Science and Cigarettes

Yesterday the LA Times featured an op-ed entitled The Case for Restricting Hate Speech. The author was a Laura Beth Nielsen who reportedly earns her living as a “research professor.” What aspect of molecular dynamics is she researching you may wonder? That would be “law’s capacity for social change.”

Ahh yes, the hard science of social change. For those not employed by NASA, social change is an antonym of the term terraforming. It means to make less like our native Earth. Used in a sentence, one scientist might say to another: We applied the social change suite of protocols to render that area uninhabitable to human life.

Such sanitization is precisely the effect Ms. Nielsen hopes to catalyze with her latest ummm…research. In it she argues that hate speech tangibly harms pox, females, BLTs…and no one else at all. Thus it must be made criminal, despite the faint objections from certain parchment in the National Archives. It’s all a matter of who is irritating whom. In fact…

In fact, empirical data suggest that frequent verbal harassment can lead to various negative consequences. Racist hate speech has been linked to cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and requires complex coping strategies.

I don’t really find posting sucker punches of white boys on World Star to be an overly complex coping strategy. But people have their own way of dealing with frequent verbal harassment. I mean we just call the blacks in my office “bootlip” without giving it much thought. Who could have guessed that’s what turned them all to menthol cigarettes?

But to be perfectly candid, criminalizing your opponent’s positions has nothing whatsoever to do with either scientific research or the coping salve of grape soda. What benign-sounding bolsheviks like Nielsen understand is that hate criminalization is a weapon. And only they are willing to wield it.

That exclusivity of resolve is what makes leftists utterly impervious to the common retort of “You let me define Hate, and I’ll let you ban it.” They have internalized conservative cravenness–and grown haughty off it. Nielsen can’t even conceive of a scenario where the vast fungal blooms of anti-white liberal race hate fall under the blade of her law. The mainstream right simply has no spine for the chore. Thus she, and those like her, are eager to swing a legal doctrine they presume will never touch their own necks.

And who would say their reckoning is false? Are any of Sheldon’s congressional foot valets going to lead a charge against jews’ vividly expressed antipathy for the goyim? Are republican prosecutors going to indict La Raza or one of the 37,000 black supremacist organizations? No, that’s not who we are.

But it is who they are, and thus the reason liberals imagine penitentiaries stocked with flummoxed conservatives hate criminals.

That’s why if I were President and you readers my Congress, I would invite Laura Beth Nielsen to the White House signing ceremony of America’s new extraordinarily stringent Hate Speech law. And as she was being taken into police custody under its provisions I would pause at the podium to reflect on our great advancements in social change technology…and take a long slow drag from my coping menthol Kool.


20 thoughts on “Science and Cigarettes

  1. a legal doctrine they presume will never touch their own necks.

    Occasionally, though, it does, and then it’s sublime.

    Like this Scottish lad facing a year in jail for teaching his girfriend’s dog to raise its paw when he says “Sieg Heil”. And it just keeps getting funnier. Now his neighbour, who called him a “Nazi bastard”, and allegedly dumped a bag of dog excrement on his doorstep, is also being prosecuted. He sicced the police on her for the dog turds, but they’re charging her for the speech. Even he doesn’t understand the logic of that.

    I don’t understand it, either, but I’ll take it. Anything that discomfits our enemies (and he’s certainly that) is fine by me – especially when they do it to themselves.

  2. Pingback: Science and Cigarettes | Reaction Times

  3. Spot on Porter. The comfort I find in all of this is that fanatics always end up eating their own because they never can be pure enough, just ask Trotsky.

  4. (((Leftists))) hate free speech almost as much as they hate white people. It’s the third pillar of their Orwellian ideology.


    Only in the US does free speech have any chance of survival, as the rest of the West outlaws any and all criticism of the GloboHomo diktat as “hate speech.”

    Of course free speech is also threatened in the US, but as long as the 1st Amendment is defined and defended by non-evil justices, it should survive.

    On the Supreme Court, liberal justices and parentheses-people Ginsburg and Breyer are 84 and 78 respectively, while the wishy-washy Kennedy is 80.

    If Trump can replace these 3 decrepit geezers with solid conservatives then free speech will be safe for decades to come.

    Which is very comforting to us non-American deplorables, who will at least be able to speak vicariously through you from the comfort of our re-education camps.

    • Its a nice idea you have about America and our 1st amendment, but unfortunately the fact that the holy parchment says something doesn’t really mean much. Our massive, Orwellian surveillance state is is in blatant violation of our 4th, our 5th has been under constant assault via civil asset forfitures, our 10th was destroyed over a century ago, and don’t even get me start on our 2nd. In short, the constitution does very little to protect any rights, and the supreme court typically rubber stamps everything the government wants anyways. Depending on robe wearing lawyers to limit the power of the very entity that employs them is futile.

      You are correct about those judges you mentioned, though I suspect they will do every thing in their power to keep the reanimated corpse of Ginsburg going for a couple more years. Perhaps the biggest problem we have here with the surpreme court is the absolute failure of republican presidents to nominate judges that manage to maintain their alleged conservatism/originalism for very long once they get the magic robe, Scalia being he notable exception. The left on the other hand can depend on their picks to move steadily leftward as they become more geriatric. Kennedy might as well count on the other side of the ledger, as he is terribly inconsistent, and who can forget the brilliant legal gymnastics performed by John Roberts to give the democrats Obamacare. Despite the fact the they are only supposed to rule on whether or not something is consitutional, they essentially rewrote the law for Obama in order to give it their seal of approval. Roberts was supposed to be the young conservative judge who would sway the supreme court to the right for many decades. Thats why I have little faith in this Gorsuch fellow, although Id love to be wrong.

      I’m sure plenty will disagree with me, and I would love to be proven wrong about several of the items above, but I don’t see it happening. Anyways, best of luck where ever you are, but rest assured, we need this luck as much as you do.

      • Well, the only thing I can comment about the Constitution is that I can call the skypes a bunch of filthy jewish bloodsuckers online, and snap out a Roman salute while on my way to buy an AR-15 and a pile of 30-round magazines and 100-round drum magazine, plus 5,000 rounds of ammo, and suffer nothing worse than getting fired if the people paying me find out about it.

        In Europe, I couldn’t own an AR-15, a 30-round magazine, or probably more than a few hundred rounds of ammo for whatever lever-action or bolt-action I was allowed to eventually purchase after jumping through various bureaucratic hoops.

        As for the rude online JQ post and the Roman salute, I’d end up in PRISON in Germany for up to 5 years and be fined hundreds of thousands of Euros.

        So I’d say the First and Second are still working, though imperiled. We definitely need to clean house before the final protections are ripped down, though.

  5. Such an acerbic wit!
    It’s so true that “Nielsen can’t even conceive of a scenario where the vast fungal blooms… fall under the blade of her law.”
    The Left has become increasingly perverse to get the attention they crave; the Secret Service has become suddenly lax. Madonna can talk about blowing up that place where young children take field trips, and if it appears that she, herself, has no immediate plans, well what’s the harm.
    There is the slightest inkling of the Left becoming a little leery of the monsters they created as observed in the occasional, terrified professor, but for the most part they find the safest place is with the mob.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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