Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

"We don't like you. Nobody likes you," he said. "There should be consequences."

Wow. And yet, they don't see how that sort of sentiment is poisonous to education, free expression, and mature debate.

Posted by Robin Goodfellow at May 2, 2007 10:42 PM

I wonder if repeatedly bringing the victims into student judicial court counts as harassment? It certainly seems to be behavior calculated to "annoy, embarass, and distress", all conditions of harassment according to the student handbook (warning long PDF).

The reason I ask this is because I noticed that the newspaper, "The Primary Source" has been through this before in the 2001-2002 school year. During that time they had 18 complaints including a sexual harassment case that ended up (much as the current case, I gather) in Student Court. Unlike the current case, that case was dismissed. They also seem to have some trouble with people stealing their newspapers to the tune of $2000 worth of papers stolen.

No idea how that compares to the current tribulations of the newspaper.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at May 3, 2007 12:01 AM

"A Stalinist Show Trial"

Right, a "show trial" closed to the public. Thanks for the free lesson in Newspeak, Rand. And from Townhall.com, no less--straight from the Heritage Foundation to your mouth.

"This show trial was convened with the sole purpose of punishing The Primary Source, Tufts' lone conservative periodical."

After saying this, the author then admits the hearing was to address allegations brought by two students, which was clearly their right. But because the "defendants" were right-wingers allied with the Heritage Foundation's agenda, any accusations against them are automatically false, and any hearing to address them is therefore invalid. Same old cowardly Nazi hypocrites, chasing down Larry Flynt and Ellen Degeneres with pitchforks while crawling up on a cross if someone has a problem with their bigotry.

"This material is clearly political speech."

"O Come All Ye Black Folks" is clearly a direct racist attack on a specific ethnic group, not the policy of affirmative action, but the paper's apology--as insincere as it was, almost smirkingly promising recidivism--should have been accepted.

"The room was filled to capacity with Dennis and MSA allies"

Which is neither here nor there unless supporters of the publication--did any exist?--were shut out. The author admits it was the only conservative publication on campus, then acts like it was some kind of stacked deck because the audience wasn't in their favor. What kind of paranoid psychotics are are these people?

"who cheered, on cue, for Dennis and his MSA compatriot, Shirwac Mohamed."

Right, "on cue." I'm guessing the "cue" was when they stood up to speak, or made key points in their presentation, which is usually what happens with a supportive audience.

"Not one witness showed documented evidence of psychological harm."

Ah, they failed to prove that they were harassed, which usually leaves a triplicate paper trail. As an aside to Rand, if you ever intend to have credibility outside a tiny pool of fringe nuts, you might consider being more selective about your sources--this article is laughable.

"After an initial request for silence, the crowd was allowed to cheer for the complainants and razz The Source."

The author evidently has a problem with the concept of free speech.

"The CSL board allotted twice as much time to Dennis and Mohamed than they did to The Source."

In other words, it gave equal time to each party to the hearing.

"Dennis and Mohamed will likely receive what they want from a board so biased it makes Castro's judiciary look like a haven of open-mindedness."

The article is full of infantile hyperbole like this, making it almost certain that some if not all of its factual claims are either deliberate exaggerations or lies. Rand, I'm not surprised you cited this raving hatriot imbecile.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 3, 2007 02:00 AM

Rand,

Have you any idea why Mr. Swiderski is so invested in your blog entries?

Just wonderin'

Posted by MG at May 3, 2007 02:44 AM

Have you any idea why Mr. Swiderski is so invested in your blog entries?

No. I guess he has no life. It's not like he's persuading anyone here of anything, except that he's a knee-jerk reactionary leftist.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 3, 2007 05:11 AM

All you need to know about BS is everything he accuses others of is what he himself really feels.

Posted by Mike Puckett at May 3, 2007 05:14 AM

(1) Where else is BS going to get an audience?
(2) He then gets to bore other people by telling them how he stuck it to the man.

Posted by Andy Freeman at May 3, 2007 06:43 AM

So, did any of you have any responses to my critique of the article? Didn't think so. I'll take your immediately proceeding to the "character assassination of the critic" phase as an affirmation of my points.

MG: "Have you any idea why Mr. Swiderski is so invested in your blog entries?"

If you wanted to know, you would have asked me instead of Rand. But since you're pretending to be curious, I'll tell you anyway: I'm not.

Rand: "I guess he has no life."

Don't be too hasty to look for common ground, Rand.

"It's not like he's persuading anyone here of anything"

Who's to persuade? You and those who bobblehead to your hissing already know the things you say are insane, but you say them anyway for sick amusement. I'm just livening up the act with some reality as counterpoint. Any time the pain gets too intense for you, just ask me to leave and I'll vanish like a dollar in a room full of Republicans.

"except that he's a knee-jerk reactionary leftist."

Whenever your insecurities are tripped, a vacuous, readimade putdown invariably follows. Do you still bother typing it out, or do you have it programmed with a keystroke?

Mike: "All you need to know about BS is everything he accuses others of is what he himself really feels."

In other words, your theory is "I know you are, but what am I?" Good thinking, Mike. But just in case, try to avoid any more of it while driving or operating heavy machinery.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 3, 2007 06:59 AM

I have little interest in debating the show-trial thing, and for all I know the points Mr. Swiderski raises could be right. What I find more interesting is "The Swiderski Syndrome." I've noticed similar things on other blogs: a "liberal" or some other variety of collectivist attaching himself to some conservative or libertarian blog or discussion group and repeatedly showing up, on pretty much a daily basis. Why bother, I wonder? Is it an ego trip: "I'm the one Voice of Reason in this wilderness"? I'm a libertarian, and I find "liberal" blogs and discussion groups so redolent of the stink of collectivism and Staat-shtupping as to make me nauseous; in short, not places I would care to hang around. Are there any conservatives or libertarians out there who hang around collectivist blogs and discussion groups, and if so, what do you get out of it? Just wondering.

Posted by Bilwick at May 3, 2007 11:35 AM

Lefty blogs tend to quickly ban commenters who don't follow the party line. Because, you know, they're all about tolerance and diversity of opinion.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 3, 2007 11:55 AM

"I've noticed similar things on other blogs: a "liberal" or some other variety of collectivist attaching himself to some conservative or libertarian blog or discussion group and repeatedly showing up, on pretty much a daily basis."

Perhaps "contrarian" would be a better description. I'm not a liberal, but I'm no knee-jerk Righty, either.

"Why bother, I wonder? Is it an ego trip: "I'm the one Voice of Reason in this wilderness"? "

Probably because it's more fun to point out that not everyone agrees with the conservative Groupthink. Daily, if necessary. Personally, I am more amused by the hypocrisy of the Right than that of the Left (no, hypocrisy isn't the right word. Sanctimony; there, that's it). And, I just enjoy watching the Righties froth at the mouth when confronted with an alternative interpretation of reality.

"I'm a libertarian, and I find "liberal" blogs and discussion groups so redolent of the stink of collectivism and Staat-shtupping as to make me nauseous; in short, not places I would care to hang around."

There you have it. You've answered your own question.

Posted by Andy at May 3, 2007 12:17 PM

Why bother, I wonder?

-If he posts on his own blog he will not get much of an audience.

-If he posts on a popular blog that shares his ideological orientation, he will be but one among many and will not get much attention.

-If he posts here he gets both an audience and attention.

I perfectly understand the motivational matrix, since I myself sometimes enjoy arguing in comments threads on blogs where I disagree with most of the other participants. However, unlike BS I try not to be abusive, and if it looks like I am not convincing anyone I eventually stop visiting.

What distinguishes most trolls is their inability to disagree without quickly resorting to personal attacks. BS could easily have critiqued the TownHall column and Rand's post without making sneering remarks and insults. Yet when he is criticized he blames others for what he sees as the nasty tone here, and he fails to recognize that his arguments would have been better received if he had made them with good humor. The lack of self-awareness is striking.

Posted by Jonathan at May 3, 2007 12:31 PM

The lack of self-awareness is striking.

Brian has claimed that he was diagnosed when he was young as being somewhat autistic. That might explain it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 3, 2007 01:06 PM

The lack of self-awareness is striking.

Brian has claimed that he was diagnosed when he was young as being somewhat autistic. That might explain it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 3, 2007 01:06 PM

Rand...I think he said that he had a mild case of Aspergers...not the same as autism..and we all have some malady or the other, many of which don't have a label. I knew he was asking for it when he volunteered this information in the VPI context. I realize he can be annoying, but didn't expect you to bring it up.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at May 3, 2007 05:41 PM

.I think he said that he had a mild case of Aspergers...not the same as autism..and we all have some malady or the other, many of which don't have a label. I knew he was asking for it when he volunteered this information in the VPI context. I realize he can be annoying, but didn't expect you to bring it up.

Thank you for the clarification--my memory may indeed have been faulty. My understanding is that Asperger's is a mild form of autism, but I'm (as always) willing to be corrected.

As for whether or not I should have "brought it up," as you say, he brought it on himself, not only by his admission, but (more importantly) by his unremittingly trollish behavior here. And of one substitutes "mild case of Asperger's" for "mildly autistic," my comment stands...

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 3, 2007 06:40 PM

Yes, he does need to learn how to be civil.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at May 3, 2007 07:01 PM

Mr. Swiderski,

I was interested in Rand's assessment, not yours. That's why I didn't ask you.

Since you brought it up, though, can you offer to us an introspective, non-sneering explanation of why you frequent this blog's comments?

Posted by MG at May 3, 2007 07:23 PM

Bilwick: "I have little interest in debating the show-trial thing"

Unfortunately, it appears I'm the only who is interested in debating it, including the guy who brought it up. Not that this is unusual for a right-wing blog, where the main purpose is to reaffirm core pieties among the faithful and engage in orgiastic Two Minute Hate sessions. The fact that Rand himself headed with the article's ludicrous title "Stalinist Show Trial" all but says "O Come All Ye Faithful" and "No Thoughts Allowed."

Bilwick: "Why bother, I wonder? Is it an ego trip: "I'm the one Voice of Reason in this wilderness"?""

There may be something to that. I do admit, it is a little unfair to pit one whole liberal against only a half-dozen or so righties in a debate, but scarier game simply isn't available.

"I'm a libertarian, and I find "liberal" blogs and discussion groups so redolent of the stink of collectivism and Staat-shtupping as to make me nauseous"

If that's the case, then you must be a Bizarro World "libertarian" who finds the charred-flesh stench of fascism and totalitarian surveillance less offensive than high taxes, rule of law, and environmentalism on behalf of the Four Freedoms.

Libertarians can be roughly divided into two groups (on this issue): People who want to justify an infantilized pursuit of absolute short-term self-interest at the expense of the institutions that make it possible in the first place, and people who genuinely have some kind of anarchistic political viewpoint. While the latter are generally apolitical, the former, naturally, tend to side with Republicans given the dilemma, finding low taxes and slightly more guns a sufficient tradeoff for the abolition of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments.

Notwithstanding a great deal of grandiose rhetoric, what exactly have libertarians ever contributed to American civilization? They were anti-Federalist, then Confederate (there's some "freedom-loving" folks for ya), then anti-labor and pro-robber baron, opposed to child labor laws and the minimum wage, supportive of the Hoover administration, isolationist leading up to WW2, completely absent from the Civil Rights movement, opposed to environmental laws of any kind, and now complicit in the worst treason against the Constitution in American history. The word "libertarian" is a sick joke.

Rand: "Lefty blogs tend to quickly ban commenters who don't follow the party line."

Ever been to one, Rand?

"Because, you know, they're all about tolerance and diversity of opinion."

Yes, which is why right-wingers avoid them. Some bomb-thrower will occasionally show up and flood "U r stoopid communist homos," then high-five the other intellectual giants on GOP sites for proving the "intolerance" of liberals when they're banned. It's exactly the kind of psychotic drivel in your Townhall.com article. Minimal standards of debate eliminate the vast majority of right-wing commenters, and the rest are scared off if too high a proportion of posts involve organized citations and paragraph writing.

Andy: "Perhaps "contrarian" would be a better description."

That may be a valid general phenomenon, but my positions are hardly contrarian.

"Personally, I am more amused by the hypocrisy of the Right than that of the Left (no, hypocrisy isn't the right word. Sanctimony; there, that's it)."

Both are accurate.

Jonathan: "If he posts on his own blog he will not get much of an audience."

Considering how much time you and others have spent commenting on me, prompted by any post of mine whatsoever, you protest too much.

Jonathan: "If he posts on a popular blog that shares his ideological orientation, he will be but one among many and will not get much attention."

You said this before, and I refuted it. Liberals have an a vast range of discussion, from grand themes to excruciating wonkery, and debate among ourselves is usually characterized by the latter. I find that tedious and futile most of the time.

"However, unlike BS I try not to be abusive, and if it looks like I am not convincing anyone I eventually stop visiting."

I let others define the cordiality of the debate, and I don't approach discussion solely as a means of persuasion--it helps clarify and organize one's thoughts, exposes one to dissimilar viewpoints, and allows one to experiment.

"he fails to recognize that his arguments would have been better received if he had made them with good humor."

Yes, that's true. Unfortunately, I'm not Gandhi.

Rand: "Brian has claimed that he was diagnosed when he was young as being somewhat autistic."

"Somewhat" is an overstatement. Asperger's is often described as a "dash of autism," and I have a dash of Asperger's. Given the historical figures thought to have had it, you aren't doing me any insult reminding everyone.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 3, 2007 07:25 PM

Mr. Swiderski apparently knows as much about libertarianiams as he knows about sound economics. Which libertarian authors have you read, Mr. B?

But far be it from me into arguing him into a more pro-freedom position. I've found that Staat-shtuppers are essentially sadomasochists (in the broad defintion of "sadism" and "masochism" given by Erich Fromm), and fall into generally come in two categories: the "sadists" who essentially get off on the idea of power and coercion (even if vicariously), and the "masochists," low self-esteem types--often middle-class but riddled with guilt over their prosperity--who want to be ruled. Both groups have such a deep psychological committment to ruling (again, often vicariously) or being ruled that it's pretty futile trying to logically argue them into self-ownership and a non-aggressive, live-and-let-live philosphy. If someone is desperate to hang on to his status as serf or his fantasies of forcing people to do what he wants, to me that's more of a psychological problem to be tackled more by, say, a Nathaniel Branden than by a Thomas Sowell.

I'm not sure which brand of libertarian I am according to his very narrow categorization. I know I'm a Don't-Like-To-Be-Bullied-and-Threatened-With-Force kind of libertarian, whether that bullying and threatening come from religious theocrats of the Right or secular theocrats of the Left. I'm also an extremist: that is, if you tried to poke me in the eye a hundred times, I would resist you or try to prevent you a hundred times. A "middle-of-the-roader" would probably let you poke him in the eyes half the time, if if were for "the greater good." Even if you and your gang overpowered me and forced me to resort to an eye-poking, I would never acknowledge your right to do so, whether it be in the name of God, "for the greater good of Society," the honor of Der Volk, or whatever excuse the various varieties of Staat-shtuppers have invoked over the centuries.

And you, Mr. Swiderski, what is your standard for subitting to being poked? Or are you more fixed on fantasies of doing the poking?

Posted by Bilwick at May 4, 2007 06:46 AM

Mr. Swiderski apparently knows as much about libertarianiams as he knows about sound economics. Which libertarian authors have you read, Mr. B?

And you, Mr. Swiderski, what is your standard for subitting to being poked? Or are you more fixed on fantasies of doing the poking?

Posted by Bilwick at May 4, 2007 06:46 AM

Mr. Swiderski apparently knows as much about libertarianiams as he knows about sound economics. Which libertarian authors have you read, Mr. B?

And you, Mr. Swiderski, what is your standard for subitting to being poked? Or are you more fixed on fantasies of doing the poking?

Posted by Bilwick at May 4, 2007 06:46 AM

Sorry for the triple-posting. The thing seemed to be "hanging fire" and not going through, so I hit send a couple more times and it finally went through thrice. But then, you can't have too much pro-freedom thought on the Internet, can you, Mr. B?

Posted by Bilwick at May 4, 2007 06:49 AM

"In other words, your theory is "I know you are, but what am I?"

No, it other words: "I know you are." That is sufficient.

Posted by Mike Puckett at May 4, 2007 07:24 AM

Post a comment