Originally a comment by iknklast on They would do well to repudiate this embarrassment from the UK chapter.

The right to promote hateful ideas is not covered under the right to free speech.

Actually, it is. Otherwise, speech is anything but free. When Eugene Debs was jailed for speaking against the war, he was promoting “hateful” ideas. When Baruch Spinoza was excommunicated, he was promoting “hateful” ideas. When Giordano Bruno was burned, he was promoting “hateful” ideas. When the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, they were promoting “hateful” ideas. When the abolitionists spoke out against slavery, they were promoting “hateful” ideas. When the NAACP spoke out in favor of civil rights, they were promoting “hateful” ideas. When women … Read the rest

Trump expands on his low opinion of Sadiq Khan. “He should be positive, not negative; he’s a negative force, not a positive force.” Trump’s calling Khan a stone cold loser is of course very positive and not negative at all.

Here’s the moment British Prime Minister Theresa May was asked if she agrees with President Donald Trump that London Mayor Sadiq Khan is a “stone cold loser.” May did not answer the question. pic.twitter.com/mtUjXRcSRs

— John Haltiwanger (@jchaltiwanger) June 4, 2019

… Read the rest

Yes, why are they there? It’s not a trip to Disneyland.

The White House hasn't really offered an explanation for why the president's adult children who don't work in the administration are on this state visit. https://t.co/U3goSqUQy3

— Kathryn Watson (@kathrynw5) June 4, 2019

Why did Trump bring his whole damn family apart from Barron along? That’s not normal. If it’s not normal it’s not appropriate. Were they even invited?

Are we paying for it? Of course we are.

Trump’s four adult children and their spouses have joined him on his state visit to the United Kingdom this week. And US taxpayers are picking up the hefty bills for their hotels, transportation, and security.

Ivanka Trump and her husband

Yet another lying bullying “statement,” this one from Minorities and Philosophy UK. Brian Leiter flags it up:

I don’t want to make more of this disgraceful statement than it deserves; many MAP chapters are doing constructive work, and they would do well to repudiate this embarrassment from the UK chapter.  One can support equal opportunity for and dignified treatment of trans philosophers, as Professor Stock explicitly does, and still disagree with how some trans philosophers understand gender.

Note that this statement is the work of a handful of individuals, including the already notorious Keyvan Shafei and the equally benighted spouse of Nathan Oseroff, among others.  It was apparently prompted by the fact that the Aristotelian Society, much to

Why doe anyone think Trump is a billionaire when all his suits look like they came off the rack?

I'm not the president but if I met the Queen, I wouldn't settle for the Men's Wearhouse spring clearance sale. I'd get measured for a real suit. pic.twitter.com/SEGCUnZznA

— Stephen Robinson (@SER1897) June 3, 2019

Well, I saw Lon Chaney walking with the Queen.
Better stay away from him:
He'll rip your lungs out, Jim.
I'd like to meet his tailor. pic.twitter.com/mnQMRv6zfK

— Francis Wheen (@FrancisWheen) June 3, 2019

That awkward moment when the Queen invites you to dinner but you just ate Boris Johnson pic.twitter.com/WEu5gB2a8H

— John Fugelsang (@JohnFugelsang) June 3, 2019

Updating to add: I had to hit the … Read the rest

Saturday in Bradford:

Yesterday a group of lesbians went to Bradford Pride to celebrate their sexuality and challenge the erasure of lesbians by transactivists.

They had a banner saying “lesbians don’t have penises” so you can guess what happened next.

We had decided to meet in a coffee shop before going into the square. Whilst sat drinking coffee we were approached by two police officers from West Yorkshire Police. They explained that someone had come to them and said that they’d seen some placards and so they wanted to make sure that there was nothing derogatory and that we were not a hate group. We assured them that we were just lesbians going to Pride. That WYP felt it

The “nope” to a court order is a red flag.

The Justice Department argued that the documents need not be released because “it did not rely on such recordings to establish Flynn’s guilt or determine a recommendation for his sentencing.” Moreover, “Prosecutors also failed to release an unredacted version of portions of the Mueller report related to Flynn that the judge had ordered be made public.”

Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe tells me, “Even if the district court’s order to release the Flynn-Kislyak transcripts goes further than justified by the sentencing matter before the court, I would’ve thought that, in a government of laws, the only way to avoid compliance is to take an appeal to a higher court.” The

A column I wrote for the April/May issue of Free Inquiry is online. It’s about “authenticity.”

The idea of an “authentic self” has, oddly, become a theme of political discourse as well as Oprah-style uplift. We’re being told that people have a right to live as their authentic selves, which often means as opposed to their outward appearance, that mere physical dross. It’s a weirdly religious idea, reminiscent of the contemptus mundi of medieval monks, but it’s presented as political rather than religious. What I keep wondering is how it’s possible to make a sane politics out of the denial of material reality.

The irony is that what is meant by the authentic self in the current dialect is