Michael Shellenberger: The Political Left Needs to Renounce Violence

Michael Shellenberger, at Public:

"Why did they engage in so much dehumanization for so long? In large part, the reason is because Kirk challenged left wing mythology on gender, race and modern feminism. One cannot change one's sex through drugs, surgery or magical thinking. Kirk and other conservatives noted. There is no epidemic of police officers killing black men. In fact, the numbers declined dramatically from the 1970s to the birth of black lives matter. Black Americans commit crimes at numbers clearly disproportionate to their share of the population, and some research does, in fact, suggests that liberal, secular women report more mental health issues and lower life satisfaction than conservative, religious women who are more likely to be married and to have children.

The left cannot tolerate these challenges to its worldview, and so it resorts to censorship and silencing. The share of college students who support using violence to stop a campus speech rose from 24% to 34% between 2021 and 2025 poignantly, in April, Kirk himself posted on x about rising support for violence on the left. Assassination culture is spreading on the left. He noted, 48% of liberals say it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Elon Musk. 55% said the same thing about Donald Trump.

In California. It's simply not good enough now for Democratic politicians like Newsom and news media outlets like the New York Times, who spent the last decade dehumanizing millions of their fellow citizens, including Trump and Kirk, to simply say that they shouldn't be killed. If they truly oppose political violence, they should apologize for their relentless false accusations of racism and bigotry, and they should try to make amends by humanizing conservatives.

The media Democrats and the wider left must stop portraying MAGA supporters who have Christian nationalist and conservative views as equivalent to Nazis and fascists through the use of loaded terms like "Far Right."

Let us all come together and condemn violence of any kind. Said former MSNBC commentator Dowd, in his apology. Well, if he really means that, then he and others at MSNBC, The New York Times, the Democratic Party, must go further and renounce their own demonization of Kirk, Trump and other conservatives, We have little confidence that the Left will apologize or change its behavior for many of the same reasons the Left dehumanized Kirk in the first place. The mainstream view of the left today, as represented by everyone from Democrats in Congress to the New York Times to NPR and PBS, is that Western civilization itself is corrupt and evil. The Democratic Party of the last roughly 12 years has lost any semblance of being a Liberal Party and has become an overtly illiberal radical Left one

From the Left's reaction to the assassination, more Americans and people around the world will see that the Left hated and still hates Kirk precisely because he loved Western civilization and fought to conserve it. If any Democrats and progressives really want to end political violence, they would stop encouraging fanaticism and instead embrace dialog and debate. They would go beyond simply writing articles, and instead go to colleges and universities and start having honest conversations about race, sex, gender and other issues essential to discussing it openly, if we were to move forward as a country.

They would stop accusing their political opponents of spreading hate or misinformation and instead listen to what they actually have to say. That's what is so important to our country, is to find our disagreements respectfully because when people stop talking, said, Kirk. That's when violence happens. Thanks for listening."

Continue ReadingMichael Shellenberger: The Political Left Needs to Renounce Violence

Greg Lukianoff Discusses Free Speech at TED

Greg Lukianoff began his TED talk with this: "2023 and 2024 were the two worst years for mob censorship and shout downs on record."

He then offered these Four Truths about free speech:

1. You are not safer for knowing LESS about what people really think.

2. Free Speech Cures Violence (Free Speech is the best alternative to violence).

3. Free Speech protects the powerless (free speech is the best check on power ever invented).

4. Even "bad" people can have good ideas (and good people aren't always right). ("Just because I hate your guts doesn't mean you are wrong.") ("The way we figure out truth ... doesn't work if you just talk to people your already agree with.").

Greg ended his talk with this gem:

"To understand the world it's crucial to know what people really think . . . For that, we need free speech."

Continue ReadingGreg Lukianoff Discusses Free Speech at TED

About LA’s Rent-a-Riots

From Tweet by The Vigilant Fox:

LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell just exposed what many already suspected—the chaos unfolding in Los Angeles is being escalated by professional leftist agitators:

“When I look at the people who are out there doing the violence, that’s not the people that we [see] during the day.”

“These are people who are all hooded up. They’ve got a hoodie on. They’ve got face masks on. They’re people who do this all the time.”

“Get away with whatever they can. Go out there from one civil unrest situation to another, using the same or similar tactics frequently.”

“They are connected. Some would call them anarchists.”

“They’re people that we run across routinely, city to city, and this is what they do.”

“Many of the people who are doing this come in from other places just to hurt people and to cause havoc.”

This isn’t spontaneous. It’s organized, and it’s designed to burn the city to the ground.

Continue ReadingAbout LA’s Rent-a-Riots

Free Speech Hypocrisy

Nico Perrino (of FIRE) sternly points out the rampant hypocrisy.

Do we actually believe in free speech?

Do we actually believe controversial speakers have a right to speak in America — free from government censorship?

For the past decade, I stood alongside conservatives who loudly — and justifiably — protested when speakers like Ben Shapiro and Charles Murray were prevented from speaking on college campuses, often under the guise of vague appeals to "safety."

Will those same voices rise up now that the boot is on the other foot?

Do we actually believe in free speech as a principle, or merely as an expedient argument when our side is censored?

Do we actually oppose cancel culture?

Do we actually oppose the heckler's veto?

Do we actually oppose vague security rationales for censorship?

I will work with anyone to defend free speech in any scenario, even if doing so means those same people — whether they are the canceled conservatives of the past or the canceled left-wingers of the present — will sometimes abandon free speech when it's their side doing the censoring.

Believing in free speech is as simple as the golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Nat Henthoff's book title comes to mind: "Free Speech for me, but not for thee."

Continue ReadingFree Speech Hypocrisy