The Crowhill Journal

Liberals have always been advocates of freedom of thought. The left, not so much.

I’m old enough to remember when liberals said people had a duty to buy and read banned books. For example, see this 1999 article from The Baltimore Sun.

There’s a civilized duty to buy and read banned books; Even the youngest reader — especially the youngest — is nourished by the forbidden mystery.

Powells, which is a famous lefty bookstore in Portland, celebrates Banned Book Week, and has a page devoted to banned books. But for some crazy reason I can’t find When Harry Became Sally on their site. It is, as you probably know, the book Amazon doesn’t want you to read.

The left in America used to be controlled by liberals. Now it’s controlled by authoritarian progressive wackos.

P&C drink and review a double IPA from Bell’s, then discuss the 3-headed hydra of cancel culture: canceling the present, erasing the past, and banning people for the future. We’re starting to see examples of the media editing old stories to change the past. It’s literally Orwellian.

There are new initiatives to erase literal crimes to give someone a fresh start, but thought crimes from decades ago still ruin lives.

This is very funny.

People keep saying the tech platforms are private companies and can choose to whom they provide services. So what if companies that sell guns and ammo decided not to sell to Biden voters?

I’m not in favor of that! But it would be an interesting push back against the nonsense we keep hearing to justify tech censorship.

Heard this today.

Culture is when we’re allowed to disagree. Otherwise it’s just cult.

A friend forwarded this article criticizing Merrick Garland’s views on equity.

Here’s an image people like to use to show why equity is fairer than equality.

Treating everyone “equally” doesn’t work in this situation, since people have different needs. And this is exactly what you would do if you were that dad.

(By the way, why isn’t this image criticized as racist, since it seems to imply that these brown-skinned people can’t afford tickets to the game?)

This is clearly the way we should treat individuals. E.g., Joe doesn’t need any help, so he doesn’t get any. Sam needs a little help, and Ezra needs a lot.

Well and good. The problem is when you start assigning the amount of help that is due based on something other than the amount of help that is needed. If you say, for example, that white people don’t need any help, but all black people do, that’s simply ridiculous. There are plenty of poor white people and rich black people.

The problem with all this “diversity, equity and inclusion” stuff is that it’s not based on individual needs. It’s based on identity politics and group characteristics, and that makes it both racist and foolish.