “I, STATE_YOUR_NAME, am an Audi Q3 owner who engaged in promiscuous behavior with the members of an entire fraternity, and I am offended by being called a ‘frat mattress’ as a consequence.” And then the court would have to determine if “frat mattress” is offensive under any of the above categories.

Arthur also says,

Hanging epithets on a group of people based on their age, race, gender, religion or mental/physical abilities can fall into the realm of hate crime. Free speech is not dependent on someone’s ability to ridicule or bait others based on the above factors. The suppressors of free speech first dehumanize or hang appellations on their victims/targets. Therefore allowing hate speech is a precursor to censorship.

“Frat mattress” has nothing to do with age, race, gender, religion, or mental/physical abilities. By contrast, “brogrammer” almost always implies white man with above-average mental abilities, but that’s neither here nor there. The fact of the matter is that Arthur can’t hang the “hate speech” tag on “frat mattress” using any commonly-accepted definition. Which is how we get to the part that I’ve bolded above. Arthur seems to feel that allowing hate speech is a precursor to censorship. If other words, if you don’t censor people, it’s a precursor to censorship. But if you censor them, then you won’t have that precursor to censorship, because you’ll already have censorship, so you won’t need it. All roads lead to censorship! It’s censorship turtles all the way down!

Now that we’ve established that Arthur has no case in Canada (where TTAC is managed) or in the USA (where Bark writes and where the vast, vast, massive majority of TTAC readers reside) we’re free to disinter the true reason behind Arthur’s complaints. As far as I can tell, it boils down to this: Arthur doesn’t believe that women have sex with a lot of guys in a fraternity and he has some fairly odd ideas about sex and gender. At one point he writes,

Rather than descend into a ‘pissing contest’, I will state that over the decades I have come to know or become friends/associates with a number of extremely well known, powerful, accomplished men from 2 generations who have demonstrated over and over again that what you wrote regarding ‘swordsmen’ has little to no actual relationship to their real actions and is more reflective of a rather sad view of reality, embraced primarily by those on the bottom rung of the socio-economic ladder.

This is a dish of pure masturbatory fantasy with a side of envy tossed in for good measure and a little garnish of anecodote-as-data on the side. To be forthright, and to engage in speculation no more absurd than what you see above… I see this mentality most often in older men who have very little experience with women. They desperately need to believe a bunch of pretty little lies about women, sex, and relationships because those lies help them maintain their self-image.

I can’t control what goes through Arthur’s head, but here at Riverside Green we like to live in reality. And here’s reality for you: A lot of people have a lot of sex without giving much thought to the matter. Some women have commitment-free, no-last-names, no-first-names-sometimes sex with fifty or a hundred men in college and then they go on to get married to good, decent men who pay all the bills and buy McMansions and they refuse to have sex with those good, decent husbands on any night but the second Friday of the month and you know what? That’s their right as free human beings. And sometimes people will call them “frat mattresses” not because they are a particular color or gender but because of their behavior and you know what? That’s not hate speech. No amount of wishing will make it so.

In a way, I envy Lewis Lapham. He won’t live to see the day when we, as a country and a people, give up on free speech entirely. He won’t live to see what happens to a world where the mere accusation of hate speech is enough to make somebody an unperson. Most of all, he won’t be around to witness the day when the Bill of Rights are all replaced by the single Right To Not Be Offended in much the same way that Christ wiped out the Mosaic Law with his single commandment. Lewis was born in America and he’ll die in it. The rest of us will die in The World According To Arthur Dailey. Unless we all decide to do something about it, and sooner rather than later.

46 Replies to “The Critics Respond, Part Forty-Five”

  1. MrGreenMan

    Oh, no!

    You hang a label on someone based on behavior.

    The horrors!

    There are definitions floating around of several -isms that are dominant on the left and paternalistic in their view of people that amounts to infantilizing members of X group by trying to use public policy to insulate them from the consequences of their own actions.

    A frat mattress (or a track bunny, or the community bike, etc) goes there as a fully-empowered adult seeking to engage in specific behavior; who are we to deny her agency in those choices?

    Reply
    • RTR

      Jack, don’t be overly concerned. Arthur is most likely a Toronto Liberal SJW type (oops there’s a label again) whose opinions are nothing more than virtue signalling – in this case, to an audience who doesn’t give a damn.

      Best,

      R

      Reply
  2. Shrug

    As someone who considers themselves to be fairly left of center on the political spectrum, the notion of many of my fellow lefties that Everyone Has to Think What I Think or They Are Actual Genocidal Nazis is exhausting.

    There aren’t many instances where I think SCOTUS has been mostly correct; the implementation of the 1st is, however, is one such area. The idea of free speech, no matter how repugnant or ridiculous, is far too critical to whatever pillars the US stands on to be so heavily policed in accordance to the political view of the day.

    Reply
  3. hank chinaski

    Arthur sounds like the type who would run a struggle session.

    Helicopter rides for all of them.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, my schedule is for the fourth Friday. Sha-wing!

    Reply
  4. Ignorant About Women

    Despite my username, I am suspect that the most frequent users of the term are sorority women, followed by the women themselves. Is the geezer not aware that “music groupie autobiography” and “athlete groupie autobiography” are distinct subgeneres of women’s writing? Who does he even think he’s protecting anyway?

    Works Cited:
    Blasi, Rosa. Jock Itch: The Adventures of a Retired Jersey Chaser

    Des Barres, Pamela. I’m With The Band.

    Des Barres, Pamela. Take Another Little Piece of My Heart.

    Des Barres, Pamela. Rock Bottom.

    Des Barres, Pamela. Let’s Spend the Night Together.

    Williams, Stefanie. Chasing the Jersey

    Reply
  5. Hogie roll

    Was in a fraternity at an engineering school. Frat mattresses most definitely exist. I could only imagine the number available at a larger school with a balanced or skewed number of women. A group of men preselected for quality traits all concentrated in one place is truly a sluts wet dream.

    The truest words ever about sluts: they don’t fuck any guy, they fuck any alpha guy. The bitterness and anger comes from the betas not in on the party. I know because I’ve been on both sides.

    Reply
  6. Dirty Dingus McGee

    Captain Saveaho to the rescue. Cue the theme music.

    While he finds the term frat mattress repugnant, I doubt he has the same opinion of the term “biker slut”, due to their position on the socio-economic ladder. I would also bet a dollar against a dog turd, that if he was to go to Sturgis, Daytona, or even a local weekend biker rally, he would be horrified by the amount of women that have no problem “showing their tits”, or in many cases even showing more.

    Reply
  7. -Nate-Nate

    Wait, what ? .

    Does this mean I should stop saying “doorknob” because sooner or later every one gives her/him a turn ? .

    Somehow that doesn’t seem right .

    BTW : those who like me are beta males, stop crying constantly and pretty soon you too will have more sexual partners than you ever imagined could possibly occur .

    You might not like that many won’t be super models but that’s the way the mop flops .

    -Nate

    Reply
  8. Ronnie Schreiber

    I’m just mystified how some women act like their pussies are made of gold and others will meet a complete stranger to get banged in their backyard because “it sounds so hot”. If female hypergamy is true, it could be the same woman.

    Reply
  9. Athos

    There are places in this wide earth where “hate speech” is an actual offense. Punished with jail or death, depending on how far to the left the government sits.

    Of course, in those places, true hate speech spewed by the government = GOOD. Anything the government doesn’t like = hate speech = BAD.

    Free speech is free speech, once you start attaching exceptions to it (be it legally or extra legally), it ceases to be free.

    Reply
    • Deadweight

      Whether it’s a moron on the extreme- right or extreme-left, or just an unidentified moron, period, there are few things more critical than the necessity to protect the 1st Amendment and the general and nearly absolute right (one of few exceptions would be akin to yelling “Fire!”in a crowded theater as a prank, given the risk it would lead to imminent, serious bodily harm in the ensuing panic) of smart, nice, average, boring, idiotic, hateful etc people to utter whatever they wish (again, subject to exceedingly few restrictions, designed only to kick in if and when speech is likely to lead to physical actions that will lead to imminent, serious bodily injury; such speech is very rare, but I suppose it happens once every decade or so, somewhere – maybe).

      Reply
      • jz78817

        The first amendment has nothing to do with anything posted on TTAC. It places no limits on what VerticalScope can decide they want hosted on their privately owned servers.

        Some of you erroneously seem to think “free speech” means “freedom from being criticized for what I say.” It does not and never has.

        Reply
        • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

          Jim,

          You’re right of course although a) Arthur was speaking specifically of legal matters and b) we are heading towards the day when at least the major social networks will be legitimately and properly treated as common carriers.

          Reply
          • jz78817

            umm, yeah, I wouldn’t hold your breath about b) happening anytime soon, especially under this FCC.

  10. WheeTwelve

    I love the idea of pre-emptive censorship. Progress-ive indeed. Perhaps we can reduce all languages to simple grunting. I wonder if Neanderthals had censorship?

    Reply
  11. John C.

    It is scary to think how far Canada has fallen in terms of free speech. Canadian ownership’management of a media outlet must be a big detriment to a place like TTAC retaining quality writers. Interesting that those who just regurgitate press releases seem to thrive in that environment.

    Reply
  12. CJinSD

    “The suppressors of free speech first dehumanize or hang appellations on their victims/targets. Therefore allowing hate speech is a precursor to censorship.”
    — Arthur Dailey, 2017

    “War is peace.
    Freedom is slavery.
    Ignorance is strength.”
    ― George Orwell, 1948(1984)

    All I can say is a big thank you to Ronald Reagan, who granted us a thirty year delay along the road back to serfdom.

    Reply
    • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

      I think it is very safe to say that site management has no intention or desire to return to the Farago days or even the Baruth days. TTAC in the current era is sort of a hybrid between AutoGuide and GoodCarBadCar.

      Reply
      • Ronnie Schreiber

        I’m optimistic. I’d almost given up my taste for writing because of the prior editor. Sure, I’ve been busy with the Harmonicaster but why try to carve out time to write when the contribution isn’t appreciated? Tim seems to like my stuff, a welcome change.

        I’m a decent enough writer that all of my writing gigs were solicited by the publishers. Farago asked me to contribute to TTAC. Roger Simon, who wrote the screenplay for Sophie’s Choice, asked me to write about cars for PJMedia. Daniel Strohl asked me to apply for an editor’s position at Hemmings before it was publicly posted. That turned into a weekly gig on their site and when I asked Strohl what he wanted me to write about, he said anything that I cared to write about. At TTAC Derek published everything I submitted unless it was time-related and got stale and even Bertel hardly ever rejected a post. Jack’s the best automotive writer around and he let me write whatever I cared to write when he edited the site (except for when Paul Walker died in that crash and I wanted to do a post about widow-making Porsches and Porsche owners with death wishes and JB said to wait a few months so it wouldn’t be exploitative of the man’s death). Time.com called TTAC one of the best blogs of 2012, specifically citing a series I did. The New York Times just quoted me in an obit for Roy Lunn.

        Objectively speaking, I’m good at this stuff. No brag, just fact.

        Then management changed and I had to pitch stories, 70% of which were rejected. Maybe I’m stubborn but I thought it was stupid to have to spend time crafting a pitch that could better be spent writing an article, and I said so. That wasn’t appreciated. Oh well, as I’ve told bosses before, “You like it when I’m smart. Don’t expect me to be stupid when you’re wrong.”

        Then there was the fact that I was told untruths more than once. When a full time news editor position was posted and I was a perfect fit (no bullshit, I don’t believe in spinning resumes) since I had done just about everything in the job description. I was told that the job was open to everyone and that I’d be considered. Privately I was told by others that he’d told them there was no way I’d be considered for the position. When I brought that up at a later date, the lie wasn’t denied yet I received a litany of complaints about what a poor employee I was. This was after a post of mine got hundreds of thousands of hits, the most popular post on the site in years.

        Because he was paranoid about being seen as double dipping on review samples and product loans (if one of the writers gets a sample, the editor might not get one to play with too), he also deliberately screwed up my relationships with car companies that were providing me with press cars. I had to fight to get him to publish my McLaren reviews. Yeah I know CUV reviews get more eyeballs but a car site editor not wanting to cover supercars is just plain doltish. I’d spent years getting hooked up on my own with Jaguar, Audi, FCA and others. It’s nice to be able to drive cool cars for free but more important, if I can’t get the press car, I can’t get paid for the review. Suddenly I started getting, ‘has this review been approved by your editor’ emails. I can’t say for certain, but I suspect he contacted car companies and told them not to give me press cars unless he’d given prior approval. Considering how many more press cars are available in Detroit than on Prince Edward Island, considering that I see The Drive Shop’s place every time I drop off a package at UPS in Madison Heights, deliberately obstructing a car writer’s access to press cars seems to me to be editorial malpractice.

        I’ve always been a team player at TTAC. When I’ve seen stories that I thought needed coverage, I’ve passed them along even if I didn’t have the time or interest to write about them myself. I’ve used credientials for Cars In Depth to get TTAC writers into auto shows. I’ve suggested to car companies and track owners that they let JB review their wares.

        The prior editor made it clear that my role on the team, at best, was the second-string right fielder. If you’ve played or coached kids’ baseball, you’ll know what I mean.

        A very smart man, Chuck Hickson, who was a group supervisor of mine at DuPont, told me that when you’re working at a job, all you have control of is satisfying your immediate supervisor. Everything else is beyond your control. Sometimes, Chuck said, your immediate supervisor is an ass.

        Reply
        • PaulyG

          Ronnie:

          I am glad your writing is being “accepted” again by TTAC. I always enjoyed your articles. Pathetic how you were blacklisted.

          As we all know, today’s TTAC is a faint shadow of its past greatness. I use the Feedly news aggregator which makes it easy to scan just for your, Jack’s, Bark’s, and Murilee’s TTAC articles. I ignore the rest of the articles and have stopped reading the comments since they have all become pablum.

          Reply
  13. Rumpadilious_wrangler

    Bark just revealed his own idiocy and insecurities by calling Q3 drivers frat mattresses, with the intent of both delighting a bunch of other idiot TTAC readers and pissing off another bunch of oversensitive babies. Bark can make himself look stupid all day, for all I care. As long as he can take the heat when he’s called out for it, which I don’t think he can.

    Reply
    • Bark M

      Go on and enlighten me. How did my usage of this term “reveal my idiocy?”

      Also, you’ve got to be smarter when you post here, VoGo.

      Reply
        • hank chinaski

          He dun goofed. The consequences will never be the same.

          Unrelated: Week-long radio silence at CH, oddly timed with C-ville fallout elsewhere, is broken over the weekend.

          Poor Dr. Paul has been demonetized by Youtube.

          Reply
        • ComfortablyNumb

          Seven proxies: the Maginot line of the interwebs. I may or may not have tried to use a similar metaphor at a meeting once…ladies…

          Reply
  14. Widgetsltd

    I dunno, man. The Bro isn’t just any white male. He’s a certain type. The Bro wears flat-brimmed baseball hats. He drives a lifted pickup. If he lives in the LA area, the Bro listens to KROQ.
    Regarding the frat-mattress: If she is scorned for her behavior, then what about the frat boys? Where’s the derogatory term for those guys who will sleep with the series of frat-mattress ladies? If her eventual good and decent husband is a former frat boy, then aren’t they both players in the same game? Haven’t they BOTH had many partners? Why is the scorn heaped only on the woman in this deal?

    Reply
    • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

      I’d suggest that “bro” is simply how we degrade white men now. The NYT just wrote a whole polemic about “getting rid of tech bros”.

      The term “frat bro”, to segue to your second topic, is widely used now by the media to ridicule and minimize white men in fraternities. It’s worth nothing that men in A-Phi-A and the other historically black fraternities don’t get slapped with it.

      It is human nature to treat promiscuous men and women differently. Every society since the dawn of recorded history has done this, even the island or minor cultures where women had leadership. It’s baked into your brain and the science behind it is far more proven than, say, the science behind AGW. There are multiple solid and well-researched books on the top but the classic work in the field is The Red Queen:

      https://www.amazon.com/Red-Queen-Evolution-Human-Nature/dp/0060556579

      The bottom line is that men are hard-wired to suspect the paternity of their children and they can be ruthless in ensuring it. Dawkins’ Selfish Gene helps to explain why as well.

      Reply
      • Ronnie Schreiber

        I only see license plate frames with the names and Greek letters for historically black frats and sororities. I’ve done embroidery jobs for black sorority alumnae, never white ones.

        Reply
        • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

          If the day comes that I can’t feed my son because of somebody’s decision along those lines, I’m going to hold them personally responsible.

          Reply
      • Skein

        I don’t think bro and frat mattress are much different. I also don’t think either are hate speech. People have the right to be offended by either or not but I agree that it becomes a problem when we’re forbidden our voices.

        Reply
  15. Kevin Jaeger

    Thanks (I think) for pointing out this bit of idiocy. Or maybe I was better off having missed it initially.

    I particularly liked the one comment by a woman who defended the idea that casual sex with a large number of partners was indeed a part of liberal arts college life, but still objected to being labeled a frat mattress. That’s just comedy gold by itself.

    While Arthur is indeed worthy of all the contempt you dish out he actually has a point about Canada’s Human Rights commissions. They are utterly Orwellian constructs and absolutely anyone can find themselves entangled in their nets based on the most preposterous complaints. Your hypothetical offended A3 driving frat mattress complaint would actually rank as one of the saner complaints they are happy to take on. No, I’m not exaggerating.

    As an American you are certainly free to ignore them as long as you don’t go to Canada but they could theoretically take on VerticalScope based on exactly that type of complaint. And don’t expect any type of plain reading of the law to be a defense if someone’s feelz are at stake.

    Reply
    • Ronnie Schreiber

      Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn have both run afoul of the Canadian human rights commisars.

      I’m guess that the location of the servers that host TTAC is relevant to free speech protections. Can the Canadian Human Rights commission go after a Canadian publisher for something that is hosted outside of Canada?

      As alluded to by Jack, the idea of a debate over free speech is rather ludicrous from the get go.

      Reply
      • Kevin Jaeger

        I don’t think the location of the servers matters. They will harass the company, managers, editors or employees that are within Canada. And as with the harassment of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant whether there is ever any final ruling or attempted enforcement is almost beside the point. In these cases the process is the punishment where they will torment you with hearings and legal fees until you’ll do anything to make them go away. If that means deleting articles or cutting ties with troublesome American authors I assume they’d be quick to do that.

        I’m actually a little surprised that no one has done that at TTAC, but I don’t want to give them any ideas.

        Reply
        • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

          It’s been done, over and over again, trust me.

          The old analogy about tents and urination applies here. I know a lot of stuff. 🙂

          Reply
  16. Sobro

    I have found that the “hate speech” believers act more as subjects than citizens. Although being a subject is an old world status, many of our American home grown “citizens of the world” have joined the subjects’ culture. Being a member of a Commonwealth nation, Arthur has been steeped in the old world “subject” tradition.

    What’s the difference between them? Subjects, historically known as serfs, have a tendency to subsume their rights to the State. The State grants “rights” to its subjects. These days the State in many places have decided that their subjects are not to be trusted with free speech rights, thus these “human rights” Star Chambers. The subjects decide Daddy State knows best and leap to Daddy’s defense.

    As further evidence, the most charitable subjects in the world (NZ) give 0.78% of GDP to charity, expecting Daddy State to take care of his subjects, yet the citizens of the US double that percentage, knowing that Daddy State should not be so charitable with other people’s money. Canadians? 0.77%. UK? 0.54%.

    Citizens, at least those of the US variety, know that the State is formed only by our consent and that we citizens retain certain natural rights against the State, famously known as inalienable rights, that no government on Earth can restrict.

    I always take these subjects’ opinions on rights with a grain of History, knowing that they are steeped in a culture that teaches them no better.

    Reply
    • Noman

      Well written. “Microserfs.” Always think: If you were a better serf at work, maybe you’d have more capital for your own projects.

      Reply
    • Ronnie Schreiber

      The Founding Fathers, cis hetero patriarchal racist slaveholders and slave tolerators though they were, can also be described as true revolutionaries.

      I’d say that because the government’s powers are specifically enumerated, it is not merely the mentioned inalienable rights that cannot be restricted. What isn’t enumerated is the right of the people.

      Reply
  17. Danio

    As a Canadjun myself, I can’t stand this line of thinking that “hate speech” isn’t Free Speech, a crucial tenet of any society that dares to call itself free. By arbitrarily labeling anything remotely uncomfortable as “hate speech” those who hold the most “social credit” can easily marginalize and punish their ideological opposition. We worked too hard as a civilization to allow this.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *