On If The Conservative Elite Was Put in Charge of Patrolling America's Most Dangerous Inner-Cities

Oh, they'd be gunning down young black men left and right. You kidding me (the fact that they're racist, cowardly, hypocritical, etc. and would probably shoot out of fear anything that moved)?

Racist Libertarians like the blogger Willis Hart, while not among the "elite", would react in the same matter, IMO.

BTW, Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, previously ran as the "law and order" candidate (Wikipedia: Johnson's campaign... platform emphasized tax cuts, job creation, state government spending growth restraint, and law and order). And, as we know, Donald Trump is going around saying he's the "law and order" candidate.

"Law and order" being code for getting tough with the BLACK criminals. That being a message that rich racist Whites like.

Image: Willis "White Privilege Is A Myth" Hart reading the newspaper (cartoon depiction). "Another Black man put down by the police? Meh. He likely deserved it or otherwise brought it on himself" is usually his reaction.

OST #163

On Willis Hart Defending Milo Yiannopoulos, A Misogynist Jackass With A History Of Encouraging His Twitter Followers To Harass Women

Willis Hart defends the "journalist, entrepreneur and technology editor for Breitbart.com" in a recent commentary.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Twitter Had to Be Sued Before They Took Down the Tens of Thousands of ISIS Related Accounts but Didn't Hesitate One Second to Ban Milo Yiannopoulos Over Some Racist Tweets that His Followers Were Dishing Out. The hypocrisy and double-standards of the left are really starting to reach critical-mass, I think, with this being a perfect example. I mean, we're talking about fucking ISIS here, for Christ. (7/21/2016 AT 3:58pm).

The lawsuit says Twitter knowingly permitted terrorists to use their network. However, according to Fortune magazine, such lawsuits (there have been a few) are likely to fail.

In any case, Hart's criticism involved Twitter not being vigilant enough in policing their membership and taking down such accounts when they find them. That is likely a valid criticism. I wouldn't know, as I haven't been following that story.

But is Twitter part of "the Left"? Willis asserts that Twitter is. A 7/20/2016 Washington Times article describes Twitter as a "progressive-leaning social media company". So, OK, they're part of "the Left". "Proof" they're out to get this Milo Yiannopoulos jackass? Or maybe they just banned him after issuing multiple warnings and suspending him temporarily several times.

The first suspension came in December of 2015 Twitter decided on because of Yiannopoulos' history of encouraging his followers to attack women (via tweet).

[Previously Yiannopoulos] told a female journalist that she "deserved to be harassed" in response to her complaints about threatening messages she had been receiving due to an article Yiannopoulus had written about her. (Wikipedia/Milo Yiannopoulos/Social Media).

Clearly his followers got the message after this incident. And, telling someone they "deserved to be harassed" sounds like a violation of Twitter's "speech and harassment codes" to me.

Yiannopoulos was suspended again in (June 2016) after "criticism of Islam [following] the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting". Then came the 3rd strike less than a month later!

Yiannopoulos was permanently suspended from Twitter on 7/19/2016, after he and other users of the site participated in abuse towards Ghostbusters actress Leslie Jones. Yiannopoulos had published a critical review of the film the day prior to being banned. Shortly before the ban, he directly attacked Jones, calling her "barely literate" and describing her as a man. It was also alleged that he was orchestrating abuse. ...Twitter stated that "no one deserves to be subjected to targeted abuse online, and our rules prohibit inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others. ... We know many people believe we have not done enough to curb this type of behavior on Twitter. We agree". (Wikipedia/Milo Yiannopoulos/Social Media).

Yiannopoulos' response to the lifetime ban was to cry about bias against Conservatives, claiming that "Twitter has confirmed itself as a safe space for Muslim terrorists and Black Lives Matter extremists, but a no-go zone for conservatives".

Right. Even though this misogynist jackass had been warned twice previously. This, btw, is a common Conservative tactic. It's called working the refs. This tactic involves "complaining constantly about liberal media bias in an attempt to bully reporters and obtain more favorable coverage for their side".

But Yiannopoulos was banned because he deserved to be banned. According to a 7/20/2016 TIME story his "reputation as a troll on Twitter has long eclipsed his journalism" and [re his trolling] he calls himself the "most fabulous supervillain on the Internet".

Although that Willis Hart would take his side is not surprising, given how Yiannopoulos describes himself ideologically and politically.

He rose to notability that year when he began to provide media coverage and commentary surrounding the Gamergate controversy (a controversy that concerned issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture, stemming from a harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate). As a self-identified homosexual, "cultural libertarian" and "free speech fundamentalist", he is a vocal critic of third wave feminism, Islam, social justice theory, political correctness and other movements and ideologies he perceives to be authoritarian and regressive. (Wikipedia/Milo Yiannopoulos).

So he's a hater of Black Lives Matter, Radical Marxist Feminists and SJWs just like the Hartster. There is no "double standard" at play here. All that happened was that a jerk and ACKNOWLEDGED troll who had been warned twice before, broke the rules again (making it clear that he had no intention of behaving himself), and was banned for life. As he should have been. End of story.

The only double standard here is that Willis wouldn't be complaining if it were a Leftist who was banned. Although, IMO, Conservatives are more likely to run into these kind of problems because they're so much more intolerant than Liberals. Most of their whines re "Liberal intolerance" concerning Liberal "intolerance" of Conservative bigotry and hate.

Proof that this is the truth are these "religious liberty" laws that Conservative legislatures have been trying to pass. Anti-gay, anti-transgender laws/sentiments that Willis Hart has defended by the way (with commentaries such as "On Making the Planet Safe from Christian Bakers"). This from a guy who claims that he's "socially tolerant". Bullshit!

Supporting Document
[DSD #30] Fanboy Outrage Re Milo Yiannopoulos (A Hard Right Jackass) Being Banned From Twitter (catalouge of WTNPH commentaries in which he defends a misogynist ass because he agrees with this far right views).

Image: Ben Garrison hearts Milo Yiannopoulos. Because they're both misogynist assholes (would be my guess). In this cartoon Ben depicts knight Milo battling the evil SJW hydra.

OST #162

Willis Hart Piling On The Strawmen In A Racist Commentary Re Yet Another Black Man Shot By Police

I think the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart has made it very clear that he has no problem with cops shooting Black suspects. Armed or unarmed. Even running away (and shot in the back), he has only ever criticized either the victim, protesters who object to the killing, or the media for how they've handled the killing.

Not once has he EVER defended the victim. Case in point - regarding the shooting of Philando Castile by Jeronimo Yanez, Hart's reaction is to post a strawman-laden commentary. (And he also attaches a meme that, when I searched for it, I found a couple of very racist/bigoted commentators who agreed with Mr. Hart... see image below).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that the Leftist Media Is Doing its Damnedest to Hide the Fact that the Cop Who Shot Castile in Minnesota Is Mexican. And try calling this fellow a "white Hispanic" (in an effort to preserve the narrative of white racist cops killing innocent young black men for no reason whatsoever). I dare you to. (7/12/2016 AT 10:01 PM).

If the Leftist media is "doing it damnedest to hide the fact that the cop who shot Castile is Mexican" where is the proof? You'd think if the Leftist media were doing this, Willis would be able to come up with ONE example.

In any case, the fact that the officer is Mexican-American doesn't mean that prejudice (against African Americans) couldn't have been a factor. As reported, Jeronimo Yanez, the St. Anthony MN police officer who shot and killed Philando Castile, pulled over Castile because he thought he looked like a robbery suspect "because of the wide-set nose".

Of course this remark does not mean there was any racial prejudice at play, but it does say to me that there might have been. In any case I think he clearly overreacted.

[As per the video shot by Castile's girlfriend Diamond Reynolds] Reynolds stated that Yanez "asked him for license and registration. He told him that it was in his wallet, but he had a pistol on him because he's licensed to carry". The officer said, Don't move. As he was putting his hands back up, the officer shot him in the arm 4 or 5 times". Reynolds tells the officer: "You shot four bullets into him, sir. He was just getting his license and registration, sir". On the video, Reynolds says "Please don't tell me he's dead", while Yanez screams: "I told him not to reach for it! I told him to get his hand open!"

If someone is going to shoot you, It seems absurd to me that they'd first tell you they have a gun. Seems to me that Castile shouldn't have mentioned the gun. Because as soon as he did the officer panicked and shot him. Possibly due to racial prejudices or institutional racism (trained to view Blacks as criminals).

As for the "narrative", it isn't that "White racist cops killing innocent young black men for no reason whatsoever" (another strawman). It is that cops (no matter their race) are shooting Black suspects at a rate disproportionate to White suspects.

In 2015, The WP launched a real-time database to track fatal police shootings, and the project continues this year. As of [7/10/2016], 1,502 people have been shot and killed by on-duty police officers since 1/1/2015. Of them, 732 were white, and 381 were black (and 382 were of another or unknown race). But... comparing how many or how often white people are killed by police to how many or how often black people are killed by the police is statistically dubious unless you first adjust for population. According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62% of the U.S. population but only about 49% of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24% of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13% of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers. (Aren't more white people than black people killed by police? Yes, but no. by Wesley Lowery. The Washington Post 7/11/2016).

Finally, I SERIOUSLY doubt that anyone is going to refer to Yanez as a "White Hispanic", despite Hart's "dare" (AKA strawman attempt to link this shooting to the police identifying George Zimmerman as White).

I would dare Willis Hart to stop it with the strawmen, but I know such a dare would be pointless. He is clearly NEVER going to stop. Especially when it comes to Blacks being shot by the police. Because the dude is strongly racist. He actually wrote (re Blacks being killed by the police) "I'm actually quite insulted that this bullshit is being placed not just at my doorstep but the law enforcement community's".

Yeah, Black people being killed by the police is "bullshit" and the Hartster is clearly angry that the Black Lives Matter movement exists and is "insulted" that it's objecting to members of their community being gunned down BY THE POLICE at a rate 2.5 times higher than for Whites. Police killings SHOULDN'T be placed at the law enforcement community's doorstep???? What?!!

No, sorry, but law enforcement needs to answer for ALL the people they kill. Justified or unjustified. And it's the ones in that last category that BLM is concerned about and protest (killings that appear to not be justified). They don't protest when the police kill someone and it's clearly justified.

So WTF is Hart's beef? Apparently his primary argument is that since Black people kill other Black people at a rate greater than Whites killing Whites - that somehow gives police a free pass?!! That BLM has no right to protest. But how the hell are criminals killing people in any way the same as law enforcement killing people?

Clearly Hart's argument is a specious one. "STOP BLOWING YOUR FUCKING BRAINS OUT" he yells (copied from his blog as he wrote it... in all caps). As if innocent Black victims are responsible for getting killed by Black criminals.

Image: Found on the website F169BBS along with the caption "Remember, kids - there is absolutely no low that niggers, jews, faggots, and liberals will not go". Also found on "The Last American Newspaper" attached to an article that claims "the media and political manipulators want the Blacks and Mexicans to love another and stick together so they can be more easily manipulated come vote time by the politicians" ("explaining why the media is "hiding" the race of Yanez). Apparently this conspiracy involves a US census form. Concerning this form, the author remarks "I will bet my bottom dollar a Jew or two were involved in the creation of [it]". Does it say something about Willis Hart that this meme (which he obviously agrees with) can be found on two CLEARLY racist/bigoted sites? I say yes. No, I actually say HELL YES!

OST #159

Government Passed Laws Should Only Be Suggestions & Absolutely Not Enforced Libertarian Sez

What explains this is the fact that Libertarians (such as Willis Hart) believe in Kingdom and hate democracy. The Liberty and Freedom they subscribe to depends on how much money a person has. The more money someone has, the more liberty and freedom they are deserving of. Everything being a commodity under their worldview (DSB #44).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Whenever You Go to Bottom of the Rabbit-Hole with Groups Like Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, the Bernie Sanders Crowd, etc. and Ask These Folks How They're Going to Implement Their Agenda, They Always Have to Confess that it Will Only Be Obtained Through Coercion, Force, the Threat of Violence, and Violence Itself... Via the full force of the state, in other words. But relax, it's for our own good, they say. (5/27/2016 AT 4:34pm)

Willis Hart, like many on the Right, frame their hatred for democracy as a love of republicanism. Our country is a republic and not a democracy because our Founders recognized that the rights rich people needed to be protected from the masses. The danger being the rabble voting to steal from rich people so they can loaf (i.e. the "Makers vs Takers" meme).

This Randian argument says that "since the takers don't pay taxes - they just take government benefits - they are endlessly incentivized to support politicians who keep their Ponzi scheme going" (Makers, Takers, and YOYOs). This is a false/divisive meme that Hart subscribes to (strongly).

Willis Hart: ...people when given the choice will almost always vote for those who promise them the most while making others pay for it) and why the Founding Fathers created a Republic instead. (4/2/206 AT 3:21pm).

This despite the fact that we're talking about making investments that will be economically beneficial. The higher the level of education attained, the more the individual in question pays in taxes over their lifetime. Also, those with more education draw less from social support programs (How Taxpayers Benefit When Students Attain Higher Levels of Education). Which is why the proposals of Bernie Sanders (for free college) and Hillary Clinton (for debt free college) would more than pay for itself.

None-the-less Willis opposes free college.

Willis Hart: Oh, free college education now! Do you have ANY idea how expensive that would be? And do you even care? We'll pay for it by taxing the rich, right? (7/3/2011 AT 9:00pm)

His primary concern here (as it is ALWAYS) is how much the rich will pay in taxes. Which explains his anger at the Occupy Wall Street movement and "the Bernie Sanders Crowd". With Black Lives Matter, his outrage concerns cops who shoot unarmed suspects. Apparently be believes cops should should continue to be allowed to shoot Black people indiscriminately.

Bottom line, though, is that addressing these issue via LAWS is what the Hartster is objecting to in his rant. And, if people refuse to follow the law, he thinks nothing should be done? Should the authorities representing the State say "OK, it was really more of a suggestion"?

Of COURSE, if you're going to have laws (any laws), ultimately the threat of force is necessary to back them up. As a last resort, of course. There are other ways to persuade people to follow the rules. But, ultimately, if they refuse, then what choice is there but to back up those laws with force?

Is he saying he believes in Libertarian anarchism, or just the (democratic) passage of laws he disagrees with? In which case (if he doesn't believe there should be NO laws), then I say (if you go to the bottom of his rabbit hole) HE HAS TO CONFESS that the State powers he agrees with can only be enforced through coercion, force, the threat of violence, and violence itself.

But I doubt he will, as he is clearly an enormous hypocrite.

OST #147

On Willis Hart Lying About What The Black Lives Matter Movement Is Protesting About

The following from Wikipedia sums up what the focus of the Black Lives Matter movement is.

Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an international activist movement, originating in the African American community, that campaigns against violence toward black people. BLM regularly organizes protests around the deaths of black people in killings by law enforcement officers, and broader issues of racial profiling, police brutality, and racial inequality in the United States criminal justice system. (Wikipedia/Black Lives Matter).

I bring this up because the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, while he has put up quite a few posts on his blog about BLM, CLEARLY does not understand why the movement exists.

Willis Hart: On Black Lives Mattering... There's never been an argument from me. IN FACT, being that the black murder rate is fully 6 times that of whites (17.5 per 100,000 versus 2.6 per 100,000) with the perpetrators being 93% other black people, I'm actually quite insulted that this bullshit is being placed not just at my doorstep but the law enforcement community's, too... STOP BLOWING YOUR FUCKING BRAINS OUT (much of it over foolishness; half-eaten Snickers bars, Air Jordan sneaks, some big-butted heifer, a slight, etc.), PEOPLE. BLACK LIVES MATTER!!!!!! (11/18/2015 AT 5:07pm).

What Willis claims is being "placed at his [and law enforcement's] doorstep" - IS NOT! The movement is not protesting in regards to ALL Black deaths, but ONLY Black deaths caused by law enforcement, you dolt! Although, calling Willis a dolt implies that he's simply being an oblivious White guy in not getting what the focus of BLM is.

The other possibility is that he's lying. A possibility I'm not ruling out. I mean, I think they've been QUITE clear that what they're protesting is the police killing Black people (as well as brutality directed against African Americans), and not Black (criminal) civilians killing other Black civilians. Sure, that's an issue as well, but law enforcement is supposed to enforce the law, not break it! Whereas criminals breaking the law is to be expected.

Yes, Willis is correct about the murder rate in the Black community being higher than in the White community, but I'd argue that is a symptom of the problem. That racism is the cause of the murder rate being higher, in that racism is a factor in that racism causes poverty which in turn leads to more crime.

BTW, Black criminals killing other Black people is (1) not something the Black community at large can be blamed for, and (2) something that makes perfect sense, as PolitiFact points out according to "experts... most people - whether black or white - are murdered by people in their own racial group, and that has held true for decades".

Black murderers mostly target Black victims JUST AS White murderers mostly target White victims. This is to be expected. And, in refutation of the point Willis thinks he is making, the BLM movement is NOT placing the blame for these murders on him or on law enforcement!

The ONLY "bullshit" the BLM movement is placing on the law enforcement community is holding them accountable for the Black suspects they kill (and brutalize). And I genuinely think there is a problem here, given the fact that a Black person is 300 percent more likely to be killed by a police officer than a White person.

Willis Hart, as an oblivious White guy (who flatly denies that White privilege even exists) is "offended" by the suggestion that cops killing Black suspects is a problem. In fact he lies (or misunderstands... yeah, right) about why BLM exists - which is something that OFFENDS ME!

I mean, if Willis wants to criticize BLM on a factual basis, that's one thing. But for him to put forward this lame strawman is pure bullshit, I think. Yet another example of how the strawman-loving Hartster is full of it.

OST #90

On The Fact That Willis Hart Considers Something A "Fact" If: A) He Reads It On A Conservative Website & B) It Confirms His Biases

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart's supposed facts (in this case) leading to a conclusion that supports his bias against "Black activists".

Willis Hart: On the Fact that a Shitload of Black Activists Are Presently Burning Up Twitter with Beefs Pertaining to the Level of Press Coverage that the Paris Terror Attacks Have Been Receiving and Are Alleging this Attention Is Somehow Taking Away Coverage from Their Grievances at the University of Missouri... So, a poop Swastika (that not one person thought to take a picture of) and some yahoo who may or may not have been affiliated with the University shouting out the n-word from a moving vehicle deserves the same level of coverage as 129 people being slaughtered (with hundreds more wounded)? Damn, huh? P.S. Whatever else that these spoiled brats (probably a lot of the same morons who booed Bernie Sanders) have learned at the "academy", perspective surely isn't one of them. (11/18/2015 AT 4:04pm).

My reaction to reading this is that YES, it does sound rather ridiculous if true. So I did a Google search and, as it turns out, a "shitload" of Conservative websites are reporting on this "story". Fox Nooz, The Daily Mail, The Washington Times, Breitbart and The Daily Caller (the first 5 results, all of which link to Conservervative sites) all claim that upset Mizzou protestors have tweeted about the attacks in Paris taking the focus away from their issue.

Mizzou, however, disputes that these tweets came from anyone associated with the University. (This story was the 6th result displayed when I did my Google search).

False Social Media Posts Regarding Attacks in Paris (11/14/2015) Social media posts expressing dismay that the tragedy in Paris is diverting media attention from events at the University of Missouri are being made by individuals from outside the Mizzou community in an attempt to create conflict. Our hearts go out to the citizens of Paris and all those affected by the tragic events of last night. While our community has faced difficulties over the past week, we express our sincere sympathy to those who have been affected by the events in Paris and remain committed to making Mizzou stronger and more inclusive.

Also, the Columbia Missourian, "a daily morning newspaper published in Columbia MO" that looked at the accounts behind these tweets and tried to find out who these people are, found that NONE of the tweeters could be linked to Mizzou.

Fact Check: No proof tweets about Paris attacks came from MU protesters (excerpt from a 11/19/2015 article by Katherine Knott) Our finding [is that] It's true that some people did tweet their dissatisfaction with the change in coverage. However, the tweets and commenters cited by the bloggers show no evidence of a connection to MU or the Concerned Student 1950 movement. Using the hashtag #Mizzou doesn't mean those people were camping on Carnahan Quadrangle or even present on campus. Meanwhile, leaders of the Concerned Student 1950 demonstrations and the Legion of Black Collegians have posted statements of sympathy and support for the victims of the Paris attacks, not statements of hate or anger. While it's impossible to prove beyond a doubt that those who complained about the redirected coverage have no connection to MU, we could find no evidence allowing us to independently verify that these individuals are, in fact, "Mizzou protesters".

There you have it. This makes much more sense than thinking any Mizzou protestor would tweet something in such incredibly bad taste... tweets that would absolutely guarantee their cause would get bad press. Which was obviously the goal of the fake tweeters.

Could it be that perspective, or "the faculty of seeing all the relevant data in a meaningful relationship", is something that Willis lacks? I say yes, given the relevant data, which is [1] tweets, and ONLY tweets, supposedly tweeted by Mizzou protestors which would obviously cause people to view them as HUGE a-holes, [2] statements of sympathy and support for the victims of the Paris attacks and not statements of hate or anger from confirmed Mizzou protestors and [3] the fact that only Conservative sources are reporting this.

Given these facts, perspective tells me that these tweets are probably not genuine and are from outsiders trying to create bad press for the Mizzou protesters. Find some of the actual protesters and get them on record saying that they're upset over the Paris attacks taking the focus off their cause and then I'll believe this story.

Unless that happens I'm not buying it. Unlike the Hartster, who clearly eagerly bought what he read from the Conservative websites that reported on these tweets... because it confirms his biases.

By the way, what's up with Willis' guess that the tweeters included "a lot of the same morons who booed Bernie Sanders" when he JUST referred to Senator Sanders (along with Senator Elizabeth Warren) as "two fucking imbeciles"? Why the hell would it offend him if anyone disrespected Sanders?

Image: This open space is located South of Jesse Hall. The Mel Carnahan Quadrangle was dedicated on 9/12/2003 to a former governor of Missouri and Honors his leadership in Public Service. The Carnahan Quad has emerged as the University's most significant new open space.

OST #82