Any leftist podcaster or celebrity can hold an event at any University in the United States with minimal security and be completely safe.
Conservative speakers can't hold events on campus without armed guards and a bullet proof vest.
Let's talk about why🧵
Universities have basically said there is no penalty for *trying* to do violence against conservatives; there's only a penalty if you actually manage to injure one of them.
You can try to do violence as much as you like, and there's no penalty until you actually hurt somone.
It's like telling a man with a loaded gun "shoot as many bullets at people as you like — we won't stop you until you actually hit someone."
This is the logic universities use when responding to the threats, protests, and riots the left uses to intimidate and shut down speakers.
The universities basically encourage the protestors to push boundaries as hard as they can, and they do nothing to discourage to escalation of tension or to prevent *attempts* at violence, disruptions, or rioting.
It's like if someone is trying to break into your house and the police say "we are not going to arrest him until he actually succeeds at getting into your house. We're just going to let him keep trying as much as he wants."
This is what is going on at Universities.
This has been escalating for a very long time. Here is a video of Jordan Peterson being mobbed by students at the University of McMaster:
Here is a clip where students pound on the windows of his talk at Queens University.
Here is a clip @BretWeinstein being cornered by students claiming to be "anti-racist" and demanding he resign or leave campus
Here is a video of @peterboghossian, @HeatherEHeying, @HPluckrose, and @JamesADamore trying to hold an event at Portland State University and having their sound equipment vandalized (the cords were cut) to prevent people from hearing them speak.
@peterboghossian @HeatherEHeying @HPluckrose @JamesADamore Again, none of this is new, and the colleges and Universities do abdolutely nothing to discourage it.
Here's a video of a University of Missuori professor asking for "some muscle" to stop a journalist from filming a protest
This has been going on since at least snce the 1967's when Angela Davis and Herbert Marcuse (two of the most influential neo-Marxist Critical Theorists) decided that words were not enough, and chose to occupy the registrar's office as a form of protest.
The Universities have failed to stand up to the radical leftists, in part because (as Jonh Searle pointed out in 1993) academics as a class are timid and lack the strength and courage to stand up to radical leftists.
The only way this ends is if the Universities put strong sanction on leftists for even *trying* to disrupt events.
No more encouraging the escalation of tensions, or tolerating the chaos and disorder of riots which leftists use to create cover for violent actions.
We're at the point with Universities where @benshapiro needed $600,000 of security to speak at UC Berkley, Steven Crowder (@scrowder) had to stop doing "change my mind" over security concerns, and Charlie Kirk was shot dead.
@benshapiro @scrowder Leftists use the threat of violence as an intimidation tactic to prevent conservatives from speaking on campus, and the University has a responsibility to say "you're not even allowed to *try* to threaten, intimidate, or use violence," and then fllow through with strong action.
@benshapiro @scrowder Charlie Kirk died on Campus.
It's time to tell the Left "no."
No, you don't get to censor.
No, you don't get to intimidate.
No, you don't get to disrupt.
No, you don't get to shut down. events
No, you don't get to threaten.
No, you don't get to decide what other people hear.
@benshapiro @scrowder Until Universities implement severe consequences for trying to shut down conservative speakers leftists will continue to use violence to intimidation.
Enough is enough, and the only thing that stops this is heavy consequences for those who engage in these tactics.
/fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. There is no such legal category as "hate speech" 2. You don't defeat ideas by banning them 3. Adopting a leftist frame ("hate speech" is leftist framing) is always a losing proposition.
The entire literature on hate speech was created by leftists, and is embedded with leftist assumptions. There is no way to appropriate that body of work without rehabilitating and legitimizing leftist arguments against free speech and in favor of censorship.
The reason the trans-movement is so nihilistic, violent, and unhinged is because it is postmodern, and the postmodern intellectual solvent it uses to dissolve the distinction between male and female also dissolves the distinction between good and evil.
The postmodern ideology of the transgender activists believes all values of any kind (moral, social, scientific, and epistemic) are just social constructs that have been constructed in alignment with the interests of the dominant ideology or ruling class.
so...
On this view the legitimacy of a given set of values is not a matter of fact, it depends on the interests of the people evaluating those values. As such the values of a society are a determined by which group has the power to embed it's interests in the social value structure...
People who celebrate the murder of their political opponents are not participating in the marketplace of ideas, they are encouraging deadly political violence by building a permission structure to legitimize and justify the murder of those they disagree with.
My freedom of speech means I get to clearly and succintly explain to the whole world that if you call for the assassination of your rivals this is not free speech, it is a direct incitement to political violence.
John Stewart Mill gave a famous example where he said that if someone claims corn dealers are starvering the poor this can be allowed if circulated through the press, but is not allowed when shouted in front of an excited mob assembled outside the house of a corn dealer....
1/ The Radical Left has used political violence to advance their cause for decades. What's new is the progressive left's professional class building a permission structure to justify the use of political violence
It's called Assassination Culture, and we need to talk about it
🧵
2/ To understand what's happening, you need to understand that the line between progressive-left professional class and radical left has been blurred. The extremist radical left and the socially progressive "bluesky left" are increasingly intertwined both socially and politically
3/ This is because many of the extremist radical from the 60's and 70' who advocated for, and participated in, the use of political violence have been welcomed into the mainstream institutions that are run by the progressive left professional class.
Look at the number of pro-athletes posting condolences about Charlie Kirk, and you'll see what a huge cultural figure he was.
He wasn't just famous in conservative circles, his clips debating college students were a loadbearing pillar of online political pop-culture
His willingness to calmly and politely debate all comers on any issue (at the very moment when cancel culture was strongest and people were afraid to say what they think) made him a sort of lovable internet folkhero.
He was an indelible piece of the online landscape.
Charlie was not quarantined to the "conservative ghetto" of online content; he broke contain and became a mainstream cultural figure.
Charlie became the cultural symbol of free debate, free speech, and settling differences in public with words
What he is describing here is the deconstruction of America as an ideal. The goal is to destroy America by subverting the conception of America as a force for good which sustains American confidence, and attacking the founding narrative from which America derives it's legitimacy.
They will try to redefine America in a way which subverts the legitimacy of America as a national project. They want to erase the current American narrative, and replace it with a new one which grants them the right to inherit America's wealth, power, prestige, and influence.
They will attack America the same way they attacked Universities: by undermining legitimacy, authority, and self-confidence by asserting that the whole project is just racism, colonialism, and oppression in disguise.