How Inanely Censorious Can College Administrators Get? University of Wisconsin – Superior Will Show You

Over at The Torch at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Adam Steinbaugh reports on a university administration sinking to depths of censorious idiocy that managed to surprise me.

The University of Wisconsin – Superior's student newspaper, The Promethean, ran an April Fool edition for the second year in the row. The entire concept of April Fool's Day is inherently problematic, as it generally involves making fun of someone, even if they are in what they view as their safe space. April Fool's editions by college papers are particularly triggering because of the huge delta between how funny college students believe they are and how funny they actually are. But this edition — linked in Adam's piece above — was awfully mild, with the "edgiest" piece being satire by a Jewish student about being Jewish in Wisconsin.

Tumult ensued.

Tumult is banal. College students gonna college student. Just as satire is free speech, so is hand-wringing, self-to-the-cross-nailing, and caterwauling of every type. This is the time to do that sort of thing, so knock yourself out! Believe me, you're going to have trouble being satisfactorily outraged when you're paying down a mortgage and trying to keep your kids from discovering meth.

No, the problem is not young adults acting like young adults, whether with satire or outrage. The problem arises when nominal adults react in an unprincipled and irresponsible manner. That's what happened here, when university administrators announced they were launching an "investigation" based on a "grievance" filed against the satirical edition by a grad student:

Debbie Cheslock, graduate student and student program manager for UW-Superior's Gender Equity Resource Center, filed the complaint. She is alleging the editors violated university policy on non-academic student conduct and improperly noticed its April Fools' Day edition as satire. She contends articles included derogatory terms that were anti-semitic, racist and misogynistic.

Cheslock's grasp of the First Amendment is idiosyncratic, to put it mildly. She believes that it is censorship for a speaker to refuse to meet with their would-be inquisitor:

So, just to clarify, you are also unwilling to meet with me to discuss this matter? It is unfortunate, indeed, since that would be the very censorship you claim is deadly. The right to free speech also includes a continued dialogue and I am extremely displeased in the lack of regard for others’ opinions.

An "investigation" is in the works:

Meanwhile, UW-Superior is investigating the complaint with assistance from UW System’s legal counsel, according to UW-Superior spokesman Dan Fanning.

"We certainly respect the students who are involved with the newspaper and their right to have free speech," said Fanning. "At the same time, we’ve heard from so many students, alumni and community members and they see what we see. Even though that might have been meant to be satire … it clearly wasn’t funny to everyone, that it offended some people and that it crossed some lines that should not have been crossed. The university condemns that."

I'm sorry, but unless the UW system's legal counsel's response is "get the fuck out of my office, you civically illiterate imbecile," this is offensive and ridiculous. I don't have a problem with the administration participating in the marketplace of ideas by saying, in effect, "you're an jerk, but you're a jerk with free speech." But any "investigation" — meaning, any inquiry carrying the explicit or implicit threat of punishment for obviously protected speech — is unequivocally wrong. So is promoting ignorance about rights, as the administration attempted to do in statements supporting its investigation:

As we’ve said consistently, this was unethical and unprofessional journalism and contradicts the very values of our school. Satire is fine, having a difference of opinion is fine, but disrespectful and offensive language is not fine.

FIRE's letter to UW-Superior leaders is stern, as it ought to be. Hopefully the administration will decide that it ought to be spending money on education instead of on lawyers.

Responsibility is not a zero-sum game. Debbie Cheslock and her ilk are morally and intellectually responsible for being thuggish and censorious. But that does not diminish, in the least, the responsibility of grown-ups in the UW-Superior to resist censorship and thuggery when it is urged upon them by students. The things that these students want are incoherent, unprincipled, and totalitarian:

Cheslock said she wants those involved in the Promethean to be sent a message that the paper’s content was not acceptable and isn’t what UWS stands for. She also wants to ensure that the Promethean staff and faculty advisor go through a cultural competency training about diversity.

Yokel said that with free-speech rights comes a duty to exercise those rights in a responsible way.

“The First Amendment is a right, yes, but you not only have a right to say what you want, you have a responsibility to the people you’re representing,” Yokel said. “This paper is a student paper and I’m a student and this paper does not represent me.”

The administration needs to refuse to violate rights based on such demands. If it won't resist, it should be compelled to do so by force of law.

Last 5 posts by Ken White

Comments

  1. Nicholas says

    1. "College students gonna college student." Good way to say what I've been trying to tell people for a while now.
    2. Have any of the admins of any these schools just up and said "Fuck you, don't be stupid" to the students?

  2. Daniel says

    Because I am that guy–what guy? That guy. Second paragraph, first sentence, "The University of Washington – Superior's…" It should be the University of Wisconsin not Washington.

  3. Mark Kinzer says

    Check the second paragraph. Superior is in Wisconsin, not Washington. Not even on April 1.

  4. That Anonymous Coward says

    I really think I am still onto something with my power causes a form of brain damage.
    She runs something, so she has to do something about this horrible paper published on April 1st that didn't come with a flashing neon warning light.

    One does also wonder how much of the administration going along with this, we'd really like to hand money to students who sue us for violating their rights, witch hunt comes out of the "expansive" views spreading from the Dear Colleague letter.

    So afraid of an unbridled Title IX investigation into trampling this thin skinned womans imagined special rights, they stomp on others civil rights. This is the problem caused by demanding the world conform to black and white polar views. The world is amazing shades of grey, and rather than explain that we support the untenable polar view points.

    Yes there is a history of campuses screwing up rape investigations, but that does not mean the answer is to predetermine the one with the penis is guilty all of the time. Yes there is a history of not considering all viewpoints, but that doesn't mean the answer is to suppress other view points until a certain group catches up.

    I am so worried about the future, if these children become leaders its going to make the childish antics we see now look pale by comparison as they attempt to remake the world into their perfect vision of utopia at the expense of freedom, happiness, rights…

  5. nlp says

    If I were the editor of the newspaper I'd probably resort to publishing a single page newspaper that read, "We're not going to publish anything because Debbie Cheslock might be offended" but I've been told I sometimes go too far when I'm being sarcastic.

  6. Scott Jacobs says

    @nlp

    I would hail as Gods every person involved in making such a thing happen, but then again I'm sometimes charitably described as a First Amendment Terrorist…

  7. Quiet Lurcker says

    Memo to Debbie Cheslock: Grow up.

    Memo to UW-S administration: Debbie Cheslock is not a two-year old. She is a college student, irrespective of the fact her emotional immaturity clearly labels her otherwise. Your responsibilities involve, among other things, treating her as a college student. By treating her otherwise, you are exposing the university to legal liability and possible financial setbacks.

  8. Jon Ficke says

    FWIW if you or FIRE need a WI law license to accomplish something (popehat signa-esque), I'm available. I live in Milwaukee, but would hapilly drive to Superior to participate in a Censorious Asshat legal smackdown.

  9. Jeff Smith says

    I'm really disappointed the administration or Ms. Cheslock couldn't have thrown a "…but you don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater" in their statement.

  10. nhrpolitic13 says

    Tee-he-he. There is a person named "Yokel" griping about the publication. How fitting.

    But seriously, do they perform some sort of brain test on would-be educational administrators to ensure a sufficient lack of cognitive function prior to hiring (sort of like how they IQ test would be LEOs to make sure they won't think for themselves — excuse me, scratch that last, I meant, "get bored")? In any event, sadly, the phenomenon of administrators' absolute lack of common sense appears to exist at all levels of the educational system.

  11. TimL says

    @ Nicholas

    The University of Minnesota's Faculty Consultative Committee recently proposed four core principles on free speech (mostly quoted, somewhat paraphrased):
    1. Public Universities must be committed to free speech for academic and constitutional reasons.
    2. Free speech means protection of speech that some find uncivil, offensive, or hateful.
    3. Free speech cannot be regulated on the ground that some speakers are thought to have more power or access to mediums of speech than others.
    4. Free speech is paramount over other University principles

    I don't know if these have been ratified or what, but clearly not *all* Universities muck up the concept of free speech.

  12. says

    " Have any of the admins of any these schools just up and said "Fuck you, don't be stupid" to the students?"

    That would be considered tantamount to physical assault with a chainsaw, these days. One is not permitted to confront the snowflakes with a flamethrower.

  13. alan tanner says

    U of W Superior now clearly on my list of Kindercolleges run by high school administrators.

  14. Dan says

    As a Jewish Wisconsinite, I plotzed at this meshugaas.

    Feel free to quote me on that for a follow-up article, Promethean. Assuming your printing presses haven't been smashed by the UW-Superiorstapo.

  15. enoriverbend says

    "She runs something, so she has to do something about this horrible paper"

    Worse yet, it's clear that she is paid to be a censorious twit.

  16. Osama bin Pimpin says

    Love the way the complainant has a position at the "Gender Equity Resource Center." Seems like it's usually like that now, even for individual claims like sexual assault.

  17. Yokel says

    Hi!

    I'm the "Yokel." To the person questioning my IQ, I'm in Mensa, so there's your IQ test. Our issue was not with satire. Our issue was with using pejorative terminology, including terms for Jewish people that are akin to using "fag" to refer to a homosexual. It was with the racism involved with bashing international students. It was with the sexism in the pickup lines and "Dear Abby" column that is now being used across campus. It is with the hurt that comes with referring to a genderqueer person as an "it." It is with more than this. You have posted part of a shortened article that dod not cover the scope. Also, it's not entirely accurate. We don't want censorship; we want an apology for the hurt caused. For the fact that people now think it's okay to make fun of me because I'm Jewish. For the fact that people have been yelling Nazi phrases at me, which they read in the paper. For the fact that those with privilege are pretending to be allies without consulting those whom they claim to want to help.

  18. Peter says

    I read through most of this paper, including the article in question about the lack of Jews in Wisconsin. How the heck is THIS the paper that gets the censors' attention? It's nothing. Apart from the f-bombs, it's milder (though of course less funny) than anything on Stewart's Daily Show. Also, the paper is super-clear about being an April Fools edition, using a different title, a publication date of March 32, and obvious sarcasm throughout.

    Man, when I was in college, they had some really hard-core stuff in the April 1st edition. It wasn't particularly funny, of course (that's the "huge delta" mentioned above), but man was it offensive. I think the idiot censors at UW-S need to get out more.

  19. Kayl says

    An apology goes a long way for those feeling offended no matter the reasons why. I personally think the paper was not funny. And the words used in the April fools paper, under the name of the university, makes me feel like I don't want to be part of the university if people at my university thinks it is funny to joke about things that get to the point of bothering/ hurting people. An apology would have been a step in the right direction instead of a refusal to meet with cheslock.

  20. juris imprudent says

    "Gender Equity Resource Center."

    Please tell me the acronym for that is pronounced with a soft 'g'.

  21. MelK says

    I was going to crack wise comparing a "Gender Equity Resource Center" to a bank. But looking it up, That's almost exactly what it is. Too bad I can't use my "male privilege" as collateral.

  22. Stop says

    Stop with all of the hateful comment. This is cyber-bullying. Isn't this suppose to be illegal, Mr. White? Or maybe you should consider change it to Black.

  23. Stop says

    Not only are you attacking a person on a personal level, you brought the matter into a different area that doesn't suppose to be involved with. The kind, gentle person whom name you bashed like a cockroach fired a "student misconduct". She didn't use her authority, she filed a complaint as a fellow student. The investigation was that of student misconduct against student. It has nothing to do with free speech being violate or anything. Yet, you attack the person on a personal level and even allow hate speech to go around this page (now that I know about the comment section allow you to moderate comment). How can you, a lawyer, conduct such immoral things as letting people being attack and bully on your page? Actually, how can you attack someone on a personal level without even understand the nature of what you were writing about?

  24. says

    Now now, telling them "get the fuck out of my office, you civically illiterate imbecile" might cause their heads to explode, which I assume would be counterproductive.

  25. says

    Dear Ms. Yokel:

    Somehow the link to the article in which you were quoted was deleted; I restored the link just before your quote. My apologies.

    Do you advocate that the administration require the writers to apologize, or are you advocating for a voluntary apology? Do you share Ms. Cheslock that the writers should be required to undergo some sort of training?

  26. says

    Stop with all of the hateful comment. This is cyber-bullying. Isn't this suppose to be illegal, Mr. White? Or maybe you should consider change it to Black.

    Dude that's kind of racist.

  27. Fasolt says

    @Stop

    How can you, Madam or Sir, make a statement that you expect others to take seriously, when your use of grammar and spelling is, shall we say, a little lacking? I am not normally pedantic, but your comment was the written equivalent of fingernails screeching down a blackboard.

    Not only are you attacking a person on a personal level, you brought the matter into a different area that doesn't suppose to be involved with.

    What did you mean by the emphasized sentence fragement ?

    The kind, gentle person whom name you bashed like a cockroach fired a "student misconduct"

    Whom should be "whose". How did the student misconduct feel about being fired? And are you personally acquainted with Debbie Cheslock? I am wondering if your description of her is based on personal knowledge. Are you Debbie Cheslock writing as "Stop"?

    The investigation was that of student misconduct against student.

    You meant "is". "Against student" should have read "against another student" or "against other students".

    It has nothing to do with free speech being violate or anything.

    Violate should be "violated". I would have also dropped the "or anything" from the end of the sentence.

    Yet, you attack the person on a personal level and even allow hate speech to go around this page (now that I know about the comment section allow you to moderate comment

    If the speech goes "around this page", how could it get here? Did you mean "Now that I know you moderate the comments section"?

    …letting people being attack and bully on your page.

    You meant "attacked" and "bullied".

    without even understand the nature of what you were writing about?

    You meant "understanding".

    If you are a person just learning English, then consider my comments helpful criticism and the first sentence of my comment should be read as not being sarcastic or snarky. If English is your native language, you need to work on it.

  28. Jazmine says

    I'm sorry, but I go to college at UW-Superior and I read the entirety of the paper and I think several lines were crossed. The problem is not that it is "satire" or that certain people were offended. I'm sorry, but the problem is that this is a student paid for paper and many students were hurt by aggressive words written by other ignorant students. You know what wasn't mentioned? The fact that the Jewish temple here has been getting death threats. Everyone can sit behind their computer and scream "freedom of press" all they want, but when a whole group of people have to live in fear every day that is NOT okay. Also, I know Debbie and she was merely trying to bring the concerns of hoards of students that came to her to light. She is only doing her job to create an environment where students of all kinds can go to class without being harassed. There's a difference between free speech and hate crimes. And to all those out there who are sitting behind their computers reading this highly biased article who bashes on good people who were just trying to help, I just want to let you know that there is a whole lot more to this story than what is posted here and Marcus isn't trying to protect free speech, he's abusing it. Also, the student who wrote the article that made fun of jews wasn't a jewish student.

  29. says

    I'm tickled at the privilege expressed in the phrase “terms for Jewish people that are akin to using ‘fag’ to refer to a homosexual” – which avoids words hurtful to Jews only by needlessly presenting a word hurtful to the differently-sexualitied! It would have been more tactful to write “terms including [least offensive of the bunch] and worse”.

    Of course, if Yokel is himself a victim of fag-shaming, he may dismiss this criticism.

    (It's not something I mention often, but I could have joined Mensa by presenting my SAT/ACT/GRE scores. As it turned out, my IQ doesn't make me less of a loser.)

  30. nlp says

    Jazmine,

    Like it or not, the first amendment protects speech you don't like. That includes speech that uses terms you don't like, terms that are obnoxious, language that is vile, and ideas you despise. A good Con Law class might help clear up some of your confusion.

  31. David C says

    I'm sorry, but the problem is that this is a student paid for paper

    According to FIRE, the Promethean's April Fool's edition "is paid for using advertising revenue, not the student activity fees that fund its other issues". So if that's *really* the problem, then there's no problem. Right?

    There's a difference between free speech and hate crimes.

    Publishing this paper is NOT a crime, hate or otherwise.

    Everyone can sit behind their computer and scream "freedom of press" all they want

    We can? Great, then I'll do that.

    but when a whole group of people have to live in fear every day that is NOT okay.

    Well, I'll agree there. If there is genuine ongoing harassment, that's unacceptable. Anyone making death threats should be expelled. But the publication of one April Fool's edition is not ongoing harassment.

    She is only doing her job

    You know, I could cut her more of a break if this was done in her capacity as a student. But if this was done as part of her *job* with the university, then she should know, as an employee of the state, that she must comply with the First Amendment.

  32. says

    One of the censorship advocates on the deleted university comment page (which FIRE's Adam Steinbaugh captured and displays) identified himself as an intern for the ACLU. Either that particular branch of the ACLU is woefully remiss in educating their interns, or they need to change their name to SCLU (Selective Civil Liberties Union).

  33. Fasolt says

    @Jazmine:

    I'm sorry, but I go to college at UW-Superior and I read the entirety of the paper and I think several lines were crossed.

    Jazmine, I would not start two (or possibly three) sentences strung together with the word "and" with the statement "I'm sorry". Your statement could be interpreted in more than one way. Why are you sorry? Is it a sorry school? Are you sorry you read the entirety of the paper? Are you sorry several lines were crossed? Are you a sorry person?

    If you meant to tie this sentence to the sentence after it, you should have written:

    The problem is not that it is "satire" or that certain people were offended, the problem is that this is a student paid for paper.

    The problem is not that it is "satire" or that certain people were offended.

    You are partially correct. "The problem is not that it is satire" is the correct portion of your statement. That certain people were offended is the problem here.

    Also, I know Debbie and she was merely trying to bring the concerns of hoards of students that came to her to light.

    You meant to write "hordes", not "hoards". Did hordes of students actually come to Ms. Cheslock? What is her, or your, definition of a horde? Please round to the nearest whole number.

    She is only doing her job to create an environment where students of all kinds can go to class without being harassed.

    Unless you are a student who publishes a satirical April's Fool Day edition of the student newspaper, apparently.

    There's a difference between free speech and hate crimes.

    Obviously. The spelling for starters.

    And to all those out there who are sitting behind their computers reading this highly biased article who bashes on good people…

    The word "who" should be replaced with "that" or "which".

    I just want to let you know that there is a whole lot more to this story than what is posted here and Marcus isn't trying to protect free speech, he's abusing it.

    You should have written two sentences there. The first sentence should have ended with the word "here". Drop the "and", then start the second sentence with "Marcus". I would certainly like to read the "whole lot more to this story" part. Keeping within the limits of decorum and Ken's patience, please feel free to enlighten us.

    Also, the student who wrote the article that made fun of jews wasn't a jewish student.

    Given that you stated the paper is satirical, why did you write that? Do you think only Jewish people can write about Jewish people, whether the content is satirical or not? Also, "Jews" and "Jewish" should be capitalized.

    You and "Stop" really have my pedantic side going today.

  34. Fasolt says

    @Jazmine:

    …many students were hurt by aggressive words written by other ignorant students.

    You should have written "the satirical" in the place of the word "aggressive". The word "aggressive" is meaningless in your statement. Please explain why the students are ignorant.

  35. David C says

    She is alleging the editors… improperly noticed its April Fools' Day edition as satire.

    I skimmed the edition in question. If she couldn't tell this wasn't serious at a glance, she's an idiot. If she thinks that other students did not realize that the March 32 issue was a joke, then she thinks her fellow students are idiots. If she admits that everyone knew it was satire but still wants to complain that it didn't explicitly say "satire" on it, then her complaint is not serious.

  36. dee nile says

    Please explain why the students are ignorant.

    Because they don't think exactly the way Jazmine does. Duh.

  37. iamevilhomer says

    I shudder to think what would happen if a copy of The Onion ever made it onto the UWS campus.

  38. Careless says

    “This paper is a student paper and I’m a student and this paper does not represent me.”

    So is this going to be like Star Trek where you can make a meltdown by requiring a newspaper to represent two people with different views?

  39. Careless says

    I shudder to think what would happen if a copy of The Onion ever made it onto the UWS campus.

    Founded by UW students

  40. Lagaya1 says

    Let's remember that these are just kids. Yes, they're silly. (Who even wears the MENSA badge after adulthood, anyway? It's like being in "Who's Who in American High Schools" and having the book to prove it.) From kids I expect this. From school admin, though. No No NO!

  41. David C says

    Let's remember that these are just kids.

    Calling undergraduate college students "kids" is already pushing it. We're talking about a graduate student here, who is also a university employee. That's not really a kid anymore.

  42. Pelyona says

    You know what wasn't mentioned? The fact that the Jewish temple here has been getting death threats.

    Someone should tell the SJWs* that this behavior is unacceptable.

    What's that? You say I'm being very reckless in blaming them for the death threats with no evidence? Why? Isn't the quoted statement similarly assuming the death threats are from people who….what, think they're supporting the paper by doing it? Got the idea from the paper to do it? Always wanted to and now feel like the paper has given them permission to do it?

    First, that's no less of an assumption.

    Second, it's an assumption that makes less sense, since the return would be far more substantive for an SJW's purposes. Not to mention public. In fact, it makes FAR less sense.

    Third, there has been ample precedent lately for it. The majority of high-profile campus incidents like this that have been resolved were perpetrated by people who were trying to bolster their cause. By some standards you could even say it's an epidemic.

    Fourth, even in those cases where an SJW commits the hate crime hoping someone else will be blamed, it's regularly given a pass as "misguided but well-intentioned." Often it's condoned outright as a strategy for raising awareness. So even if I present this as a conditional "If they did it, then…" argument, it's an argument that's already been rejected. So even just on principle we have a problem here.

    Fifth, the investigative results are often withheld from the media in such cases while any non-SJWs who commit these actions face very public and damaging consequences if their identity is discovered. This, along with numbers three and four, means that SJW hate crimes are a SYSTEMIC PROBLEM while non-SJW hate crimes are systemically discouraged.

    So yes, someone should tell the SJWs that this is unacceptable. In fact, it's even worse than if it weren't an SJW. You know, kind of like how it's worse for a cop to steal someone's car stereo than a meth addict. Nobody says, "Well, at least it raised awareness about the importance of locking your car in fighting crime! He actually helped everyone!"

    Then again, that would be victim-blaming.

    So please, SJWs, stop committing racist hate crimes. I'm sure students would like their campus to be a safe place where you don't have to feel at risk of suffering hurtful abuse from you….whether it's because you're on their side or because you're not.

    Also, if I teach my kid that people are being making fun of her when they ask her what grade she's in ("they're questioning your intelligence!"), or what her favorite food is ("they're calling you fat!"), or motioning for her to use the crosswalk ("they're angry at you for being in their way!"), who's really being hurtful and hateful toward her? Me, or the ones teaching her critical race theory?

    * Yes, I know some people don't like the label "SJW" because reasons. But then these are generally people who think that merely asserting reasons automatically makes for a good argument. It doesn't. If it helps, think of it as the equivalent of calling the cop ripping off the car stereo a "jackbooted thug." (Or simply "pig," if you are one of the SJWs who is strongly invested in making "thug" synonymous with "young black male.")

  43. jackn says

    The comment from Yokel of the "University of Wisconsin – Superior," has done more damage to the University of Wisconsin – Superior than the original story.

  44. Murder Hobo says

    @yokel – When the first thing you have to say is basically, "I'm in MENSA, so suck that," you come out of the gate losing credibility. When people question your intelligence based on your words or actions, you do absolutely nothing to disprove that assertion by citing positive results from a test that purportedly tests intelligence. You come back from it by making an intelligent argument as to why their judgment of your actions was wrong.

    Despite immediately taking you less seriously, I read the rest of what you said, and I don't disagree with it necessarily. Maybe the paper was unwise in how offensive it was–particularly since it's joke issue probably reached a pretty wide audience not necessarily expecting the joke, in contrast to a satire specific publication, where most readers go in there expecting to possibly be offended. Maybe it fell on the wrong side of the funny-to-offensive ratio line. Maybe what they said, joke or not, simply reflects poorly on the editors and writers as human beings, and they should be judged accordingly in the public opinion of their peers.

    Where you and certain of your supporters deserved to be thoroughly mocked is in your complete misunderstanding of how free speech works. Does using a big blow horn to announce your message to your entire school, then refusing to even listen to someone with a smaller voice who has a criticism, make you a coward or a bit of a dick? Probably. But it doesn't by any stretch of the imagination violate someone's right to free speech, any more than you'd be violating writer's right to free speech by declining to read his article.

    Where you and certain of your supporters deserved to be roundly condemned is in your willingness to use the school's quasi-governmental enforcement powers to censor someone or to punish someone based solely on the content of their speech. The fact that you do so while claiming to be motivated by a desire to protect free speech simply makes it easier to feel smug while condemning you.

  45. Mat Wait says

    As a self confessed nerd and picked on from early school all the way up until I hit the adult world… who's from the Duluth/Superior area:

    Freshman English Is apparently a dying art? As apparently is critical thinking skills.

  46. Ashe says

    and many students were hurt by aggressive words

    Jazmine speaks truth here. I had dreams of playing pro hockey, but suffered a serious knee injury tripping over some aggressive words. I've never been the same since.

  47. Fasolt says

    Pelyona's comment reminded me of a SJW joke I saw on another blog.

    Q. How many SJWs does it take to change a lightbulb?
    A. That's not funny.

  48. Fasolt says

    @Stop:

    Now that the pedantic urges have subsided and after reading Ken's comments in the article he posted here, I'd like to extend an apology.

    How can you, Madam or Sir, make a statement that you expect others to take seriously, when your use of grammar and spelling is, shall we say, a little lacking? I am not normally pedantic, but your comment was the written equivalent of fingernails screeching down a blackboard.

    If you are a non-native English speaker, the quoted paragraph above was needlessly insulting, and I want to apologize for making It. If my pedantic side rears its' ugly head again, I'll leave that kind of statement out of my future comments.

    If you are a native English speaker, you do need to work on it.

  49. Max says

    Another ultra-Liberal here agreeing with Ken and supporting the idea free speech needs to be protected against all sides. If you can close down satire because you disagree with it, so can your enemies. It will be used against you if you create an environment that allows accusations of hurt feelings to be enough for censorious actions to be imposed.

    Did the chap who babbled on about the evil SJWs make any valid points btw? I tend to filter out anyone who uses the term as being probably a boring nutter. What I skim read of his comment seemed to justify my prejudice. Was I wrong?

  50. BIGWHITESEXY says

    Another attempt at taking away rights of others by the progressive SJW cult.

Trackbacks