Oh, and one chap said, again quite seriously, that “if you go drinking with someone U R 1 of them (invariably)." Well that explains why going to a party and not spending the whole night insulting the host would be treated like a capital offense.

That doesn’t surprise me at all. I’d guess it’s a standard pattern. I think the point is to make the demonization/dehumanization strategy possible. You can't convince someone that Trump supporters - or Brexit voters, or Milo fans - are Nazi bigots if that person actually knows a few of them. It reminds me of Jon Stewart's comments after the election. He went on a tear about how calling Trump voters bigots was a bad strategy, it wasn't helping, etc.. and that they actually had legitimate concerns about the economy, crime, and other issues. And how did he know this? Because he actually had a few friends that were Trump voters, and he asked them. And of course, lefties promptly turned on Stewart, calling him a traitor, a sellout, etc...

Laurie Penny getting swarmed by her "friends" for not hating Milo supporters enough reminds me of something that happened to a friend of mine a few years back. Hopefully this story will give you all a little insight into the sort of people we are dealing with here. Several years ago on my birthday my friends and I decided to go bar hopping. A female friend brought with us her new boyfriend, who was apparently a member of some communist group in the area. After the bars closed down at 2 am, we wanted to keep the party going, and another friend mentioned that some other friends of his, who ran the College Republicans group at the nearby university, were having a big party that night which we were welcome to attend, so we decided to go there. Everyone had a great time. The CR's were mostly libertarian types, which means there were a LOT of drugs flowing at the party, especially weed. My friend's boyfriend was also apparently a pretty big stoner, so he quickly found the weed, and they were nice enough to share with him, without any expectation that he'd chip in to pay for his share. After several hours of drinking their alcohol for free and smoking their weed for free, we went home just before dawn. Everyone was in a great mood at the time, naturally. The next day my friend got in touch to let me know her boyfriend had just yelled at her, pretty intensely. Apparently one of the guys from the party had sent him a friend request on facebook, along with the sort of generic message you send someone you just met socially ("Nice to meet you, hope to see you around" or something to that effect). His communist friends had seen this, and besieged him with messages calling him a traitor, a sellout, a Nazi, etc... just like Laurie's friends did after she committed the crime of having a good time with Milo fans. I couldn't help but contrast the behavior of the two sides. The Republicans - his supposed enemies - had been friendly, welcoming, and even shared their drugs with him, while his supposed friends were vicious, mean, and turned on him remarkably quickly based on very little. She broke up with this guy a few weeks later. I'm not sure if this event had anything to do with their breakup, but it couldn't have helped his case. So, sadly, the behavior of LP's friends is nothing new.

she seems more concerned with making the students who wanted to hear someone speak “think again,” Well that is the point, isn't it? To make sure that the next time Milo comes to a campus (or Shapiro, or Riley, or Fiamengo, or Hoff Sommers, etc...) that the students are afraid to go, out of concern for their own safety. Or better yet, the school will be so afraid of this kind of violence that they don't allow the speech at all. Also - Hal, you're a f***ing idiot

A group of masked protesters, not affiliated with UC Berkeley . . . . aka the usual loons "Not affiliated with UC-Berkeley" does NOT mean these people are not students at UCB. It simply means the protests/riots are not officially supported or sponsored by the school, or any student organization at the school. It's entirely possible most of the rioters/protestors are students. It's also entirely possible they're mostly out-of-towners. The fact that the riot wasn't "affiliated" with the school doesn't mean anything either way. It's mostly a cover-your-ass statement by the university to ward off lawsuits.

Let's introduce the advanced and esoteric moral concepts of 'guilt' and 'innocence'. That. I have a hard time believing people really can't see the difference between the death of a murderer, and the death of an innocent baby. Which leads me to suspect that they are arguing in bad faith.

It can work, and it can be cheaper. Other than the massively higher taxes, and the lower quality and lesser availability of services, you are absolutely right. The fact that Canadiens cross the US border in droves to use our healthcare system tells me all I need to know about which system is better.

They're being the oppressors while donning the robes of the oppressed The principle seems to be "If you don't let me abuse you, then you're being mean and I'm the victim" You have to believe that university deans understand that most of the courses they allow to be "taught" on their campuses are crap, and yet they allow it to happen The fact that universities are classified by the IRS as "non-profit" throws a lot of people off their true nature. They operate like any other business. Non-profit, in the legal sense of the term, doesn't mean an institution doesn't make money. It just means the profits they earn have to be poured back into the organization, rather than paid out to investors, which is not exactly a problem if your goal is to pay yourself and your cronies as high a salary as possible. Think of the liberal arts as a product line from a business, and it all makes sense. Not enough people can buy the STEM product line - it requires actual competence, after all. Even the business school product line requires a level of competence many people do not possess. But almost anyone can buy the Angry Studies product line, which means a lot more "sales" and thus a lot more revenue for the business.

Maybe the French servers are on strike? Maybe the servers are on their six weeks annual vacation.

I'm still bloody waiting...7 days and counting. :( Where are you located? Maybe it's a geography thing. If you couldn't tell from my username, I'm located in Texas.

Are y'all still in the queue? Nope, got the email this morning confirming I was in. After also getting the "it may take two weeks" email yesterday.

I signed up and am #90-thousand-something in line. I had wondered whether the frustration with Twitter was really that widespread or mostly limited to a small group of politically active conservatives. I think the massive waiting list for Gab pretty much answers that question. There is obviously a lot of demand for a replacement Twitter. In other words, for what Twitter was before a few years ago.

"The cruellest fate which can overtake enfants-terribles is to awake and find that their avowed opinions have swept the suburbs." There's definitely some truth to that. These people see themselves as "radicals", as morally superior to and more righteous than the rest of us. Being a radical requires the disapproval of society. After all, if most people agree with you, then how are you radical? If anything, that would make you normal. Their self-image depends on disapproval, which seems awfully unhealthy psychologically speaking, but it explains why they would actually be upset by people agreeing with them.

Religious Jews however, like religious Muslims, largely reject it. I don't see Orthodox Jews gang-raping women on New Years Eve, or planting bombs in New York and New Jersey, or going on stabbing/shooting sprees at malls in Minnesota and Washington state. Even the most hardcore Orthodox Jew is not the same as a highly religious Muslim, nor are the more devout Christians, Hindus, etc...

The reason academics and bureaucrats don't like the field, is that it is there where their pet theories are weighed and found wanting. Quite so. Our anonymous writer seems almost angry that lab work is considered less respectable or important than field work. It doesn't garner him the admiration and praise he feels he deserves. In that way, he reminds me of the envy that humanities professors often feel towards more rigorous STEM fields.

If anyone can run this through a 'Guardian pseud's corner to plain English' translator and let me know what the OP is upset about, I'd be grateful It's tough to assess an article written so poorly, but it seems to me the writer is complaining that people like him, who sit in a comfy office in London writing articles and academic papers, don't receive the same level of respect as people who actually go out into the real world and do things. In other words, he/she is upset that people who go to places like Somalia and Zimbabwe, and make the obvious sacrifices that entails, in order to do aid work are considered more helpful and more serious humanitarians - and receive more respect - than people who stay in the first world writing for the Guardian.

Charlie Suet hits the nail on the head. Modern feminism is seriously schizophrenic. One day they insist women are just as tough and strong as any man, and the next day they sound like insecure teenager girls.

why does any government, at any level, discriminate between people who are married and people who are not? Is there a rational basis for such a distinction? A compelling governmental interest? Marriage isn't just about sex or even emotional companionship. From a state perspective, the benefit is increased financial security. A married person has someone to support them if they have health problems, or if they are unemployed. A single person in those situations - or numerous others - is much more likely to end up needing state benefits to get by. In other words, marriage reduces the chances of dependency, and that's why it makes sense for the government to encourage it. It's essentially a cost saving measure (of course, that assumes the people in charge don't want people to end up helpless and dependent on government, which is not always a safe assumption).

Hal, I suggest you read these things before you link to them. I clicked the article you linked to - beyond including the headline "Democrats Disrupt Moment of Silence", it clearly states that a Dem Representative, Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, interrupted the moment of silence after only 16 seconds in order to scream about gun control. I highly doubt the moment of silence was intended to last exactly sixteen seconds. You disproved your own argument with your link. That's impressive, in a sad way.

Re: the UM BLM girl, this type of behavior is sadly typical of the Missouri BLM movement. After the Paris terror attacks last year, they actually complained that the attacks were drawing attention away from themselves. See here - http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/11/14/mizzou-campus-activists-and-black-lives-matter-complain-about-paris-stealing-the-spotlight/ These people are just narcissists. Everything, all the time, has to be about them.

I'm not surprised at the university's actions - or lack of action - during the event. The last minute demand for a large fee for security ($2,000) was a blatant attempt to force the College Republicans to cancel the event, and it would have worked if Breitbart hadn't agreed to cover the expense precisely so it wouldn't be cancelled. If the administration tried to shut down the event, I wouldn't expect them to stop other people who are trying to shut it down. Ironically, I think the security fee gives the CR's and Breitbart the perfect grounds for a lawsuit. They were forced to pay for a service they clearly did not receive.

The fact that the School of Public Health is teaching students that "fatness has little to nothing to do with health", while simultaneously preaching to students about patriarchy, white supremacism, colonialism, and all the other intersectional bollocks, suggests quite a bit of mission creep going on with that organization. Shouldn't they be focusing on things like disease prevention and research?