Juxtaposin’: Human Rights

Blowhard, Esq. writes:

gayspeech

It’s funny how, in the past thirty years or so, same-sex marriage has gone from something obviously ridiculous — something even the vast majority of gays had zero desire for — to an undisputed universal human right supported by all enlightened people, while free speech has gone from something sacred to, well, problematic. I realize The Atlantic is little more than a clickbait farm, but it’s still kind of astonishing that a law professor has no problem arguing that, hey, y’know, some despised, low-status people just don’t deserve to say what they want.

Related

About Blowhard, Esq.

Amateur, dilettante, wannabe.
This entry was posted in Politics and Economics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Juxtaposin’: Human Rights

  1. Dave Trowbridge says:

    “No one with a frontal lobe would mistake this drunken anthem for part of an uninhibited and robust debate about race relations.”

    Fortunately for Kent Greenfield, the First Amendment protects not only those with no frontal lobes but even those with no dick.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. agnostic says:

    Is this guy a bald-faced liar or a sincere, tone-deaf autistic? Joking and laughing in a song that a black can be hanging in a tree but not join SAE, constitutes a threat to violence? LOL.

    I wonder how this little dorkmeister feels about chanting “We will rock you” at football games? It’s more threatening in tone, more likely to escalate into group violence since the two sides are right there in the same stadium, and more linked to actual violence between fans and bench-clearing brawls between players. How many times the brothers of SAE have gone and lynched a black student after having a good laugh singing their “go away niggers” song?

    No, what truly irritates Kent-arino is the use of language to exclude outsiders from the in-group. Must still be haunted by memories of getting swirlies from guys, and dismissals of “yeah, I’m like so sure!” from the pretty popular girls when he tried to sit at their lunch table.

    That is the social outcome that actually results from white kids singing about a whites-only policy for membership — it keeps the membership white. Self-segregation is anathema to the creed about the “joys of diversity,” so we can’t have white kids hanging out by themselves. We need cross-campus busing to stick blacks in the fraternity where they’ve been told they’re unwelcome. Nothing but fellow-feeling could come from that dialog!

    We’re also seeing the synergy between the creed about the “joys of diversity” coming from political ideologues, which is about groups joining larger groups, and that of “no child left outside” coming from the helicopter parents, which is about every individual kid being able to join any social clique, because self-esteem.

    In-group cohesion always comes about from policing the boundaries, so we’re just supposed to crumble away as socially integrated wholes and live as isolated specks in a great big heap of debris.

    If that is the dystopian outcome of jurisprudential scholarship, I say we burn the law schools to the ground. We will, we will ROCK YOU.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s