Happy Thanksgiving and Moving Forward in a Pluralistic America

by Dennis Crouch

Although many of us will retreat to our families for this week’s thanksgiving holiday – the American tradition is to use the time to build cross cultural ties with our neighbors.

I am a great admirer of WilmerHale’s top IP Litigator Bill Lee.  Lee is an amazing lawyer and delivers for his clients while maintaining the highest ethical standards for himself and his co-counsel.   This past week’s AmLaw Daily helps bring home to me the disturbing American cultural and racial trends that are directed more at division than unity. Susan Beck writes:

On a Tuesday night in August, Lee stopped at a gas station near his home outside Boston in Wellesley, Massachusetts, to fill up his Mercedes-Benz SUV. Lee—a graduate of Harvard College and one of the nation’s most accomplished intellectual property litigators—was wearing a suit and tie, having finished a long day at work.

As Lee tells it, a man wearing a “Wellesley Hockey Parent” shirt walked up to him.

“Where does a guy like you get a car like that?” the man said to Lee, looking at the litigator’s vehicle.

Lee, whose parents came to this country from China in 1948, tried to defuse the situation. “From Herb Chambers,” he said, referring to a local car dealer.

“Why don’t you go back to your own country,” the man said, according to Lee.

“I don’t understand you,” Lee said.

“You mean, you don’t understand English,” the man said.

“I don’t understand ignorance,” Lee replied.

The Wilmer partner drove away, but the man followed in his car. When Lee pulled into a nearby police station, the man vanished.

“In the bluest of Blue States, Massachusetts, a mile from Wellesley College, if someone tells you to go back to your own country, this can happen anywhere,” Lee said. “If this can happen to the managing partner of an Am Law 200 firm, what’s happening to the rest of the country?”

Lee said he hadn’t heard a comment like this for 40 years. He attributes the encounter to the political environment that has encouraged hostility to immigrants. “He felt he could say it,” Lee said. . . . “I grew up in the fifties when we were the only Chinese family in our school district,” Lee recalled. “It was not a great time to be Asian. In many ways this brought back things that I thought we had put behind us.”

As leading lawyers we obviously play an important role in ensuring that racism and some kind of white-nationalism does not again become acceptable and normal.  One of my friends who is openly gay here in Missouri was leaving his house last week and a passenger in a passing vehicle yelled-out “faggot” and targeted him with an open soda bottle.  As with Bill Lee, T____ noted that he had not experienced this type of open vitriol for decades.  These incidents are These incidents are not supposed to happen here, but they are happening.  As Dan Rather writes “now is a time when none of us can afford to remain seated or silent. We must all stand up to be counted. . . . I believe there is a vast majority who wants to see this nation continue in tolerance and freedom. But it will require speaking.”

Happy Thanksgiving!

319 thoughts on “Happy Thanksgiving and Moving Forward in a Pluralistic America

  1. 27

    Thanks for posting this. Perhaps the patent law community cannot agree on what to do with 101, but I think most of us should be able to agree that the conduct of “Wellesley Hockey Parent” was utterly reprehensible, and that we have a responsibility to fight against such disgusting behavior.

    1. 27.1

      Very much depends on what you mean by “responsibility to fight,” and what lines you draw to fight about.

      Unless of course freedom of expression merely means freedom to express views that you happen to like.

        1. 27.1.1.1

          And Malcolm continues to post meaningless nothingness (if you brush away his ad hominem).

          Yay Decade of Decadence

  2. 26

    I see that Godwin’s law is in full effect here.

    Now Fidel Castro is dead….and Hillary is still nobody’s President.

    Happy Thanksgiving.

  3. 24

    I am distressed by the fewness of the suggestions for a Thanksgiving meal for Wellesley Hockey Parent.

    My suggestions were Jerk Chicken and Humble Pie.

    Can the combined ingenuity of Patently-O readers come up with anything better? The object is to be amusing but subtly disparaging.

  4. 23

    Patent law is law. This guy you are so loathe to criticize will be given more power to affect the way the law is interpreted and applied than you ever will be. But you still have your “protest vote”! And we all know how super serious that is.

  5. 22

    Something that interests me is what limitations should there be, in the new age of social media, on the age-old right of “free speech”. I suspect that, on what constitutes incitement to violence, an update to the new world of social media is sorely needed.

    That’s why, at #20, I posted a Link to the newspaper report on social media activity surrounding the shocking murder of British Member of Parliament Jo Cox. She was no extremist but right in the middle of the political left-right spectrum.

    When people of moderate and reasonable views cannot stand for public office without serious risk to their lives, the time has come to look very carefully at the relationship between living in a bubble, social media and “free speech”.

    1. 22.1

      There remains – as always – the divide between speech and actions.

      The velocity of today’s social media really does not change that (and in fact is exactly the type of thing to be guarded against from any “civil” politically correct desire to abridge freedom of expression.

      Once again, MaxDrei, you write as if ignorant of US jurisprudence and the history behind such jurisprudence.

      Again, I admonish you to become educated before you post.

    2. 22.2

      Max, I have nothing brilliant to add to this discussion except this observation. The world now, connected as it is through the Internet, is simply filled with hate. I wish it would stop. But all one can ever do is exercise self-discipline and not engage in it oneself. The idea that one can censor another man’s speech by cutting him off, by shouting him down, or in the case of your British member of Parliament, Joe Cox, simply assassinating them, is unacceptable.

      Xenophobia, simply one type of hate, seems to be a tool of the politician – the man with a political agenda. Identifying a group and then demonizing that group promotes the politician.

      We can find anecdotes of acts of violence, acts of hatred, throughout our societies today: and these include 9/11, all the bombings and incidents in Europe, the Lee incident described here, violence by Blacks against police, and violence against Trump supporters. All of these are wrong. No one should excuse any of these for any reason.

      1. 22.2.1

        Identifying a group and then demonizing that group promotes the politician.

        Malcolm IS the Trump of these boards.

    3. 22.3

      Perhaps those who regularly engage in hate or vilification ought to be required to use their real names.

      1. 22.3.1

        The problem there Ned is that anything can be merely labeled “hate or vilification,” and then you immediately chill speech.

        Look at Ben Franklin and others who used pseudonyms – your “answer” would have deprived us of their speech.

        1. 22.3.1.1

          Well, anon, there would have to be clear rules about what constitutes hate speech or vilification. Any perpetrator should be warned. If the perpetrator is excluded, his record can establish precedent. If a perpetrator is not excluded after complaints, these examples can establish counter precedent.

          Perhaps we might also create liability if a site or service does not provide adequate regulation of hate speech, vilification and bullying.

          1. 22.3.1.1.1

            Good luck with those clear rules (ask yourself why such as Mr. Franklin could not achieve those).

      2. 22.3.2

        If you wanna be on record as holding the ins#ne views that the problems in this country are “violence by Blacks against police, and violence against Trump supporters” then that’s your right.

        It’s pretty amusing that you think our President-elect is just dandy, but deplore “Xenophobia” as “simply one type of hate” that “seems to be a tool of the politician – the man with a political agenda.” That’s the stock and trade of your boy. Remind us all again what his views on Mexicans and Muslims are.

        1. 22.3.2.1

          AAA JJ, demonetization of all cops because of a few bad apples is the problem with the recent wave of violence against cops.

          Trump said some pretty st p id things during his campaign and had to walk many of them back. But one thing is for sure, IMHO, the source of the Muslim terrorist is hate egged on by leaders who have political agendas. This is what we need to stop, if we can.

          I think Obama might be right that naming Islam as a source of the problem but not limiting it to the hatemongers creating the terrorist might be counterproductive as it only enhances the hatemonger’s agenda by being able to point to anti-Muslim rhetoric and actions in the West.

          Trump’s stance on Mexico in the beginning was laughable. He had to walk it back, and he did.

          1. 22.3.2.1.1

            Ned, there are the sociopaths who go into a crowded theatre and, for fun or to further their own nefarious purposes, bawl out “Fire, fire, fire down below”.

            And there are those standing for public office, these days, who are just as irresponsible in what they post on social media.

            The explosion of use of social media brings a whole new set of challenges, for a democracy, for its legislative branch and for its judicative branch.

            1. 22.3.2.1.1.1

              Social media is not anything like being in a crowded theater.

              There was s running joke here awhile back about 6 dating a guy who had it in his online bio that he was a Fench model (modeled after a well known States-side commercial).

              Your analogy is just not apt.

            2. 22.3.2.1.1.2

              Max, well stated.

              All that hate speech has consequences. But what can we do about it?

              I know Germany banned all references to the Nazi’s. This no longer works as the Germans have right of access to the internet as well.

              We could ban Muslim hate speech, but how in the world could we enforce it?

              We are all in a brave new world and have to put our thinking caps on.

              One thing just occurred: at the end of WWII, Eisenhower went out of his way to let the world know about the camps, and even forced the German people to go there and see for themselves so that they would know it was not just Allied propaganda.

              But today, even when hundreds die in a Paris club, a large portion of the Muslim world celebrates. I find this appalling. What, if anything can we do?

              That is one of the reasons I want America simply to get out. We can never expect to change the Muslim world in any way and trying only gets us war and such things as 9/11.

              1. 22.3.2.1.1.2.1

                even when hundreds die in a Paris club, a large portion of the Muslim world celebrates.

                Please define “large portion.”

                I find this appalling. What, if anything can we do?

                You can express your view that the attack is appalling, you can donate some money to help the families of the victims, and you can try to avoid making d-mbsh-t observations about “the Muslim world” like the one you just did.

                Violent religious fundamentalism (“God demands this! He said so in this book!”) is a form of ment@l illness. And Muslims don’t have a monopoly on it. Call it out when you see it. And recognize that violent religious fundamentalism begins with (surprise!) religious fundamentalism which begins with (surprise!) ign0rance.

                1. MM, Strong religious beliefs, held by a majority, tends to be enacted into law. Thus religion infests politics. Because of this, I would never say that a religion is inherently peaceful unless the religion is willing to forgo its beliefs and practices to the extent they are inconsistent with law.

                  But, as we all know, there are issues about which most if not all religions do not compromise. This breeds political conflict that in the past has lead to war.

                  This line of think tells me that we need to stay away from and out of the Middle East because it is dominated by Islam.

                2. Do we stay out of France because it is dominated by Catholicism? Do we stay out of Britain because it is dominated by Anglicism? Do we stay out of Germany because it is dominated by Protestantism?

                3. anon, we do not “go into” France, GB or anywhere else with a view of imposing on them culture and rules that are contrary to their religions. Moreover, look at all the problems that England has had in even maintaining a foothold in Ireland because of religion. The mere presence of a power of a different religion within Ireland is an issue.

                4. imposing on them culture

                  You could not be more wrong on that Ned.

                  Sure, it is not the US Government going in (per se), but our export engine exists to impose our culture.

              2. 22.3.2.1.1.2.2

                In what follows, the strange spellings are my effort to defeat the editor.

                Ned, like MM, I am disappointed in your singling out one of the three Abr—–ic r’gions as inherently less commendable than the other two. How can you dare to say that “we can never change the M–l1m world in any way” when it is manifestly clear that something terrible has changed within “the M–l1m world” in the 20th century. Something caused it. It didn’t happen by chance.

                If you go back in time, just a little, you would have found at the interface of cultures a world where the M–l1m governed parts were far more tolerant of the C—tian minorities than vice versa. Sorry, but it ill-behoves any C—tian to lift his finger and lecture the other two r’gions about living in peace and tolerance.

                1. Max, the conflicts between Christian religions are well known. The conflict between the Christian West and Muslim Holy Land is well known.

                  I personally have felt its sting when my Irish Catholic mother married my Lutheran dad. My Dad converted and was effectively cast out of his family because of it.

                2. Sounds like more countries that we need to stay out of…

                  Ned, do you think that George Washington was right about foreign entanglements?

                3. Anon, of course I think George Washington was right. He made a speech at the time England and the French Revolution were at war with each other, sucking in the whole of Europe with it. Who won that war did not involve American interests; but our involvement would have imperiled the very existence of the United States.

                  We only reluctantly got involved in both world wars in the 20th century; and, in each case, we did so because our interests were involved and we were attacked.

                  While it is clear that Al Qaeda has attacked America, it is not clear that they did so unprovoked. Had we not meretriciously involved ourselves in the Kuwait war, Al Qaeda would never have even been formed. We brought the whole house of cards that is the Middle East down upon us when we stepped in to what essentially was an Arab Civil War – lines dividing Arabia drawn by the British to serve British interests. It is almost like we never learned the lessons of Vietnam – another case of a country divided by lines, drawn this time by the withdrawing French, where we took sides on behalf of a government that did not exist at the time those lines were drawn.

                  The idea that we should get involved everywhere there is injustice in the world is utopian at best and downright idi o tic at worst. In most of these cases, these are not genuine wars between nations, but internal conflicts between elements of nations. We get involved because we see oppression and want to do good. But in the end, our involvement does no good and the United States is little loved. And, worst of all, our soldiers and fellow citizens die it what one can justifiably say were unjust wars because they were not in self-defense or in defense of other nations.

                4. Not quite following your logic there Ned vis a vis Kuwait (a country that appears to be your starting point), and yet defending a country appears to be a legitimate point for US involvement.

                  Also, I think our own interests (rather than British drawn lines) speaks to our involvement.

                  We find a different meaningful source of energy than oil, and watch how little involvement in that part of the world we will have.

                5. Well, anon, the line drawn between Iraq and Kuwait by the Brits was effectively the same as the line drawn by the French dividing Vietnam into two “provinces.”

                  The policy of the US before our intervention in Kuwait was that we did not get involved/takes sides in Arab-Arab disputes. That policy was communicated to Sadam. He relied on it. Once he committed his troops, we changed our position.

                  There is a thing called estoppel. Perhaps it does not work in international law; but, ethically, legally and morally, we were wrong to intervene in that war.

                6. Do you have (written) evidence of this policy, Ned?

                  It sounds like a non-aggression treaty. Surely such an understanding was not only memorialized but also received Congressional blessings, right?

                7. “There is a thing called estoppel. Perhaps it does not work in international law; but, ethically, legally and morally, we were wrong to intervene in that war.”

                  You think we should have let Kuwait be overrun? Nah bro, they have a base of ours, and refuel our ships etc. They’re a tiny little outpost of the west in the mid-east. But we were wrong to somehow give him the impression we would not help Kuwait.

                8. As I mentioned, Ned, I would like to see the actual policy you are referencing, as you may be overstating the policy into some type of total non-aggression treaty, which is doubtful to have been in place.

                  You appear to want to use the euphamism of “commiting troops” in place of “invading another Sovereign.”

                  Lastly, the “line drawn” being drawn by the British has nothing to do with the real driver of the conflict (number one being oil – and 6’s additions of Kuwait being a friendly and strategic base at the top of the Persian Gulf should not be overlooked).

                9. 6, I am not aware that Saddam ever threatened to remove any base we may have had in Kuwait and that was the reason we went to war against Saddam.

                  As far as I know, we were not allies with Kuwait. Even so, Saddam checked in and asked our policy. This shows respect.

                10. Oh Ned. You think Saddam is going to let us have free reign to make bases inside what would have become an annexed into Iraq Kuwait?

                  link to militarybases.com

                  See also the wiki military bases in kuwait.

                  “As far as I know, we were not allies with Kuwait.”

                  I’m not sure formal allies (as in they would send mans to fight for us and our wars), but they certainly have plenty of our bases in their country.

          2. 22.3.2.1.2

            It’s the fact he walks it back that’s troubling. I literally have no idea what Trump’s true beliefs are.

            He also seems to have trouble with judges of Mexican ancestry. Or with any reporter with which he disagrees. Has he walked those back yet?

            1. 22.3.2.1.2.1

              I literally have no idea what Trump’s true beliefs are.

              Maybe you should ask the hundreds of people who have sued him.

              You could start with the people he just paid $25 million to settle a fraud claim against him, which he previously said he would never do.

              Or you could just accept the plain fact that Trump is a s0ci0path, elected by his fell0w s0ciopaths, racists, mis0gynists, ign0rami and people out to make a buck. Yes, some of those people are patent attorneys! And yes they have expressed their support for Trump, publically, right here on these boards.

              And yes our “liberal media” has previously covered up a President’s ment@l incompetence for years. For the sake of the country!

              So awesome.

              1. 22.3.2.1.2.1.1

                ..and others have not (and yet Malcolm will still lump all those who do not hold his beliefs into one bucket).

                “Go figure Folks.”

                1. You do realize (or at least you should realize) that I was referring to your direct “response” to me and not your original post…

                  (that should not be a difficult thing for even you to grasp)

  6. 21

    Agreed, no one should be harassing Bill Lee, or anyone else, because his parents came to the USA from China or some other country. (Harassing him because he’s a lawyer, however…)

    But don’t confuse tolerance with liking or agreeing or embracing. I tolerate homosexuality: I’m not going to try to regulate what people do in their bedrooms, and the sexual orientation of colleagues in the legal profession has never been a consideration, for or against, in recommending them for work if I thought a particular person would do good work for a particular client. But I still think homosexual behavior is morally wrong. Similarly, I don’t try to shut down abortion clinics, because I think there are circumstances in which abortions are merited. But that doesn’t mean I think abortion should be used as contraception. And I’m sick to death of having to bite my tongue on those two points, and many others, because of concern that the p.c. crowd will vilify me or organize a boycott of my business because I think homosexuality and abortion are wrong. I’m tired of seeing commercial bakers subjected to financial punishment – imposed by the state – for refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding; I’m tired of people trying to make gendered languages ungendered; I’m as tired of seeing people getting jobs and promotions and government contracts on the basis of their skin color as I am of seeing people get those things on the basis of connections, rather than on the basis of merit.

    I agree that tolerance is not only a good thing but a necessary thing for any civil society, and that it’s unfortunate that the recent election seems to have made some people think that it’s ok to not be tolerant. However, as a long-time reader of this blog, this is the first time I recall Dennis editorializing about non-IP matters, which makes it hard to read this particular piece and not wonder if it’s directed only at people who likely voted for Trump, or is also intended for the Bernie and Hillary crowds who are just as intolerant, and in many ways more intolerant, of opinions other than their own.

    God bless the United States of America – Americans have a lot to be thankful for. I hope they don’t screw it up.

    1. 21.1

      Criminal Harassment Definition: Unsolicited annoying, alarming or abusive conduct or words which are threatening, and which are prohibited by law.

      (fyi)

    2. 21.2

      I still think h0 m0 se xual behavior is morally wrong. Similarly, I don’t try to shut down ab 0rtion clinics, because I think there are circumstances in which abortions are merited. But that doesn’t mean I think ab 0rtion should be used as contraception. And I’m sick to death of having to bite my tongue on those two points,

      Because everybody needs to know your views about stuff that is none of your fl0c k ing business. Oh, how awfully frustrating it must be to you. Nobody has ever heard about your awesome beliefs about h0m 0s exuality and ab0 rtion before! Nope.

      You know what elseI’m tired of people trying to make gendered languages ungendered;

      Oh, the pain. The pain! How burdens0me for you.

      I’m as tired of seeing people getting jobs and promotions and government contracts on the basis of their skin color

      LOL You mean like Ben Carson? Or like Jeff Sessions?

      I’m tired of seeing commercial bakers subjected to financial punishment – imposed by the state – for refusing to bake a cake for a h0 m0 sexual wedding

      Nobody’s ever whined about this before! Thank goodness you can finally let your big0 ted whine out. Boo hoo hoo! Gay people! You don’t like their “behavior.” Go ahead and tell everyone how it’s a “lifestyle choice.” It was fun listening to you and your fellow big0ts sh0ve that in every American’s for … how many years? 20? 50? 100? Nobody got tired of that. Nope.

      But …. the cakes. The cakes! Oh, what a h0rrible thing to have to bake a cake for someone who’s being …. immoral! According to your personal beliefs.

      not wonder if it’s directed only at people who likely voted for Trump, or is also intended for the Bernie and Hillary crowds who are just as intolerant,

      LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

      Because Hillary and Bernie supp0rters don’t actively court racists, big 0ts and mis0gynists to be in their “big tent.” Totally int0lerant!

      Super fascinating and serious stuff. We’ve never heard any of this before, “Atari Man”! Truly you’ve been so “oppressed.”

      My goodness the next year is going to be a fun ride.

      1. 21.2.2

        “You know what elseI’m tired of people trying to make gendered languages ungendered;

        Oh, the pain. The pain! How burdens0me for you.”

        It is becoming burdensome for a professor about to lose his job because he declines to do this in Canadia land.

    3. 21.4

      ” wonder if it’s directed only at people who likely voted for Trump, or is also intended for the Bernie and Hillary crowds who are just as intolerant, and in many ways more intolerant, of opinions other than their own.”

      Tolerance doesn’t require tolerance of the intolerant, and their intolerant views.

      “I’m as tired of seeing people getting jobs and promotions and government contracts on the basis of their skin color”

      Imagine how tired of that African Americans are after 350+ years of seeing white people get jobs and promotions and government contracts on the basis of their skin color. But its “evil social engineering” to give any of those things to non-white folks simply on the basis of their skin color, right?

      You guys are pa th et ic.

      1. 21.4.1

        Sorry AAA JJ, your line of “Tolerance doesn’t require tolerance of the intolerant, and their intolerant views.” is pure BS.

        1. 21.4.1.1

          No. It’s not. We don’t have to tolerate, e.g., the KKK, the anti-abortion zealots, the Westboro Baptist Church, etc. Do they have the freedom to say whatever they want? Sure. But we don’t have to tolerate them. We don’t have to accept them into civil society. In fact, it’s our obligation not to. If you want to open a bakery, a restaurant, a hotel, etc. then you have to serve everybody, including those people who you think are “morally wrong” (lulzapalooza on that one). If you don’t, if you’re not tolerant but instead intolerant, you’re getting shut down. Plain and simple.

          1. 21.4.1.1.1

            You remain confused.

            Perhaps you should recognize what “tolerate” means. I think you have taken that term to mean something else entirely.

            1. 21.4.1.1.1.1

              I’m confused? You’re the one who thinks that affirmative action is “the same evil” as slavery.

              Who’s confused?

              1. 21.4.1.1.1.1.1

                Integration is the ultimate salve to racism. Whatever promotes integration is to be promoted.

                AAA JJ, do you think Indian reservations promote integration of the Indian people into America?

              2. 21.4.1.1.1.1.2

                You want to kick dust now, AAA JJ?

                Try getting right what I actually had to say about the e vi1 of racial discrimination no matter the ends that such e vi1 is used for.

                Your slipping into the Malcolm “Ends justify the Means” territory.

            2. 21.4.1.1.1.2

              Perhaps you should recognize what “tolerate” means.

              Perhaps you should learn to “tolerate” being told that you sound like a racist apologist liz@rdbrain by reasonable people everywhere.

              That doesn’t mean that you actually are one. I mean, you might be a genius! There’s always a chance.

              But you should “tolerate” being told otherwise. Seriously: get used to it.

          2. 21.4.1.1.2

            AAA JJ: We don’t have to tolerate, e.g., the KKK, the anti-abortion zealots, the Westboro Baptist Church, etc. Do they have the freedom to say whatever they want? Sure. But we don’t have to tolerate them. We don’t have to accept them into civil society. In fact, it’s our obligation not to.

            AAA JJ, but how do you tell who they are if they wear masks, or hide behind pseudonyms?

            1. 21.4.1.1.2.1

              When the baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding, when the hotel owner refuses to rent a room to African Americans, etc., it’s pretty clear “who they are” and we don’t have to tolerate those people.

              Simple questions for you: should a hotel that refuses to rent rooms to African Americans be fined? If the hotel owner thinks African Americans are “morally wrong” should he/she be allowed to refuse to rent a room?

              There’s no doubt who these intolerant jackholes are, Ned. Now that your boy has been elected they all free free to spew their nonsense without shame. And without anonymity. Do we have to tolerate those people?

              1. 21.4.1.1.2.1.1

                AAA JJ, you are free to miss my point if you please. But the KKK and anonymous posters have the same thing in common which prevents anybody “shunning” them.

                As to bigots now feeling no shame? It seems to me that you have to distinguish between those who condemn globalism because of unfairness and those who simply hate. The problem I see is that some, nay, many, try to shout down anti-globalists as bigots the same way that big companies shout down all NPEs as trolls.

                1. But the KKK and anonymous posters have the same thing in common which prevents anybody “shunning” them.

                  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

                  Nobody is arguing that the KKK can’t put on their hoods and pretend to be s00per serious about their liz@rdbrain ideas in the comfort of their own bunkers.

                  But it’s not surprising to see you pretend otherwise, Ned.

                  Now, if you want to hold hands with “anon” and k00mb@ya all over the proposition that True Freedom Luvvers everywhere should welcome the KKK to their town because “diversity” and “tolerance”, then go ahead and make the argument.

                  Seriously: put it right up top in the first comment and make the argument. Use a pseudonym like “anon” does, if you wish. Make the argument as compelling as you can. Breathe some real life into it! And be sure to cite some awesome facts.

                  I can hardly wait! Please show us what you g0t, Ned.

                2. Malcolm,

                  There is a case about action ad speech (a parade) and the clan that you should be aware of.

                  Maybe you should refresh yourself about the legal principles involved in that case instead of dwelling on your feelings.

                3. There is a case about action ad speech (a parade) and the clan that you should be aware of.

                  Ah yes. That was the famous case when the Supreme Court said that everybody in town had to cheer for the KKK. Nobody was permitted to boo them or yell “Get outa town you racist liz@rdbrains!” Because that would be oh-so-unfair to the white supremacists and their s00per d00per serious beliefs.

                  Is that the case you’re talking about, “anon”? Or is there some other case? You’re the expert after all. You’re a real deep thinker! A True Patri0t. Yup. That’s you.

                4. Way to be obtuse, Malcolm.

                  Maybe try again for the point of the case, and reflect exactly how that case fits what I have been posting here.

                  Come man – give it a try.

                5. reflect exactly how that case fits what I have been posting here.

                  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

                  Up is down, black is white, and “anon” — who can’t argue his way out of a paper bag — thinks he’s got a Supreme Court case that “fits” what he’s “posting” about here.

                  Beyond parody.

                6. What is beyond parody how deliberately obtuse you are being about the freedom of expression with a group that you are using for your ad hominem campaign.

                  You really cannot see your duplicity exemplified by the case that I mention?

                  Really?

              2. 21.4.1.1.2.1.2

                Spewing nonsense and taking actions are clearly different things.

                Please stop emulating Malcolm, AAA JJ.

                1. Spewing nonsense and taking actions are clearly different things.

                  Except that the actions AAA JJ noted were, in fact, taken, and your deep-thinking c0horts are infesting this thread with complaints about how “tired” they are of being criticized for those actions. Somehow you missed that?

                  But you’re a super serious person, Billy! I know this is a really difficult conversation for you to keep up with. Ask your m0mmy to help you when she gets done cutting eyeholes in your daddy’s pillowcase.

                2. complaints are “actions”…?

                  Try this thing called “context” Malcolm.

                  You will still be an arse, but at least you might come halfway close to discussing law.

                3. “Please stop emulating Malcolm, AAA JJ.”

                  That’s rich, coming from somebody who thinks that affirmative action is “the same evil” as slavery.

              3. 21.4.1.1.2.1.3

                “and we don’t have to tolerate those people.”

                That’s true, you don’t have to. If you want to be an intolerant person that is. But then, when you become an intolerant person, then more and more people feel emboldened to be intolerant, in a diversity (ahem) of ways. And then you end up going back about 40 years in race relations etc. Have fun.

              4. 21.4.1.1.2.1.4

                “There’s no doubt who these intolerant jackholes are, Ned. ”

                Correct, you’ve IDed yourself as one of them at this very moment. Intolerance is intolerance is intolerance. The meaning of the word doesn’t change just because there are different parties involved.

            2. 21.4.1.1.2.2

              but how do you tell who they are if they wear masks,

              Ned, you are aware that the hijab is a mask, right?

          3. 21.4.1.1.3

            “But we don’t have to tolerate them. We don’t have to accept them into civil society.”

            Bait and switch, moving the goal posts in front of our very eyes!

            “In fact, it’s our obligation not to. If you want to open a bakery, a restaurant, a hotel, etc. then you have to serve everybody, including those people who you think are “morally wrong””

            If you want to participate in capitalism you must adopt our ideology on “muh isms”! Otherwise you can starve (or be poor etc)!

            Lefties. Whew. So intolerant.

            ” If you don’t, if you’re not tolerant but instead intolerant, you’re getting shut down. Plain and simple.”

            It’s like he doesn’t even see the parallels to fascism. Just blithely unaware.

            1. 21.4.1.1.3.1

              There is that parallel – in the blindness.

              But look below for my provided reasoning as to what it means to have a business which engages the public.

  7. 20

    The problems afflict all democracies, not just the USA.

    Something here on “free speech” and the murder of British Member of Parliament Jo Cox:

    link to theguardian.com

    Ever since the result of the BREXIT Referendum, the bigoted and ignorant xenophobe minority in England is seeing itself and its views as legitimate, mainstream and entitled to respect. It’s a problem for civil society.

    1. 20.1

      You see “affliction” where I see one of this country’s greatest contribution to the concept of democracy.

      Perhaps you do not recognize the historical impact and why the First Amendment is so important to US jurisprudence.

      Perhaps you should try to understand that first.

    2. 20.2

      and entitled to respect

      One of the biggest misconceptions about Freedom of Speech – the ability tot provide freedom of speech does not carry such “entitlement of respect.”

      No wonder then that MaxDrei’s other speech on this blog so often carries with it the notion that MaxDrei appears to think that by merely saying something that it has “respect.” And so often, MaxDrei is not willing to back up his initial postings (where respect would actually be earned).

        1. 20.3.1.1

          “When civility replaces freedom, you will retain neither.

          Has there ever been a bigger pack of hypocrites in the world than these ch umps with their “anti-PC” whining?

          I kinda doubt it.

  8. 19

    Worth reposting on top:

    Since I cannot obtain clarification directly, let’s apply some critical analysis to the following statement:

    I hope that we can agree that our society should work to ensure bodily safety to all persons within our borders and to substantially eliminate racism and bigotry.

    There is no doubt that the first part of the statement will find universal agreement here (“should work to ensure bodily safety to all persons within our borders“).

    It is the slippery slope of PC that attaches to the second part though that warrants (nay, demands) our attention: “to substantially eliminate racism and bigotry

    Just what means are used (and which freedoms are sacrificed) in this noble Ends of “substantially eliminating” is what we ALL should be on guard for.

    I may find certain speech to be degrading, humiliating and in every sense repugnant, but I will also fight with every fiber of my being for your right to engage in such expression. This is a fundamental principle of this country, and one that truly sets this nation apart and is a source of our greatness – no matter what any particular repugnant expression may ALSO be protected.

    You want a society working to take THAT right away? Sorry Prof. Crouch, but I will NOT be joining you there. THAT path is not the path that you may think it is.

    1. 19.1

      I may find certain speech to be degrading, humiliating and in every sense repugnant, but I will also fight with every fiber of my being for your right to engage in such expression.

      How about the right for adults to vote in elections? Will you fight for that, too?

      Tell everybody, “anon”. Because you’re a very serious person. We all have to pay attention to you!

      1. 19.1.1

        What does your question have to do with this topic or my stand on voting?

        You are doing that “lump them all together” thing again.

        1. 19.1.1.1

          What does your question have to do with this topic

          Try to believe it, f0lks.

          But you’re a very serious person, “anon”! Totally not a hypocrite. And totally not an enabler and supp0rter of racist h0 m0ph0bic mis0gynist a h0les. Nope. Not you.

          Keep fighting the good fight, Billy. And by that I mean making sure you know what the person in the bathr00m stall next to you has between their legs. And g0d f0rbid you have to bake a cake for an adulterer (gulp!) one of those dirty Jews (yuck!). Freedom!

          1. 19.1.1.1.1

            Brush aside your ad hominem, and I see that you have (once again) said NOTHING intelligent or on point.

            Yay ecosystem !

            1. 19.1.2.1.1.1

              You mind letting HOPB explain whatever point that he was trying to make, Malcolm?

              As for “difficult conversation” I cannot help but notice that you have YET to say anything intelligent and on point yet.

              Maybe you should try for that instead of your usual ad hominem…?

    2. 19.2

      The First Amendment is only relevant to this issue to the extent that you keep bringing it up. There are no 1A issues raised by Bill Lee’s story. No one in this entire comments section is advocating any kind of government restriction on speech. All you are doing is diluting and distracting.

      Professor Crouch never suggested how to “substantially eliminate racism and bigotry”. He didn’t suggest any government or legal action. You just can’t seem to separate a call to stop racism and bigotry, with the means for doing so. There are plenty of things that can and should be done without any government involvement. We can all speak about what kind of society we think we should have. Crouch has expressed an ideal almost no one disagres with. Any you hyperventilate about the First Amendment. Why? Respectfully, since the First Amendment is so important to you, do you understand how it works. Insulting language has always and alwaysmwill be protected. Speech can’t be barred structly because of its content (exceptions like state secrets etc. of course). There is no reason to worry that because some people would like to eliminate racism and bigotry that somehow hateful speech will be banned. There are many allowable restrictions based on speech, but regulating hate speech is virtually impossible.

      1. 19.2.1

        I am not “diluting and distracting” at all HOPB.

        My point rests on solid ground and is very much germane.

        1. 19.2.1.1

          My point rests on solid ground and is very much germane

          “anon” thinks he had a point.

          LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

          And it’s “very much germane”! Yup. Super d00per “germane”.

          Thank goodness he’s such a serious person.

          1. 19.2.1.1.2

            It may have taken ~8 years, but we finally have something to agree on.

            1. 19.2.1.1.2.1

              That’s not a good thing, HOPB.

              Feel free to rejoin the discussion on the point I presented (rather than celebrating your “oneness” with Malcolm).

            2. 19.2.1.1.2.2

              Oh, I think we’ve agreed on plenty of other stuff before, HoPB. And we can also probably agree that patent subject matter eligibility disagreements pale in relation to these larger issues.

              I’m surely an optimist but I still believe that most of us agree about most of the important things. Also, reasoned discourse is one of the best ways to maximize that potential. Unfortunately, isolation, paranoia, prejudice and ign0rance are powerful barriers to entry and there is a lot of that going around.

      2. 19.2.2

        HoPB You just can’t seem to separate a call to stop racism and bigotry, with the means for doing so.

        “racism”? “bigotry”? Just words! If you only knew how 0ppressed “anon” and his fellow deep thinkers were. Those terms are just attempts to limit what super serious people like “anon” and company get to talk about without being criticized! And they’re very important people, after all. Super … inn0vative. They told us so!

    3. 19.3

      anon,

      Note that Dennis explicitly stated:

      “I hope that we can agree that our SOCIETY should work to ensure bodily safety to all persons within our borders and to substantially eliminate racism and bigotry.”[Emphasis added]

      Without attributing the error noted below by an imperfect but greatly insightful man to either yourself or Dennis, I note that there is nothing wrong with Dennis’ statement (if “ensure bodily safety” means “refraining” from initiation of physical violence), since society is not government:

      “Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness Positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.” – Thomas Paine “Common Sense” 1776

      1. 19.3.1

        Nice addition, Anon2.

        But does nothing to my point about what is surely well received and what just as surely must be guarded against (with the intrusion of PC).

        1. 19.3.1.1

          Of course.

          I assume you have had arguments in the past with self professed Right-leaning “anti-union” types – who claim that “unions” as such, are a “bad thing” and hence “should” be outlawed. You of course recognize that “unions” of free individuals, who initiate no fraud or physical force, but endeavor to gain for themselves bargaining power by coming together, neither requires entrenched endorsement nor abolition by the State.

          So too with PC and “mean statements” absent threats of violence.

          1. 19.3.1.1.1

            Correct – unions are free to form (as opposed to unions themselves preventing those who do not want to join a union from working alongside a union member…)

            1. 19.3.1.1.1.1

              There are lots of legal questions here – Should an employer be able to fire employees because they join a union (or are likely to join a union); Can an employer bar union representatives from talking with employees; Should an employer be able to irrevocably bind itself to hiring only union employees (as a result of a negotiated agreement)? Can an employer require that all employees join the union? How is an employee’s duty of loyalty impacted by union membership?

              1. 19.3.1.1.1.1.1

                Dennis, globalization has to adversely affect unionization and unionism. With capital free to flow to any location in the world it wants, it will choose the location where its profits are greatest; and that typically is where there are little or no unions.

                As I said before, one way to make sure that we can protect worker rights in the United States is to provide countervailing duties so that the average wage (and working condition) for producing a good in either the United States or in a foreign country will be approximately the same.

                1. Another one 6: add duties such that everyone making a product sold in the US has the same minimum wage.

                2. Not just minimum wage – but all of the costs of the “externalities” that we have put in place (for example, all the regulations and costs thereof of protecting the environment – instead of some type of “you can destroy the environment in order to play catch up economically” as is the desire of the liberal left).

              2. 19.3.1.1.1.1.2

                Dennis:

                Which “shoulds” constitute legal questions (as opposed to personal moral opinions) depends upon what one defines as legal authority and hence what legitimately falls within the purview of proper legal action in an objective legal system.

                Even if we are common in assuming that governments cannot arbitrarily do anything they wish in contradiction with the Constitution, there is likely little overlap between us due to what we each take to be the proper role of government and what the constitution is. That said, some overlap, might be found at least in the principle that a contract between free individuals should be binding.

                Hence the IMHO legal questions regarding actions of either party should be defined by the contract. Who is allowed to do what and whether there are any penalties or notice provisions (I’m not an employment lawyer)… Generally unless a promise was made to do or refrain from doing something, the parties are unobligated to do or refrain from doing the something. I suspect in a free society sometimes an employer will sign a contract with a union entity, in other cases a collection of workers would hire a negotiator to act on their behalf and the same or similar and possibly customized contract(s) would be privately signed by each of them…

                To be concrete and probably wholly untethered from decided “law” (in addition to being on the opposite of your “shoulds”):
                yes (unless contracted with otherwise),
                no (but they can fire employees who talk to them although that would likely would be irrational and cost the business long term),
                not sure about irrevocably binding oneself to anything… but breach should be taken seriously, damages payable to employees who have signed,
                such a thing should be part of the contract,
                not sure how valid “duty of loyalty” is but if in the contract should not be impacted by union membership (unless such results in dishonesty or constitutes explicit breach of the contract)…. loyalty does not imply subservience.

            2. 19.3.1.1.1.2

              “unions themselves preventing those who do not want to join a union from working alongside a union member…”

              are ALSO free to form,

              as long as the act of “preventing” is contractual and not through the initiation of force (whether via private thugs or government thugs…)

              1. 19.3.1.1.1.2.1

                We should have a vote:

                Should we ban (or limit) trade with any country that does not permit workers to form a union independent of government control?

  9. 18

    I don’t understand idiots who think they can get away with open racism today. It’s still extremely risky to do so, given that you’ll likely lose your job and reputation if caught. Today is NOT the 1950s. People are fighting back much stronger than in the 1950s, and there are a hell of a lot more of us.

  10. 17

    “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is that good men [and women] do nothing.” -Edmund Burke

    1. 17.1

      Is it evil that we have First Amendment that allows freedom of expression – even of those things that we do not like? Is it really “doing nothing” to recognize what the First Amendment means – and why people have fought to preserve that which most may find repugnant?

      1. 17.1.1

        Huh? No, to your non sequitor, I guess. It’s evil to do what “Wellesely Soccer Parent” did. Doing nothing would be not taking any action at all when haters show their evil faces in public. Doing nothing woukd be nit acting or speaking in response measurabke and alarming increases in hate crimes across the country. Doin nothing would be sitting quietly at home when a man wins national office after calling Mexican illegal immigrants mostly rapists and murderers. Doing nothing would be twiddling thumbs while a man with the fewest votes hires henchmen who have advocated registering Muslims and cites Japanese internment as precedent. Doing nothing in the face of a religious test for entry to the country would be allowing evil to flourish.

        The public record is clear. We are at a point where failure to speak out can only be taken as assent. The holocaust didn’t start in the 20th century. It started over centuries of accepting bigotry and hatred of a small identifiable group. If we are accepting of using anger and hatred as a political tactic, then we are laying the foundation for future tragedy.

          1. 17.1.1.1.1

            Of course they missed the point — because the point, respectfully, was not apparent. Please explain your point.

              1. 17.1.1.1.1.1.1

                So you won’t explain your comment. Are you suggesting that what happened has anything to do with freedom of speech? I’m aware of no effort to ban the type of speech Mr. Lee encountered. People have always been free to insult each other. I’m not sure where the government actor was in the story above. I’m making a point about good people taking action in the face of evil or evil triumphs. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, as best as i can tell.

                1. It is not that I won’t – it is that I do not have to – read the rest of the comments on the thread.

                2. It is not that I won’t – it is that I do not have to

                  Translation: “I won’t explain my comment.”

                  What a cr e ep.

                3. Maybe you might want to NOT attempt to spin my response – and actually follow my response there Malcolm.

        1. 17.1.1.2

          The incident is horrific. But so is the effect of illegal immigration on the poor and especially on African-Americans (see George Borjas research, just for starts) and being “America First” shouldn’t be conflated with racism or intolerance. As for Holocaust analogies – I sure hope the people making them are trying to do something about Sudan, Central Africa Republic, Syria, and other places where the real thing is going on.

          1. 17.1.1.2.1

            Absolutely. We don’t even need those reasons. It’s enough that those are our democratically passed laws. I happen to agree with Trump that illegal immigrants should be returned and asked to seek legal admittance. That said, how different things might have been if Trump had just said what you said, instead of making his very first statement, when announcing his candidacy, a blanket statement that most illegal immigrants are rapists and murderers? Did he appeal to reason and fairness or the needs of Americans, or did he appeal to every hater-in-waiting? He set a deplorable political tone in this country, and I posted that quote to anyone who might not be curious whether Trump’s rhetoric and tone (seperated from the underlying issues) have had a part in this trend.

            Ad I agree completely that it disgusting and divisive to label those opposed to illegal immigration as racist etc. There is far too much name-calling and angry words on both sides. We are losing the ability to listen to each other and objectively tease out from public discourse objective truth and the best solutions in light of what is true. Objectivity is dying.

            1. 17.1.1.2.1.1

              I happen to agree with Trump that illegal immigrants should be returned and asked to seek legal admittance.

              Do they get any sort of a trial? Or do we just round them up on random nights based on “intelligence” (because the Trump administration is full of that!) shove them into boxcars, and voila! Problem solved?

              What about kids that were born here? And how far back do we go searching for “illegals”?

              Note: I’m not suggesting that we can’t deport “illegal” people. I am suggesting that the details about how that’s done make all of the difference. Of course they do.

              1. 17.1.1.2.1.1.1

                Note: I’m not suggesting that we can’t deport “illegal” people. I am suggesting that the details about how that’s done make all of the difference. Of course they do.

                It’s rather peculiar how you lose that “details about how that’s done make all of the difference” view when it comes to patent law matters.

              2. 17.1.1.2.1.1.2

                Personally, I think all options should be considered, but we ought to have cross-party consensus. Immigration laws are unique as they go to who we are as a country. Yes, some kind of proceeding is in order. Yes, the details matter a lot. And we ought to recognize our complicity in the situation as we go forward. Yep, details matter.

                1. Remind Malcolm of that the next type he comes close to a patent law issue and does his usual “Ends justify the Means” spiel.

        2. 17.1.1.3

          “national office after calling Mexican illegal immigrants mostly rapists and murderers”

          He didn’t actually say that if you watch the clip. He was referring specifically to the sub-set of immigrants sent specifically by the mexican gov (their ne’er do wells). But your mainstream media won’t tell you this.

      2. 17.1.2

        Yes, yes it is evil to idly permit hatred to flourish. Even if the government may be handcuffed from punishing intolerant attitudes of the type illustrated by Mr. Lee’s story, that does not prohibit private citizens from speaking out against such senseless cruelty, from resisting normalization of the -isms that led to the greatest atrocities of the last century, from teaching their children to do the same, from using the power of free speech and the ballot to punish those who willfully blind themselves to the problem.

        1. 17.1.2.1

          Also great responses – and also missing the point as to why we have a Freedom of Speech that makes this nation so great.

      3. 17.1.3

        “anon” Is it evil that we have First Amendment that allows freedom of expression – even of those things that we do not like?

        No.

        Of course, that doesn’t change the fact that you are a t0xic piece of dissembling sh-t, “anon.” Took me about two minutes to figure that out and every day since then you’ve just dug yourself a deeper h0le.

        By the way, we all laughed at you and Richard Peterson over the table yesterday in SF, at the same thing thanking our stars that neither of you were there. We all felt so “demonized”! LOL

        1. 17.1.3.2

          the fact that you are a t0xic piece of dissembling sh-t, “anon.”

          Your feelings are noted (as is your attempted spin to make your feelings into a “fact”).

          every day since then you’ve just dug yourself a deeper h0le.

          Says the guy holding the shovel (still).

          Your “lump them all together” shtick continues, as does your improper use of the word “demonize,” but, hey when has that ever stopped you in your decade long blighting?

          So while you answer “no” to my question (which is the point that I present), ALL of your other actions scream the opposite – maybe that’s just too nuanced for you to figure out.

  11. 16

    In group amity / out group emnity is THE most powerful driver of human affairs. Trump rose in part by consolidation of out group emnity, but the evidence suggests that the Trump wanna bees are not similarly prospering. Maybe only Trump can be Trump for the moment.

    As a general matter, life is tough and getting tougher. Its a dangerous and paranoid society at the moment. I myself prefer a tiny but strong 22 revolver and a weather eye when out and about.

    1. 16.1

      1. It is becoming more and more apparent that:

      A man is entitled to whatever he can take,

      but only what he can keep.

      2. A 22 is not very useful for self-defense unless it is in a fully automatic gun with a large magazine. I recommend either:

      a. A Glock 42 or Remington RM-380 (380 caliber pocket guns);

      b. A Mossberg 930SPX 12 Gauge semi-automatic shotgun with an aftermarket shoulder pad to reduce the recoil. The magazine for this Mossberg holds 7 rounds of 2-3/4″ shells.

      If you don’t mind carrying it loaded you can also have a round in the chamber.

    2. 16.2

      [L]ife is tough and getting tougher.

      Huh? What are you talking about? I doubt that there is any period in human history where so many have had it so good as we have it right now. It is hard to argue with the assertion that life is “tough” (this side of the parousia, it always will be), but the idea that it is “getting tougher” is just strange. It is rather self-evident to my eyes that life is easier now than it was just a generation ago, and much easier than it was three or four generations ago.

      I remember back in 1996, CNN mysteriously took an interest in shark attacks, and started reporting them on national t.v. It is not as if the incidence of shark attacks had increased in 1996, but because the public was suddenly being made aware of them, people panicked and stopped going to the beach. Eventually, CNN moved on to some other shiny story to follow, shark attacks stopped getting national media coverage, and everyone went back to normal. The moral of the story is, however, that people can be made to feel anxious/unhappy simply by being told about bad news that does not affect them.

      I think that this explains 90% of talk about things being “tough” or “dangerous.” Median household income is objectively rising. Violent crime is objectively declining. Major terrorist incidents in the U.S. are objectively rare. Inflation is objectively low and surprisingly stable.

      In other words, this nation and its people are doing objectively well. Strangely, however, people profess to feel ill at ease. I submit that it is because we are surrounded by paranoid propaganda on CNN, Fox, a.m radio, etc. We would all feel a lot better if we simply stopped paying attention to irrelevant petulance on the airwaves.

      1. 16.2.1

        Agree with you Greg.

        Awhile back, as part of a project, I catalogued sensationalism across media across generations, and every single generation had the same belief: their time was the worst and becoming even more bad.

        We called it “End of Times” syndrome.

      2. 16.2.2

        Greg you are an elite member of society and clearly have no idea what is going on out there. Statistics like crime rates and economic indicators provide no context. Yea, life is better (somewhat) if you are very poor- but that is a tough life and has always been a tough life. When you are talking about middle class people struggling- life is very much getting tougher. Inflation means little when declining McMansion prices offset vastly rising healthcare and education costs. Cheap energy and cheap money are not here to stay- and even those boosters are failing to change the trend. The problems are income inequality and now overvalued medium-intensity brainwork. Those are huge structural problems.

        link to theatlantic.com

  12. 15

    Mr Lee recalls the Bad Old Days of the 1950’s, when “it was not a great time to be Asian”. Nor was it a good time to be Asian back in the days of good old Boston, when the Lowells spoke only to the Cabots and the Cabots spoke only to God.

    We can’t sustain an economic boom for ever. Only in a boom, when they are not fighting for a crust, can people afford to be nice to each other. And as soon as the boom falters, the people look for a strong leader, and the populist, inflammatory rabble rousers of politics and the media tell the people that their instinctive xenophobia is OK, respectable, nothing to be ashamed of.

    Back to normality then, I fear.

    1. 15.1

      Max,

      At the time of your toast (1923), help wanted signs supposedly (this may be a myth, but it is widely believed) carried a notation, NINA – No Irish Need Apply.

      1. 15.1.1

        OK so today it’s not on, to be anti-Irish or anti-semitic. But is it less heinous to be anti-Asian? I ask because the protagonist in Dennis’s story has an Asian name but then, in this thread, people are instead going on about anti-semitism.

        Your contribution reminds me of what amuses lawyers from England when they visit the smartest addresses in good old Boston. Next to the Main Entrance is often a prominent Notice “No Solicitors”. What is so funny? It’s just that, in England, the name for an attorney at law is “solicitor”.

  13. 14

    Fortitude, prudence, justice, temperance, charity, showing respect and dignity to our fellow man – what my grandfather called virtue. These qualities don’t go out of fashion, he lived them through the Second World War and through fighting for civil rights in the South for his neighbors. Our pluralistic civilization is precious but fragile, and by no means set in stone. After reading your post, I had my middle school son read over it (“Oh my Goodness!!?”), and I said, “If you want a better world, you need to stand up and speak up if you see this or any other hate at school or around other kids. That is not who we are and that is not our America. Be the virtue you want in the World.” He said he’s up for the task.
    Thanks for sharing this Dennis. A joyous Thanksgiving to you and yours.

    1. 14.1

      Fortitude, prudence, justice, temperance, charity, showing respect and dignity to our fellow man – what my grandfather called virtue. These qualities don’t go out of fashion

      Absolutely agree.

      he lived them through the Second World War and through fighting for civil rights in the South for his neighbors

      Exemplary actions.

      Our pluralistic civilization is precious but fragile, and by no means set in stone.

      Very true, with shades of Sir Thomas More and protecting the First Amendment against Political Correctness. Be careful to recognize that even “hateful speech” is protected under the very system that is the cornerstone of “our pluralistic civilization.” Do not sacrifice for some projected Ends, the very “delicate” rights that we have to BE offensive (in speech, and to other’s eyes), and remember that many who came to this country were deemed to be those very “offensive” people in their prior homelands.

    2. 14.2

      It’s sad when the filter blocks a direct cut and paste from another….

      Fortitude, prudence…These qualities don’t go out of fashion

      Absolutely agree.

      he lived them through the Second World War and through fighting for civil rights in the South for his neighbors

      Exemplary actions.

      Our pluralistic civilization is precious but fragile, and by no means set in stone.

      Very true, with shades of Sir Thomas More and protecting the First Amendment against P0litical C0rrectness. Be careful to recognize that even “ha te ful speech” is protected under the very system that is the cornerstone of “our pluralistic civilization.” Do not sacrifice for some projected Ends, the very “delicate” rights that we have to BE offensive (in speech, and to other’s eyes), and remember that many who came to this country were deemed to be those very same “offensive” people in their prior homelands.

    3. 14.3

      “These qualities don’t go out of fashion,”

      They absolutely did on the left. Observe this very thread. The only one they like of those old virtues is charity, which they magnify a thousand fold and don’t care how many people or lives lived they sacrifice to it. The rest are hopelessly perverted by gynocentrism.

  14. 13

    These incidents are not acceptable, but Donald Trump’s election is not the cause of racism and prejudice in America. Having lived throughout the country, I can say that racism has existed everywhere in all states long before the election. Some of the worst is in the north. I’m not surprised at all that this happened in the liberal bastion of Wellesley. Some could argue that liberal policies has led to this situation by favoring certain classes of people over others. But, Dennis, you’re an academic who makes his living in the shelter of liberal academia whose view of the world was resoundly rejected in the last election. Need I remind you that many more white trump supporters have been attacked and brutalized by black Hillary supporters? Blame the racists, not your perceived racist movement in America that is fueled by the Trump election. Happy Thanksgiving.

    1. 13.2

      Not the cause of racism, but has certainly offered validation to those now feel it’s acceptable to express their racism. That’s not acceptable. And nothing was resoundingly rejected in the election, given the difference in popular votes.

      1. 13.2.1

        Because ideologic repression of expression is such a good thing….

        Another person in dire need of understanding the First Amendment.

    2. 13.3

      How can you possibly know Crouch’s “view of the world”? Stereotyping is for lazy minds; it’s similar to racism. The stereotyoe of academics might have some truth to it, but here is the mistake you make (and which Mr. Lee’s story above illustrates). You can’t make conclusions about individuals from only some category they belong to. Each person is a unique individual. When we see people only as some class they belong to, instead of individuals and fellow countrymen, we are on the path to decay.

    3. 13.4

      Thanks Pete – You are correct that I likely don’t have much to contribute to the empirical argument of the extent of a revived “racist movement” and whether it has been fueled by the recent Trump election.

      That said, I have also lived throughout the country and have seen racism everywhere that I have lived. I would love to come together with you to denounce bigotry and hate and continue to work toward a society whose divisions are not built upon these grounds.

      I watched the movie Loving last night – great movie – about the famous Loving v. Virginia (1967) decision. The movie reminded me that it was not that long ago that American law supported, sanctioned, and often required the practice of racism. Of course, the legal support for the law today is fragile and could be rather easily dismantled if Congress and the Supreme Court acted to return power to the States.

    4. 13.5

      The “incident” of the verbal exachange is not only perfectly acceptable, but is the very thing that needs to be protected against an over application of PC.

      The “incident” of following the gentleman after the exchange is NOT perfectly acceptable, bordering on harassment.

      But let’s make sure that even vile words do not allow PC to “mow down the protections of law, lest we stand before the devil without that protection for ourselves” (in the fashion of Sir Thomas More).

  15. 12

    I agree.

    It is unfortunate to see the rise in hate crimes and intolerance. It is difficult to know what to do to that will be effective in stopping or curbing this.

    It is something like sitting in your car on the highway with cars passing you on both sides of you, and because of the conditions on the road, it is clear you are on your way to crashing into the car in front of you, and there is nothing you see that can do other than press on the brakes and hope for the best.

  16. 11

    Nice sentiments Dennis.

    It is my wish that one day most individuals in America will have reflected and reasoned enough to throw off the blight racism, tribalism, and all forms of collectivism, of identification with groups, and of the tendency to want to rule over others. I wish for us to gain the required independence and self-esteem to throw off the psychological chains of jealously and irrationally blaming others for ones own failings, to live peacefully and productively pursuing happiness to the extent he or she can, respecting the rights of others to do so free from coercion. Racism like all forms of collectivism is inimical to life and each of us -every individual in this once and almost free country – should reject it.

    Happy Thanks Giving!

    1. 11.1

      There is nothing wrong with well-intended sentiments.

      There is everything wrong with pretending that the human condition is different than what it is, and that the well-intended sentiments will “magically” just happen. Human nature, being what it is, simply must be taken into account.

      1. 11.1.1

        Interesting. I cannot tell whether you are of the view that freedom and individualism is natural and that collectivism is something which must be indoctrinated in the culture of the population or the converse.

        Interestingly, it is the collectivists have often bemoaned “nature” as being too individualistic and something which had to be (essentially) beaten out of people, in order for them to rise to moral duties necessitated by the collective. Perhaps you share certain philosophies with them?

        Just which view is it that you have about “human nature”?

        1. 11.1.1.1

          Human nature encapsulates both the individual and the collective.

          I think that you are trying too hard to create a difference that is just not pertinent to the larger discussion.

          In other words, my view on human nature is not something that can be parsed down to only “individual” or only “group.”

          1. 11.1.1.1.1

            Ah. Indeed so.

            My view of human nature espouses that each individual is free to deal peacefully in groups, neither forcing his fellows into them nor forcibly divorcing his fellows from them. My point is that the self-esteem of a happy flourishing individual primarily is … well esteem of the self. Which rational esteem I wish today upon you and in fact everyone.

            Not sure if I got up on the wrong side of the turkey today… so I wanted to let you know I see our quibbles as minor and that I do appreciate your classical liberalism and rationality.

            1. 11.1.1.1.1.1

              Lol – and I yours.

              (Both sides of the turkey look good today – for those who are fortunate enough to have turkey)

  17. 10

    As an alien from the UK (as I used to be reminded whenever I visited the US), we do not celebrate Thanksgiving. That does not prevent me from wishing a very happy holiday to the editors, contributors and readers of Patently-O and to their families.

    We should start a movement over here for a pre-Christmas turkey pardoning ceremony presided over, perhaps, by Theresa May.

    As for the Wellesley Hockey Parent, cold turkey could be recommended, or perhaps jerk chicken.

    1. 10.1

      Come to think of it, we Oxford-educated Brits have feeling of such assured and effortless superiority that there is no need for rudeness or aggression of the kind described.

      1. 10.1.1

        Wow, “Oxford-educated Brits.” So, you are like Harvard educated yanks. You have to be sure to tell everyone that–often.

      2. 10.1.2

        Kind of simplistic there Paul. Sounds like a 1 percent solution. Just stuff your troubles in a bag and shu1-up you poor people.

    2. 10.2

      Could I start a competition for further Thanksgiving dishes (hopefully of an amusing nature) for Wellesley Hockey Parent?

      How about Humble Pie?

      Will 6 and Anon rise to the challenge?

          1. 10.2.1.1.1

            My sense of humor is more bound up in the irony that I am thankful for this country’s freedom of expression that allows such humor (or other expressions – including, yes, vile ones) to exist.

            And yet, this critical feature is attacked or attempted to be deemed “irrelevant” in the face of Political Correctness.

            Do you see that “sense of humour,” Paul?

      1. 10.2.2

        I would bro, but I have to get ready to drive drive drive and my funnybone is somewhat stymied by my experience at the dealership service dept last night.

  18. 9

    Thank you for posting this. In the last few weeks, there has been a growing trend to post angry comments to the most innocuous or even laudable sentiments. It’s a highly alarming trend. The only way to maintain some sense of balance is to keep speaking out as Dan Rather so eloquently wrote.

  19. 8

    It is strange that this is happening. I hear anti-sematic comments that I can’t even believe. Things I have never heard in my lifetime. Even the really bad people in high school never said the kind of stuff I am hearing now.

    I think this is happening because Obama has been so callous to so many Americans. I think Trump has played off this and encouraged these people. You know a good way to look at NAFTA is sacrificing 10 million American jobs in the Midwest to help Mexico. This kind of thinking has lead to a lot of hurt in the US, and Trump has figured out how to stoke it to get elected.

    Part of the solution is to stop abusing Americans by callously taking their jobs. Many argue that a job is the primary source of dignity of a person. I think this is true.

    1. 8.1

      So, basically, the same as in the 1930’s. You know, too, the problems are way underestimated by the media. The reality is that most people in the country continue to make about the same with the price of everything going up. Some in government continue to get raises –or those with unions and leverage–which just continues to make it worse for the rest of the people. Probably about 60-80 percent of the people have it real bad. And, Obama just continuing to ladle out favors that hurt the 60-80 percent is creating real anger. Although, oddly people are not attributing this to Obama. Somehow he smiles like he is the bestest boy in the world while slicing the workers in the back.

      Anyway, I don’t see much hope in Trump solving these problems. I think Sanders would have helped.

    2. 8.2

      Really? You think it’s OBAMA’s fault? Wow. That makes my head hurt.

      NAFTA was negotiated by George Herbert Walker Bush (in 1991) and signed by Bill Clinton (in 1992). Pretending that has anything to do with the explosion of hate directed to Jews in 2016 is beyond mind boggling.

      Part of the solution is to stop blaming other people for this, and actually accept that Trump’s casual support of the neo-Nazi alt-right has normalized this type of behavior.

      1. 8.2.1

        “Judith” “fault” “blame”

        No Judith, NWPA does not have all that much of a gynocentric world view. And as such does not intend to be playing a gynocentric blame game. He is simply stating what he thinks is a problem that occurred, from his perspective, so that it might be taken into account by readers if they so choose.

      2. 8.2.2

        Judith_IP: absolutely it is Obama’s fault. He has carried on all the policies that have gutted the middle class. Trade deals, asset inflation, etc. And, Obama acts as if he is the bestest little president in the world while the world for most Americans is burning. His smile is disgusting given how poor a job he has done.

        Why is it mind boggling? Large portion of the population being economically exploited striking out against minority groups? That is typical.

        Trump has done nothing but capitalize on the problems that Obama has been creating now for eight years. You know, Judith, I would very much like a socialist type of culture like Norway. But, you have to deal with reality.

        Face it Obama has been a terrible president. He just continued on with the policies that have destroyed the middle class.

        Focus on policies and reality. Like immigration. What educated person would really advocate allowing lots of Mexicans to emigrate to the US? None. The problem is that Mexico’s population is out of control. So is Brazil’s population. Saying gee those people need help so let them in will merely sink all our boats. If want to help –which we should—then that should come as foreign aid and not just letting in 10’s of millions of people.

        We need grown-up policies. Like massive pressure on the Pope to accept birth control. Like cutting off our borders and demanding that Mexico and Brazil control their populations.

        And, Clinton did not just sign the bill, but was a strong advocate for NAFTA, and trade with China (though they manipulate their currency), for no regulation for Wall Street, for monetary stimulus, taking vast sums of money using your public position, etc.

        Clinton’s policies have destroyed this country. And, Obama continued on with them.

        I think Sanders would have saved the country. I cringe at what Trump is going to do. We know HRC would have just been another Obama.

        So, yes, it is Obama that has created the opportunity that Trump has used to stoke the anti-Semitism, and all the other ism’s that Trump is exploiting to gain power. (OT, but I think Trump is more like Caligula than Hitler.)

        1. 8.2.2.1

          “We need grown-up policies. ”

          Everyone agrees, but what you actually mean are non-gynocentric grown up policies. But you don’t know it yet. Grown up women (and men with gynocentric world views indoctrinated into them) advocate for taking in Mexicans, Brazilians, Somalis, etc. etc. etc. on down the line literally all the time (they even hold parades about it). They see them as their own personal charity case that the gov will take care of (you know the gov that gets most of its revenue from the dread mail, and sometimes the dread wyte mail). Big daddy gov. will do their charity on their behalf (as it has been doing for decades since women got the vote).

      3. 8.2.3

        And the GOP has for generations been the greatest pusher of free trade. NAFTA was passed with significantly mire GOP votes than Dems.

    3. 8.3

      “I hear anti-sematic comments that I can’t even believe.”

      Indeed I myself have heard quite a few things. I also was raised in an environment completely devoid of such and hadn’t much heard anything about it.

      “I think this is happening because Obama has been so callous to so many Americans. I think Trump has played off this and encouraged these people.”

      This modern rise in anti-semitism did start off before Trump’s rise, and he may well have taken advantage of it. I would have to add et al. to your assertion about Obama though because he didn’t act alone by any means.

      “You know a good way to look at NAFTA is sacrificing 10 million American jobs in the Midwest to help Mexico.”

      True, though we also receive some (often concentrated) benefits.

  20. 7

    I usually do not leave comments. But I feel compelled to leave a comment to this post. As several previous comments, supposedly written by highly educated people, show, education in many cases does not eviscerate bigotry, but rationalize it. Putting aside political views, it is downright pathetic that one must step on someone else’s dignity to make himself feel dignified. I guess that is what the man at the gas station was trying to achieve-having a sense of importance. Out of the millions of things that he could have done to feel important, he decided to stoop down to his moral abyss. We should not tolerate that kind of behavior. We should stand up against bigotry and racism whenever we hear or encounter them.

    1. 6.1

      Appreciate the sentiment, but “unfortunate” connotes accident or chance (fortune). If we are blind to the reasons why this kind of story is increasing (do the research, please) and dismiss it as merely unfortunate, then it is likely to get worse. We need a sense of outrage. We should be constantly vigilant for possible causes of such actions. For instance, exploitative politicians.

      I don’t mean to suggest that you personally feel this way (that would be reading too much into a casual remark), just making an observation.

      1. 6.1.1

        The sense of outrage needs to be NOT exploited by the Politically Correct (just as much as – if not more – then to be “constantly vigilant” for the possible causes of such actions by exploitative politicians).

        The Ends cannot swallow the Means when it comes to such a precious freedom of expression – even and especially – expressions that are repugnant.

    2. 6.2

      Unfortunate story.

      Yup. My cat threw up this morning, too.

      Super unfortunate! But nothing to write home about about.

      After all, nobody died. And thank the good lord nobody was forced to bake a cake for a gay person.

  21. 5

    As Dan Rather writes “now is a time when none of us can afford to remain seated or silent. We must all stand up to be counted. . . . I believe there is a vast majority who wants to see this nation continue in tolerance and freedom. But it will require speaking.”

    Unfortunately, most of this “vast majority” has been bullied and told to be quiet for the last 8 plus years. You let us know you wanted to hear *nothing* that we had to say. We were shouted down whenever we had something to say, and we finally got tired of having to talk twice as loud twice as long just so we could be intentionally misunderstood and villainized for what we had to say. Everything we had to say was hat eful, a product of mans peak and wh ite privilege. Now you want us to speak up, when it suits you? Well, bully for you! Maybe if you made us think you were interested in anything we had to say after 2008, we might not be so silent in 2016.

    Democrats–telling the silent majority to sh ut up, and then crying when the silent majority doesn’t say anything . . .

      1. 5.1.1

        It is rather obvious that he meant not you personally, but rather the liberal left and its Political Correctness machinations.

        Glossing over that helps no one.

        1. 5.1.1.1

          Are you suggesting that only liberals should speak up against acts of hatred? What a silly remark.

            1. 5.1.1.1.1.1

              You are the one who says “rather obvious” that Rather was speaking only to the “liberal left” . You are the one saying that Rather’s call to speak about tolerance and freedom is somehow applicable only to the liberal left. Which of Rather’s words lead to this conclusion of yours? Pardon my slowness at missing the “obvious”, as you call it.

              You are a participant in the sick game of identity politics. Oppose and attack what someone says because of who they are rather than what their words mean. You are among that sad group that hears the speaker and not their words. The people who have to make everything into a fight. The people who oppose anything that emanates from the “other side”, no matter how true it might be. Too much hatred and anger going around these days, as Mr. Lee has reminded us.

              1. 5.1.1.1.1.1.1

                The emphasis is clear: not to Prof. Crouch personally (did you not note Prof. Crouch’s answer to the personal effect?)

              2. 5.1.1.1.1.1.2

                Your “identification” of me as a participant is also off.

                Two misses.

                You have one strike left before you ride the pines again.

                1. “anon” rides above everything on his s00per d00per white horse!

                  And he’s totally not a hypocrite!

                  Let’s never stop being amazed, folks. Just bow down.

                2. Maybe you want to try to make an actual point rather than your usual mindless ad hominem…

                  After all you are approaching the end of a decade of your blight and maybe you should try something else.

    1. 5.2

      most of this “vast majority”

      LOL The same “vast majority” that keeps losing the popular vote?

      We were shouted down whenever we had something to say

      Can you remind everyone what you had to say, Mr. “Vast Majority”? I’m dying to know what was allegedly not heard. Tell everyone.

      Everything we had to say was hat eful, a product of mans peak and wh ite privilege.

      Like “keep the government out of my medicare?”

      LOL

      1. 5.2.1

        where’s the upvote button on this commenting system?

        Lefties have asked people to treat everyone with respect, as a human being.

        If the thing that right-wing people wanted to say was hateful, then it’s not surprising if they were hushed.

            1. 5.2.1.1.1.1

              More lessons for Malcolm (and any other liberal struggling to come to terms with the election results:

              link to tennessean.com

              There are bits and pieces in the write up that apply to the content of this blog piece, so it might be worth reading for everyone taking part in the discussion as well.

          1. 5.2.1.1.2

            Some of the most virulent spew post election has come form those self same “lefties.”

            LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

            1. 5.2.1.1.2.2

              Did you bother reading what even liberals are saying about the election?

              Do you see yourself in doing what even liberals say not to do?

              Or will you merely repeat your mindlessness that you have engaged in for the last decade?

    2. 5.3

      WW, I think you are right in many ways. I think we see this in patents too. We see people like Lemley completely misrepresent the facts and the law to get his way. No one is playing fair. Obama is bought off. Clinton is saying (or was saying) trust me and let’s help others as she takes $100 million dollars as a price for access to her from Goldman Sachs and Google.

      I think Sanders has it right. Change the rules of lobbying and Citizens United as job number one. Sanders said that most of the people in Washington are nothing more than representatives of big corporations. That they are paid off with contributions and as long as they continue the party line will continue to get the money.

      So, change the rules if we want people that are decent.

      1. 5.3.1

        We will never be able to keep money out of politics. We just need to make the public the highest bidder for these influence-peddlers in DC. Pay them exorbanant salaries (millions per year) and publicly finance all elections high and low. To quote Puff Daddy: “it’s all about the Benjamins”. Spending a few billion a year to pay our Congress extravagantly would pay off many times over.

          1. 5.3.1.1.1

            I don’t care, as long as they are my (“the public’s”) money grubbers. Look at the history of our country. Special interests trumping public interest is a long tradition.

              1. 5.3.1.1.1.1.1

                Nasty. I don’t care if a politician is greedy. I care whether they are acting in the public’s interest instead for the interests of political donors. For-profit businesses contribute billions to politician’s “political campaigns”. As Trump said, is this for nothing, for charity? No, it’s so they can get what they want. The public coffers can easily outbid private interests. Cynical but pragmatic.

                1. You so miss the point – and no, you don’t get to try to play the victim card as if my factual observation is “nasty.”

                  Public coffers – and just how do you propose to fill those coffers?

                  Your Polly Anna is far deeper than your grasp of reality.

  22. 4

    “Lee said he hadn’t heard a comment like this for 40 years.”

    That is correct. For 40+ years we were going “forwards” in race relations. And then the regressive lefties emerged and brought new school ID politics which has now sparked repercussions and backlash.

    “These incidents are These incidents are not supposed to happen here, but they are happening.”

    That’s what happens when you ID politic, soon everyone has their own ID, and then they “tribe up” because the other “tribes” don’t make them feel safe etc. (physically economically etc).

    “As Dan Rather writes “now is a time when none of us can afford to remain seated or silent. We must all stand up to be counted. . . . I believe there is a vast majority who wants to see this nation continue in tolerance and freedom. But it will require speaking.”

    That is correct. It is absolutely imperative that we eliminate the regressive left, which is demanding more than tolerance and freedom, immediately or the right wing opposite reaction will get up towards equal by continuing to grow. The regressive left have been building up and reaching critical mass in the mainstream for the last 3-4 years or so and things are starting to get out of control. If they aren’t repudiated at every turn, the victim count will go through the roof.

    In any event, regressive left ID politics cannot be slain overnight and in the meantime I’m sorry to hear about your friends having to bear the brunt of it D. At least they sound like they weren’t significantly harmed just yet.

        1. 4.2.2.1

          Because I’m curious about his educational background, or lack thereof.

          Also, whether he was hired when the economy was good, because it seems there are quite a few “low quality” examiners from those time periods.

          1. 4.2.2.1.2

            As to the first point, why didn’t you just ask those questions? As to the second, I respectfully don’t understand. What does that have to do with these issues? Just curious.

    1. 4.4

      In a story about a well respected attorney being harassed for his race, you devolve right into the “regressive left” being the problem.

      That’s not surprising, but it’s still depressing. Your failure to even acknowledge that attacking people based on their race is not OK really does say everything.

      1. 4.4.1

        “you devolve right into the “regressive left” being the problem.”

        I sure did. Completely non-gynocentrically. Truthfully I just responded in the same order D typed his article and then added my own comment at the end. Sorrynotsorry if the formatting hurt your fee fees.

        “That’s not surprising, but it’s still depressing.”

        It should be. Regressive leftivity is depressing, and so is having to denounce it. It even existing is depressing. But we must prevail against it. A good first step is for you to excise the gynocentrism in your world view.

        “Your failure to even acknowledge that attacking people based on their race is not OK really does say everything.”

        Oh no! A man isn’t gynocentric enough to lurve eating up every crumb of victimhood and “acknowledging” it explicitly! Someone call the gynowaaambulance yet? Think of the feelings! It says everything that I want it to say because I made up things for it to say! Weeeee regressive leftivity!

        1. 4.4.1.1

          Oh no! A man isn’t gynocentric enough to lurve eating up every crumb of victimhood and “acknowledging” it explicitly!

          Everybody f0ll0wing along? 6 is a “man.”

          And he has a problem. A very serious problem!

          Let’s watch him struggle to articulate his “problem” some more. It’s very important to him! Maybe he can give some more examples, perhaps going back to his childhood where his problems almost certainly began. What kind of a “man” was your f@ther, 6? Do you remember him?

          1. 4.4.1.1.1

            “What kind of a “man” was your f@ther, 6? Do you remember him?”

            You want to know about pops? He’s quite a character to be sure. Apparently a halfway drug addicted ex-hippie near obsessed with all things art and avoiding the dread “factory” (holdover 1970’s thinking) but who still remains stalwart republican. Who also really loves legit philosophy, religion, physics, astronomy but who also goes in for the “crazy” alien, bigfoot nonsense type stuff on occasion. And yes I saw him this thanksgiving so I remember him and yes I have 2 parent priv. Though thanks to muh women’s lib they are divorced (no fault yay!). He’s been gynocentrically taking care of my grandmother (who is RAYCIST for reals esp under your defs so you h8 her) as he has for the last decade. He’s barely motivated enough to “work” as is. Couple that with a (very maybe legit) “accusation” of impropriety which was summarily dismissed in a court of lawl (don’t you just h8 reap culture with its presumptions of innocence?), and I have my doubts as to whether he will work again legit in his lifetime. Thus that will thereby throw the financial burden to me and my sis for both him and moms yay! Like most men of his generation he did not understand, or pay much heed to, the gynocentrism rising around him which has now engulfed nearly everything in modern life. But he has thanked me very kindly for spreading this gospel. I judge him halfway masculine. Always living in the shadow of his older bro though (the CEO chairman of the board type).

            Now MM, tell us about your momma bear and let’s hear the tale of the nu-male told for the millionth time.

            “Everybody f0ll0wing along? 6 is a “man.””

            MM is tots not a MISANDRYIST! But, a gay lesbian bi-sexual black latina indian islamic trans disabled old woman pre-assault helicopter operation thank you very much, recall my having won the local victim olympics a year or so back. But no, I’m not as gynocentric as I was, and will be purging more of it from my person as I come across it in my life.

    2. 4.5

      Just a few observations:

      1) Right-wing identity politics antedates left-wing identity politics by decades. That is to say, the Klan was around long before the Black Panther party.

      2) Not only were white-supremacist currents present in our culture long before left-wing identity politics arrived on the scene, but these same white-supremacist currents have perservered largely unchanged by the arrival of left-wing identity politics.

      3) If the river flows south before the earthquake, and it still flows south after the earthquake, it would be rather strange to say that the earthquake caused the river to flow south.

      4) With that in mind, does it not seem somewhat counterintuitive to lay recent white-supremacist revanchism at the feet of left-wing identity politics? I carry no brief for most of the identity politics on my side of the political divide. Some of it is worthy and useful (e.g., BLM), but most runs the spectrum from risible to pernicious. Still and all, it seems odd to attribute the cause of X to Y when X preceeded Y by decades and continued largely unchanged throughout the whole course of Y’s emergence and development.

      1. 4.5.1

        Your observations are decidedly (and predictably) off, Greg.

        ALL sides of things politic are not new, and neither side “originated” the tactics.

        Maybe less lemming from you on this topic…

        1. 4.5.1.1

          What “anon” is unable to say is that racist @ssh0les have been around a long time. That means they must be super smart!

          We simply have to pay attention to white supremacists because if we don’t, we might waste a lot of time and money trying to treat blacks like they were equal to whites. Someone wrote a b00k with data suggesting otherwise! So we have to talk about it. With “anon” and 6 and Steve Bannon. Because they’re super serious people! You can just smell the seriousness coming right off them.

    3. 4.6

      6, the left has advocated some things that could arguably be called racist; hiring quotas, affirmative action, etc. And people on the left are practically addicted tomcalling any and anything “racist”. But those things seem to have largely passed. So I am curious, what are these people doing specifically, to “demand more than tolerance and freedom”? The right seems to have many abstract notions like this, but rarely I hear specifics (like, “too many regulations” … Well, which regulations??). Somehow Obama is blamed for worse race relations, but No One ever explains exactly how that is the case. I mean, the guy is half black half white and raised by white grandparents. And 9 years later many still claim he hates whites.

          1. 4.6.1.1.1

            You read too shallowly. Yes, I do use putdowns and insults. I also use facts, law, and accurate reflections of what others post.

            You have a problem with the free expression that I enjoy? Move to a different country (which rather undergirds the larger point here quite nicely).

            1. 4.6.1.1.1.1

              (the freedom of expression that we need to protect is NOT just the freedom to express that which is nice, pleasant, and agreeable to ANY “civil” standard, no matter who sets that standard)

              I am amazed at the lack of recognition of the foundation of this critical legal right that we have in this country.

              1. 4.6.1.1.1.1.1

                Do yourself a favor. Grab a dictionary. Look up the word “can”. Then, look up the word “should”. Compare and contrast.

                1. You base your “should” on feelings and avoid the (tangential?) impact of the point provided.

                  My grabbing a dictionary does not help your waywardness.

      1. 4.6.2

        Somehow Obama is blamed for worse race relations, but No One ever explains exactly how that is the case. I mean, the guy is half black half white and raised by white grandparents. And 9 years later many still claim he hates whites.

        You’re trying to make sense out of the scribblings of the liz@rdbrains?

        Good luck with that. And don’t forget to keep your government out of the their Medicare!

        Free the bakers! Free the bakers! Jobs!

        1. 4.6.2.1

          One can bake for whomever one wants to (or not).

          But that is decidedly different when you open a business of baking and you engage your business to the public. That choice of serving the public removes the “personal choice” aspect and it is that person’s choice to make a business of things that requires that the entire public be served.

          One remains free to not serve the public with a business. Of course, the necessary condition of that choice is that you don’t have a business.

  23. 3

    Thanks for sharing DC. Our success as a country depends on mutual respect among all of us. Regardless of leader or policy preferences.

  24. 2

    some kind of white-nationalism

    What does that even mean, and how would that be different than the plain word of “racism” that preceded it?

    1. 2.1

      Thanks Anon. I hope that we can agree that our society should work to ensure bodily safety to all persons within our borders and to substantially eliminate racism and bigotry.

      1. 2.1.1

        These seems like an appropriate response to my comment down below at 1.1.2.1, rather than here which does not even attempt to answer the question I raised.

        I still have no clue what type of comment “white-nationalism” is supposed to mean and how that would be different than the plain word of racism.

        1. 2.1.1.1

          “I still have no clue what type of comment “white-nationalism” is supposed to mean”

          They want an all white, or permanent super majority white nation (in whatever nation they’re in or in a nation they’d like to split off). The new school white nationalists are attempting to do this without running afoul of traditional definitions of racism that mostly focus on generically considering all of one race superior than another, or putting another race down, or being mean/hating on/disparaging/whatever to another race. Their proposed methods vary. Of course all this runs into what your personal definition of racism is etc. etc.

          “the plain word of racism.”

          That word means a thousand different things to a thousand different people. It’s only a hundred years old or so, and has had a huge number of people pulling and pushing the definition thereof to cover what they want it to, and not cover what they don’t want it to. New school millennials are to the point of thinking everything is racist. Old people might think of racism as something they saw as violence etc. in their youth. Middle aged people might be confused because they didn’t see the racism of the past first hand, but they also don’t think literally everything in racist like the kiddies do, and they know enough to get by. An expert might think they know the definition better than anyone else. The everyman is generally clueless and just has a “I know it when I see it” sense.

          That being said, and here I’m not trying to trigger you anon, I know you tend to think in “black and white”, so you might think the word is super plain for everyone, like it might be for you. But it isn’t in real life. What’s racist to one person might not be to another person, where the only convergence is where the racism is extreme. Couple this grey area with modern lefties constantly trying to expand its meaning to further demonize the wyte mail (but they’re tots not racist or sexist, k?) so that they can continue to claim “moral authority” power over him and you end up with somewhat of a disaster zone that is real life right now.

          1. 2.1.1.1.1

            Less “black and white” and more “I know what the term actually means”

            But thanks anyway, 6.

              1. 2.1.1.1.1.1.1

                That’s the 64000$ question now isn’t it? That’s the thing everyone is after. But the term racism has been stretched a thousand different ways by now and will be stretched a dozen more by nightfall. Just this morning I was watching a vid with a prominent lefty talking head being candid in an impromtu interview I saw on my Youtube recommended tab where the alex jones people had randomly caught Van Jones on the street. He gave a very brief definition of “racist” (as a person) and I have little doubt that, to him, that was the entire definition. But under his definition then a lot of things lefties try to call racist won’t be (which means they have no political or social power over the people doing the accused things, which is what they want). And once you lock down the definition then “white supremacists” and people the left want to be “racist” will then “draft” their movement around the definition so to speak. Just like with “abstract” in patent law for 101. So, most lefties try to keep it a fluid definition. You know, to “catch” all the dirty white supremacists etc. But then they accidentally end up catching what most would call “innocent” “not racist” behavior in their quest to catch the ever elusive white supremacist (and quest for power, political and social which they get from their narratives about morality).

                See around 2:50 and throughout. It’s about the best interview I’ve ever seen with Van. Worth a view. Lefties and righties getting along, almost like independents.

                link to youtube.com

                1. That’s the 64000$ question now isn’t it?

                  Yes it is.

                  But the term racism has been stretched a thousand different ways by now and will be stretched a dozen more by nightfall.

                  Hence my asking Prof. Crouch to clarify his statement.

          2. 2.1.1.1.2

            6 They want an all white, or permanent super majority white nation…. The new school white nationalists are attempting to do this without running afoul of traditional definitions of racism

            Deep, deep, super serious stuff! Yes, we need to pay as much attention to these great thinkers with their awesome new ideas. What could possibly go wrong?

            1. 2.1.1.1.2.1

              He was trying to explain the term, Malcolm, not expressing his personal view.

              Take a moment to understand context before launching into your ad hominem, please.

          3. 2.1.1.1.3

            Of course all this runs into what your personal definition of racism is etc. etc.

            You do not seem to be grasping the point here 6.

            1. 2.1.1.1.4.1

              And yet, is one of the top “isms” being bandied about as if the “other side” is “evil” because of it and the one side is automatically “righteous” in whatever means are used to combat that “evil” (including walking all over the First Amendment).

        2. 2.1.1.2

          Someone once said that racism is a form of collectivism at its lowest and crudest. This I strongly believe is true.

          In and of itself though, racism is agnostic or independent of the concept of the State. It is perfectly possible that a spotlessly non-tribal, non-State collectivist, but religious bigoted Jewish person (read irrational person) in a free country might call a Christian or an Atheist “subhuman”, however, the specter of THEOCRACY is not hinted at nor present in the recesses of that person’s racist psyche. State based collectivism simply might not be there.

          BUT as soon as one begins to think… my nation IS Jewish, or Christian, or Atheist … my nation IS religious or antireligious, and not separate from religion but characterized BY a specific religion (or belief system) then you have a “religio-nationalism” and a tendency toward theocracy or its equivalents (I would deem to could include a dogmatic Atheocracy).

          So what is “white-nationalism”? Quite clearly it is the specter of nationalism (a form of collectivism to be sure but usually different from other forms) and racism aligning with each other. The idea that the collective which is my tribe/nation/state is also the collective which is my race. My country IS black, white, blond and blue eyed.. etc.

          This is a vastly more sinister and different creature from “mere” racism. It is a compounding of the most primitive and crude with yet additional crudeness…

          1. 2.1.1.2.1

            Thanks Anon2, but I will disagree that the two are different (if I use your meaning of “white nationalism.”

            Racism remains racism (no such thing as “mere”). The extent, or alignment of any “ism” can, of course, make it more sinister. But that is a difference of degree, not a difference of kind.

            1. 2.1.1.2.1.1

              I am going to have to call you out on this.

              1. Conceptually speaking Statism and Racism are different in kind.

              If you do not accept this you would either have erroneously concluded every State by definition must be based on race, or that every assertion of ANY kind of superiority based on race requires a respective desire for the creation of a race based State. If you believe either or these erroneous conclusions then no further conversation between us is possible. You can stop now…

              2. If you accept 1, then any conceptual combination of Statism and Racism, is NOT merely a form of one or the other, not merely a degree of either in its pure form, and thus IS different in kind from singular form of the others.

              More concretely, racism, the irrational differentiation loosely based on things like culture, blood, etc. and is a form of irrational discriminatory collectivism but it can exist in people who know or care NOTHING about the State. i.e. a third party which wields and uses force to govern. It is a separate step to conceive of the State itself, the ruler(s) themselves, aligning with a particular race (or any subgroup for that matter).

              IT was a leap of primitive depravity that the socialist Nazi party came into being; an exemplar of alignment of the State with a tribe, a blood, a race. Their conception of State WAS racial. Philosophically speaking it was not that they wanted to inject racism with Statism as if they were voluntary constructing something, they believed the true State (intrinsically and in fact mystically) IS (by necessity) a racial, blood based, creature.

              This NEW thing is wholly different from racists living under the rule of Autocratic despots centuries ago. All they believed is that they must obey some king, while at the same time hating a certain subgroup under the same rule. Never in their wildest dreams did any of those racist believe in a race based State. It was wholly inconceivable. Race based Statism is simply not logically necessitated by Racism.

              No sir.
              Race based Statism is different in kind from Racism.

              1. 2.1.1.2.1.1.1

                You trip (a little, but enough) when you attempt to create a difference between statism and racism.

                Statism is NOT different when that statism is only a form of racism.

                Look at it this way: statism based on religion is different in kind than statism based on race.

                Racism at a state level is merely a difference in the degree that the racism is empowered.

                1. Apparently we disagree on fundamentals of epistemology, namely what concepts are, and the act of conceptualization.

      2. 2.1.2

        Well said, Prof. Crouch.

        A happy Thanksgiving to you (and all our other friends on this thread) as well.

      3. 2.1.3

        And those of us who have taken oaths to be officers of the court should not condone illegal immigration nor complain or shout “racism” when people act to address it (in humane ways). I have yet to read any valid defense of illegal immigration. Folks on the “left” should stop equating enforcement of democratically enacted immigration laws with racism and xenophobia.

        Factionalism is destroying our ability to address issues of public concern on their own merits. Many form their views just based on what “those other people think”; opposition to the “other guys” has become reflexive. Does it not seem that much public opinion is based on identity thinking rather than objective reasoning?

  25. 1

    Ironically, there is a white backlash here in San Francisco. Whites are being demonized. Progressive, moderate, declines to state, there is a frightfully dangerous edge to local politics that recognizes only the entrenched democrat machine. But, hey, I’m a grad of Tufts, not Harvard. What do I know?

    1. 1.1

      So that is some kind of excuse? And that you are being accosted at gas stations in S.F. and then followed by people telling you to move back to Europe?

      1. 1.1.1

        It is an observation. Excuse? For what? I am comfortable with who I am. I have community credentials. I am respected in my City.

      2. 1.1.2

        There seems to be a sense that being white needs to come with some type of “apology.”

        That’s just FUBAR.

        1. 1.1.2.1

          Let me add that I am tolerant of most all things – with a clear exception for Political Correctness. I have zero tolerances for that CRP.

          1. 1.1.2.1.1

            I am tolerant of most all things – with a clear exception for Political Correctness. I have zero tolerances for that CRP.

            Well, it might help to tell everyone exactly what you mean by “political correctness.” It’s seems a bit odd, for example, to be less tolerant of the suggestion of racism/discrimination than … actual racism/discrimination. In part, it’s odd because it’s difficult to address actual racism/discrimination without identifying it.

            Also, being criticized or chided for some allegedly inappropriate behavior is something that most grown-ups learn to deal with, one way or the other. You aren’t going to go to jail just because your opinions are deemed wack0 or anti-s0cial. But you don’t have a right to be l0ved or respected for those views.

            1. 1.1.2.1.1.1

              You confuse identifying racism with Political Correctness.

              something that most grown-ups learn to deal with, one way or the other.

              That’s a pretty broad reply (the one way or another) and may even include things that most people would not classify as “dealing with it.”

              It’s also extremely ironic – coming from you, probably the least grown-up person on these boards.

        2. 1.1.2.2

          There seems to be a sense that being white needs to come with some type of “apology.”

          I’m white as a lily and I’ve never sensed that I needed to apologize for it, even when I’ve been the only white guy in the room (something that’s happened plenty of times). Certainly nobody’s ever asked me to apologize for being white, or even come close to that.

          I wonder what accounts for the difference in perceptions.

          Now, if you had said “sometimes, as a white person, I feel very awkward and uncomfortable around non-white people and I think the only way to resolve it is with some type of apology” I might have a reference point for understanding what you’re getting at. Because I lived through that. But seriously: it’s kinda small potatoes compared with dealing with, e.g., systemic racism and/or discrimination on a daily basis. Like really really really small potatoes.

          1. 1.1.2.2.1

            What you personally sense is quite meaningless, Malcolm. The world simply does not revolve around you and your feelings.

    2. 1.2

      Richard Peterson: there is a white backlash here in San Francisco. Whites are being demonized.

      If you search the Internets for “attacks on whites san francisco” you get a bunch of news stories about sharks eating seals in the Bay and nothing approaching the sort of ridiculous, psy ch 0tic, violent big0try referred to by Dennis that has been a daily event since this country elected a white supremacist maniac to be President. Richard’s complaint in this context reminds me of another Richard’s complaint: namely, that of Richard Perkins, the deceased Silicon Valley billionaire, who — in a statement that should justifiably define his entire golden life — felt compelled to use his power and money to write an editorial in the Wall Street Journal in which he compared America’s “war” on the ultra-wealthy to … (try to believe it) … the treatment of Jews during the Holocaust.

      The election of a white supremacist misogynist maniac to be President of the United States was a huge step backwards for the United States, if not the world. Hopefully it wasn’t a step into the abyss (plainly a dream for many of his farthest-gone supporters who’ve been fantasizing for years about slaughtering “America’s enemies” with their favorite guns while feasting on home-made rabbit jerky in their impenetrable bunkers). Moving forward again will require constant and unequivocable denouncement of feeble attempts to draw false equivalencies. Those false equivalencies are being manufactured and recited with urgency lately, for obvious reasons.

      1. 1.2.1

        Gee, that sounds like a rant. I will recuse myself from commenting further on this virulent blog site. Education matters little. You ain’t frm dese prts is yu.

        1. 1.2.1.1

          I will recuse myself from commenting further on this virulent blog site.

          Oh noes, it looks like Richard Peterson just got “demonized” on the Internets. Someone better call the FBI.

          1. 1.2.1.1.1

            You are misusing the term “demonized.”

            It’s a pretty straw man, but just not appropriate as a reply to RP.

        2. 1.2.1.2

          You ain’t frm dese prts is yu.

          I’ve seen it all, Richard. Maybe if you learn to articulate your issues a bit more plainly, with some specific examples, you’ll have better luck making a compelling point.

        3. 1.2.1.3

          No, it is a most mportant point: the difference between public words and feelings, and ACTIONs against individuals.

          1. 1.2.1.3.1

            I agree with you here, HOPB. There is a very real difference between words and “actions against” (with the caveat of course, that some actions – such as marching, or handing out literature – have been deemed to also be protected under our right of expression).

    3. 1.3

      Obviously troubling Richard. I hope that we can agree that our society should work to ensure bodily safety to all persons within our borders and to substantially eliminate racism and bigotry.

      1. 1.3.1

        In high school we were taught that the U.S. partially responsible for the rise of Hitler. We were told that Germany was humiliated and economically destroyed by the treaties after WWI, which allowed Hitler to rise to power.

        I think we are seeing the same thing in the US. We are seeing a large percentage of the population being humiliated and all their dignity being taken from them. Racism and bigotry is not OK. But, nor is taking the dignity away from most Americans and then just pretending you aren’t doing it.

        You know, consider that there are many Americans now who would not consider having children because they don’t have the money to raise children. And, there are many people who don’t get married now because they don’t feel economically secure enough to get married. Think about that. Think about Obama saying that “many people are happy with the pace of Globalism.”

        Job one should be to overturn Citizens United and purge DC of corruption (as well as all the local corruption.)

        1. 1.3.1.1

          Job one should be to overturn Citizens United and purge DC of corruption (as well as all the local corruption.)

          This is true outside of any discussion on racism.

        2. 1.3.1.2

          I suggest a good read: “Hitler’s Willing Executioners””, which made a strong case for the theory that the Holocaust was not a result of “just following orders”, but rather was the natural end to centuries of pervasive subtle (and often not) anti-Semitism in Europe. Regardless of one’s politics, even the slightest normalization of hatred is something all should work against.

          1. 1.3.1.2.1

            I suggest you take a look at “The Ominous Parallels”… it takes a broad view and identifies the philosophy (explicit or implicit) shaping the culture as central to the specific catastrophe which culminated in the rise of Nazi Germany.

      2. 1.3.2

        Since I cannot obtain clarification directly, let’s apply some critical analysis to the following statement:

        I hope that we can agree that our society should work to ensure bodily safety to all persons within our borders and to substantially eliminate racism and bigotry.

        There is no doubt that the first part of the statement will find universal agreement here (“should work to ensure bodily safety to all persons within our borders“).

        It is the slippery slope of PC that attaches to the second part though that warrants (nay, demands) our attention: “ to substantially eliminate racism and bigotry

        Just what means are used (and which freedoms are sacrificed) in this noble Ends of “substantially eliminating” is what we ALL should be on guard for.

        I may find certain speech to be degrading, humiliating and in every sense repugnant, but I will also fight with every fiber of my being for your right to engage in such expression. This is a fundamental principle of this country, and one that truly sets this nation apart and is a source of our greatness – no matter what any particular repugnant expression may ALSO be protected.

        You want a society working to take THAT right away? Sorry Prof. Crouch, but I will NOT be joining you there. THAT path is not the path that you may think it is.

Comments are closed.