July 4, 2015

5 things wrong with the NY Post headline "Weenies burn flag to protest cops, get attacked by bikers, need cops to save their asses."

Here's the article. Here are the 5 things:

1. The protesters didn't call the cops. The cops were already on the scene because the flag burning was a planned and promoted event. The cops observed the scene, witnessed violence, and following their own standards and judgment, ended it. The headline suggests that the anti-cop protesters cried out for help in their time of need.

2. Speaking out against bad police behavior does not entail an obligation to forgo police protection. The position that police aren't doing their jobs properly doesn't nail you down to the position that there should be no police protection at all. There's no big contradiction between criticizing the police and benefiting from police protection when you're a victim of crime.

3. Someone who exercises freedom of speech in a way that inflames the anger of a crowd is not a "weenie." It may be unwise or rude or stupid, but it's not what weenies do.  "The Weenie State is characterized by an obsession with rules and protocols, reinforced by fear.... Fear of stepping outside the lines. Fear of making a mistake. Fear of looking stupid."

4. The New York Post (in its successful clickbait) adopts the viewpoint of thugs. From the article: "'They took off like little b—hes,' said one biker. 'They lit the f–king flag and took off running once they got slapped once or twice.'" The bikers wanted a physically violent fight, and the protesters chose not to stand their ground but to run, which most people — if they're not distracted by their own anger about flag-burning — probably think is the most rational move. The message to future protesters shouldn't be: Stand up and fight or we'll call you weenies.

5. Since the police were right there to defuse the situation, we don't know whether the flag-burners really did "need cops to save their asses." In the age-old struggle to save your own ass, the 2 big options are fight or flight. When the flight instinct kicks in, it's probably for the best, probably because you're going to lose that fight. Of course, those who wanted to fight will mock and revile you for "taking off like little bitches," but they'd have laughed at the way you'd have gone down if you'd stood and fought. That would, I suspect, have amused them even more.

110 comments:

MisterBuddwing said...

Since the police were right there to defuse the situation...

A small thing, but thank you for properly using the word "defuse." (For some reason, more people seem to be using the phrase, "diffuse the situation.")

Laslo Spatula said...

"...the 2 big options are fight or flight. When the flight instinct kicks in, it's probably for the best, probably because you're going to lose that fight. "

When you are deliberately trying to provoke an emotional response you should understand that you are to be expected to stand by it. Flight makes you a dilettante.

I am Laslo.



rhhardin said...

Headline writing is protected under the first amendment.

Mr. D said...

Speaking out against bad police behavior does not entail an obligation to forgo police protection. The position that that police aren't doing their jobs properly doesn't nail you down to the position that there should be no police protection at all. There's no big contradiction between criticizing the police and benefiting from police protection when you're a victim of crime.

Same thing goes with any government program.

rhhardin said...

Flagrare, to burn.

Virgil Hilts said...

Weenie is a strange word in that it can be used to mean both a "pussy" ("look at that weenie [pussy] run!") or a "dick" ("OMG, you could see his weenie[dick]!"). If you read the headline to mean "dicks" instead of "pussies" it works a little better.

donald said...

"...the 2 big options are fight or flight. When the flight instinct kicks in, it's probably for the best, probably because you're going to lose that fight. "

When you are deliberately trying to provoke an emotional response you should understand that you are to be expected to stand by it. Flight makes you a dilettante.

I am Laslo.


There is a certain class that has no concept of this.

The author of this post and her fellow travelers for instance.

Oso Negro said...

Weeny post! The headline and the article were both accurate and satisfying.

rhhardin said...

Will Althouse be photographing corn today. Elephant's eye is Oklahoma, but that may have moved northward owing to genetic corn engineering outpacing genetic elephant engineering.

amielalune said...

Agree with Laslo, Ann. What do you think they thought would happen -- that they wouldn't be confronted?

What they were doing wasn't against the law, and basically most of us yawn at their attempts to "shock" us. So what was the point? They deserved to be ridiculed, just as the Post did.

You could have picked any one of 1000 stories yesterday by the enemedia to criticize. Amazing that you chose this one.

Gahrie said...

The only thing wrong with the headline is that it didn't read "Cowardly flag burners got their asses kicked.

I bet Althouse wouldn't have the same reaction if they had been burning rainbow flags.

MisterBuddwing said...

If they had been out-and-out cowards, they wouldn't have shown up in the first place.

Michael McClain said...

Laslo nails it.

buwaya puti said...

If one goes out looking for a fight, it is dishonorable to flee once the people you intended to provoke accept the challenge.
This is an implicit male cultural understanding going back to the gorillas.
The honorable thing to do, at the primate level, would have been to stand and fight, given that they had already been so foolish as to provoke it.
As for the wisdom of fleeing, there is only so much wisdom in survival. Why are we here, merely to survive ?
It used to be a man was expected to aspire to die well.

Moneyrunner said...

1. Protesters did not call the cops and the headline did not claim they did. One demerit for Ann.
2. They were not “speaking out.” They attempted to provoke; and expected to be able to provoke without retaliation because that's how these things usually go. Second demerit for Ann.
3. People who are deliberately provocative and run away are “weenies” in the acceptable schoolyard term of the word. Another word would be “sissy.” Third demerit for Ann.
4. Ann calls people who protect the flag “thugs.” That’s apparently what tenured white-bread, former hippie academics call people who don’t look like them and who are engaged in protests, who don’t run away like weenies … or sissies. I wonder if her heart-throb, Bernie Sanders, ran away from his protests. If he had run into physical opposition I suspect the answer is clear. Fourth demerit for Ann, as well as a clear indication that she is both sexist and classist.
5. Both the cops and the weenies that ran away apparently believe that the flag-burners really did "need cops to save their asses," I’ll take their view over that of an over-bred academic. Ann is entitled to her opinion but not to her own facts. Total fail for Ann.

Rae said...

How does burning an American flag protest the police? Maybe stomping on a donut, frying some bacon would get the point across better.

They were probably hoping to provoke a violent response from the police, that they could film and feel righteous about. They didn't plan on the bikers being there.

The Drill SGT said...

1. Thing wrong with the posting of: The protesters didn't call the cops.

The article doesn't say the protester called the cops...

On the topic of weenies. It could be that a Post Editor was having fun with:
- 4th of July
- traditional weenie eating contest in NYC
- grilling on the Barbi in the park
- what wusses the demonstrators turned out to be

all of the above

The Drill SGT said...

@moneyrunner was faster than I was.

Moneyrunner said...

How about that? Pushback! Next up: the Department of Justice begins an investigation into intimidation of patriotic flag burners. Because dissent is the highest form of patriotism ... unless it's dissent from Liberal orthodoxy when the dissenters are "thugs." Or is it racists? Was anyone wearing the Confederate battle flag? So hard to know who to root for: thugs or flag burners. Gays or hermaphrodites?

Chris N said...

While 15, one day on a ski trip, usually while on the lift, I kept trying to impress a friend by making fun of a snowboarding posse's outlaw style. I thought it was great fun.

A guy who apparently didn't like me much was on the lift one of these times and mentioned it to them.

About four or five of them waited by the lodge and confronted me in the parking lot. They circled around me and I was surprised, scared and ashamed. Eventually I got smacked a few times in the face after a verbal exchange though I did manage to land a punch.

Mostly it was just embarrassing.

I deserved a bit of an asskicking, and I got a bit of an asskicking





Diane Mcnamara said...

" Speaking out against bad police behavior does not entail an obligation to forgo police protection. The position that that police aren't doing their jobs properly doesn't nail you down to the position that there should be no police protection at all. "

However, The "Disarm NYPD" facebook page does. "We are calling for the immediate disarming of the NYPD, and the immediate demobilization of the police from our neighborhoods."
https://www.facebook.com/DisarmNYPD/info

Big Mike said...

The message to future protesters shouldn't be: Stand up and fight or we'll call you weenies.

Of course it should! @Meade, you need to do some mansplaining to your dearly beloved. The protesters set out to incite a violence reaction from people misrepresented by the Professor as "thugs." Either fight or else take your beating the way the followers of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., did. Incite violence and then run away? Weenies!

Ann Althouse said...

"1. Protesters did not call the cops and the headline did not claim they did. One demerit for Ann."

One demerit for you, because I didn't say the headline said they did. The headline suggests they did. It's omission/insinuation/distortion. A violation of headline standards, plainly.

khesanh0802 said...

Have to go with Laslo at 0806. If you are going to taunt you had better be ready for the consequences. To take flight just proves you are a chickenshit.

donald said...

Heroes. Just like Edward Snowden.

Ann Althouse said...

"2. They were not “speaking out.” They attempted to provoke; and expected to be able to provoke without retaliation because that's how these things usually go. Second demerit for Ann."

It absolutely is speaking out. It's speaking out in a strong way, which does and is intended to provoke. If you think free speech is only about saying things in a nice way so people don't get upset, you couldn't be more wrong.

"3. People who are deliberately provocative and run away are “weenies” in the acceptable schoolyard term of the word. Another word would be “sissy.” Third demerit for Ann."

I stand by the quoted definition of "weenie." Please read the linked Forbes article.

"4. Ann calls people who protect the flag “thugs.” That’s apparently what tenured white-bread, former hippie academics call people who don’t look like them and who are engaged in protests, who don’t run away like weenies … or sissies. I wonder if her heart-throb, Bernie Sanders, ran away from his protests. If he had run into physical opposition I suspect the answer is clear. Fourth demerit for Ann, as well as a clear indication that she is both sexist and classist."

Oh, bullshit. They were thugs. They came for a fight and they launched into one.

"5. Both the cops and the weenies that ran away apparently believe that the flag-burners really did "need cops to save their asses," I’ll take their view over that of an over-bred academic. Ann is entitled to her opinion but not to her own facts. Total fail for Ann."

You're just groping to have an objection to every point, and you obviously don't have one. Don't try for the 5-point game unless you can play it fairly.

JT said...

@Ann
"One demerit for you, because I didn't say the headline said they did. The headline suggests they did. It's omission/insinuation/distortion. A violation of headline standards, plainly."

The headline in no way suggests the protesters called the cops. Needing the police to save them and calling the police to save them are two entirely different things. I normally find your language-parsing posts enjoyable, but you're off base on this one.

bitblogger said...

The flag burners should have been armed to the teeth and ready to shoot when they were assaulted by this gang of criminal thugs. This is the lesson to be learned from the Bundy ranch scandal. All protesters in this country need to understand they their lives are in danger when they go out on the street, either from the police, other armed government agencies, counter-protesters or just random lunatics. If these people had been armed and ready to defend themselves, we would have had a much more interesting outcome here. They would have been fully within their rights to open fire and put more than a few bullets in the heads of these criminal "bikers".

Gahrie said...

Oh, bullshit. They were thugs. They came for a fight and they launched into one.

So the assholes who showed up to provoke a fight are heroes, and the patriots willing to accommodate them are thugs.

Well at least you didn't call them splooge stooges.

Tarrou said...

A small window into the future. As the political worm turns, the power of the left is in the corporate structure and on Tumblr. Those hard lads willing to take or give a beating generally fall on one side of the political spectrum. Hence the constant stoking of racial tension. Now that the unions are almost obsolete, the left needs boots on the ground to terrorize the opposition. Ferguson and Baltimore are only the beginning, but the backlash is waiting in the wings.

Anonymous said...

A surprising level of support here for the thugs so far.

Moneyrunner said...

"One demerit for you, because I didn't say the headline said they did. The headline suggests they did. It's omission/insinuation/distortion. A violation of headline standards, plainly."

Sorry, the headline did not say, imply or insinuate that they called the cops. In fact, the flag burning was publicized and cops are on hand for protests. You read something that wasn't there and now you're doubling down on stupid. Are you sure you're not channeling George Takei?

Gahrie said...

A surprising level of support here for the thugs so far.

I'll side with Rick Monday and the bikers over hippie flag burners every time.

SGT Ted said...

Since these "anarchists" delight in violent action and vandalism and thuggery themselves when they engage in hate speech and violent protests towards police and patriots in their "anti-war" protests, I think it is fitting karma that they got some of what they like to dish out.

That they ran away just shows them for the pussies they really are.

Gahrie said...

https://youtu.be/IrV8QPQAhxo

SGT Ted said...

The left and progressive liberals are always excusing and justifying thuggery and criminality when it's the anarchists, black revolutionaries and commies doing it, saying that "the injustice of the system" requires it. I have zero sympathy when they get some of what they like to dish out.

richlb said...

I thought "thug" was racist. I noticed its use last night on that What Would You Do hidden camera show. Can someone please make a definitive ruling?

Big Mike said...

@Gahrie, you beat me to it.

@Althouse, IMHO you've been teaching that flag burning is protected speech for so long that you've forgotten that some speech constitutes "fighting words" and is not protected. And burning a flag in front of a veteran certainly falls under the fighting words exemption (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire).

Moneyrunner said...

"It absolutely is speaking out. It's speaking out in a strong way, which does and is intended to provoke. If you think free speech is only about saying things in a nice way so people don't get upset, you couldn't be more wrong."

I understand that this is where "speaking out" has gone, especially on the Left. It once meant actual speech, debate, discussion. Now it's just theater, like nude dancing is free speech (or is it objectifying women, I never get those straight?). Nothing says disarm the cops like burning an American flag in a brazier. The thing is, Ann, that these kind of juvenile antics now take the place of genuine discussion, and the idiots who think they are so transgressive are actually surprised and shocked that anyone would physically confront them, except the cops. And they know how to handle the cops.

KenK said...

The Post plays to its readership and Althouse plays to hers.

SGT Ted said...

Progressives and their liberal weenie enablers have condoned the left shitting on the center right for decades with hate speech and bullying slurs. Now the center right is punching them in the nose because they are tired of their insults and rancid hate speech and bullying ways.

Did the progs and their enablers expect they could do this endlessly and not eventually get punched in the nose for their bullying bullshit? That their reliance on their one sided Civility Bullshit would shield them from the consequences of their incitement and fighting words?

It's not thuggery to punch a bully in the nose.

Moneyrunner said...

"I stand by the quoted definition of "weenie." Please read the linked Forbes article."

Which makes you a weenie. Anyone who goes to the dictionary - or Forbes - for definitions has lost the argument.

Moneyrunner said...

"Oh, bullshit. They were thugs. They came for a fight and they launched into one."

Was there a fight? I didn't see a fight. Did I miss the fight? Did the weenies fight?
As someone said upthread, I thought "thugs" was one of those verboten words. Words that mark the user as racist or something.

Moneyrunner said...

"You're just groping to have an objection to every point, and you obviously don't have one. Don't try for the 5-point game unless you can play it fairly."

You got Fisked, Ann. Don't make yourself such an obvious target.

Michael K said...

" people who protect the flag “thugs.” That’s apparently what tenured white-bread, former hippie academics call people who don’t look like them and who are engaged in protests, who don’t run away like weenies … or sissies."

Exactly !

Plus, "fuse" also means melt as in usable plugs in your engine block. The cops may have been there to prevent the flag burners from melting like the wicked witch in the "Wizard of Oz."

What kind of anarchist runs away ? Better to blow yourself up like Bill Ayres' girlfriend.

Michael K said...

"fusable plugs"

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, Merle Haggard explained it.

Laslo Spatula said...

@Althouse: as afar as I can tell your 'fight or flight' link doesn't work.

I am Laslo.

Bob Boyd said...

Its time to move beyond flags. They represent socially constructed artificial barriers that only serve to divide.
In the name of community and diversity and harmony and tolerance and a bunch of other stuff I can't remember just now, ban flags! Ban them all!

Michael said...

I think "weenie" was a Fourth of July reference - weenie roasts and all that. The Post was just being cute.

Bob Ellison said...

I've got a 17-year-old small female dog that would've stood and fought better than those weenies.

Moneyrunner said...

Slightly off-topic, but in Greece there is an academic culture that's just a little bit ahead of where we are. As you know, the Greeks are running out of other people's money. And about half the country is anxious to commit economic suicide. That's because they don't understand that groceries don't appear magically on the shelves and ATM machines don't feed themselves.

From Ioannis:
"I vote for yes ...
There's something you can't understand unless you live in Greece. In this country we have communism not capitalism, but still everyone blames capitalism.

"Everyone lives from the state. Even the private sector lives from the state in many ways, for example by not paying taxes and not getting punished for that.

"I was in the Greek university for many years (diploma + MSc) and I experienced the terrorism of the leftists every single day. Supporting a different opinion is a reason for them to use physical and psychological violence against you. The universities are occupied by student/wannabe politicians (PM Tsipras was one of them) for several months per year. I won't continue, because I may say things that will sound unreal to you and lose credibility.

"One last thing: Not wanting reforms goes against the human nature of desiring the development. I believe my nation needs a different education and this has to start from school, where kids should learn how to be good people, not how to be good communists."

I suspect that there will be violence in Greece, and cops are not going to be around to protect the weenies.

Big Mike said...

@Michael, only Liberals and Progressives are allowed to do "cute." The Post is forbidden to do "cute."

Just ask Althouse.

Skeptical Voter said...

You know the academic world is full of special little snowflakes who are always injured by "micro aggression". So "micro aggression" is forbidden in the academic world.

Well out on the street, even the "hard lads" object to forms of "micro aggression". Now I wouldn't characterize burning the flag in front of a gang of bikers as "micro aggression". They tend to consider things like that "macro aggression"--but they don't bother with the niceties. Instead they "act out", which means kicking the bejabbers out of any of the aggressors they can get their hands on. In this case "kicking the bejabbers" apparently consisted of slapping a few people around, and setting them in flight.

Poor stupid bikers didn't have the sense to go complain to the dean or some academic committee they never met.

As for the "dicks versus weenies" dichotomy, I'd say that the bikers had what my old Drill Sergeant (Bobby Jean Rowlands out of Broken Arrow Oklahoma, and a tougher man I never met) would characterize as "big swinging dicks". Not a good idea to provoke fellows like that. Life is hard, and it's tougher when you are stupid.

Phil 3:14 said...

Such events are old hat. I wish they could mix it up a bit by say:

-having flag burners with open carry
-burning the Confederate Flag
-burning the rainbow flag in assless chaps

It would at least make for a more interesting news story

Ann Althouse said...

I've fixed the "fight or flight" link.

Please try it now.

Anonymous said...

Left out of the story: "Jaltcoh fled at the first sign of trouble."

SGT Ted said...

This is actually reminiscent of the hard hat Union guys or the Hells Angels confronting the Anti-Vietnam war protestor commies back in the 60s.

Cynicus said...

The story filled me with great joy even if it shouldn't. Anarchists are supposed to fight for themselves. That's the freaking definition of people who think they don't need the state. The anarchists tried to comply with the no fire in the park rule by using a BBQ grill. Haha they were already following some chickenshit regulation before the protest. I keep saying to people do not mistake tolerance for fear. No one is afraid of these weenie anarchists and eventually when the American people decide to shut them and their chickenshit microaggressions down it will be a mighty thing to behold.

Anonymous said...

The bikers wanted a physically violent fight, and the protesters chose not to stand their ground but to run

It's not clear that that's what happened. The article says they were escorted out of the park by police, which seems unlikely if they'd already run; I suspect that the quoted Flag Wahhabist mistook the escorting-out for the protesting jerks running away.

This is one of those conflicts where you wish for both sides to lose.

William said...

My guess is that the police were more in sympathy with the "thugs" than with the flag burners. The police, nonetheless, acted in a professional manner and protected the flag burners. The demonstration against the police thus turned out to be a demonstration of police professionalism...I never knew till now that young black men were so against flag burners.....There's flight or fight, but I'm sure most people's response is to walk around such encounters. The cops were the only ones who actually had to be there. The cops were making a lving, and the bikers and burners were making a statement. I'm a teenie weenie bit more sympathetic to the bikers than the burners, but both groups are assholes. My sympathies are with the cops who have to show up and absorb all that anal leakage.

Drago said...

SGT Ted: "This is actually reminiscent of the hard hat Union guys or the Hells Angels confronting the Anti-Vietnam war protestor commies back in the 60s"

This is actually reminiscent of the hard hat Union guys or the Hells Angels confronting the Anti-Vietnam war DRAFT protestor commies back in the 60s.

FIFY

Once the draft was scaled back/removed, the groundswell suddenly disappeared. The war however, continued with predictable lefty results: commies win, throw everyone into camps for reeducation, and basically murder tens of thousands.

...but in a good way....naturally.

Bobber Fleck said...

I guess the NYP is attempting to use the tactics perfected by the NYT.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

We need a Federal law that says that the maximum penalty for assaulting someone who is burning an American flag, is a civil fine not to exceed $25.

Problem solved.

traditionalguy said...

When you announce a public desecration of the flag that is the. We'll known Battle Flag of the United States of America's military, you had better arm yourself, as Clint Eastwood said in Unforgiven to the the unarmed saloon owner.

Until Obama finishes off the USMC, the Marines for life will still fight their enemies under that flag.

Cynicus said...

And they applied for a permit! Lamest anarchists ever.

The Drill SGT said...

Fixed it for you:

Until about 50 years after Obama finishes off the USMC, the Marines will still fight their enemies under that flag.

The Army will be in the fight a bit longer, but we've always preferred to use fires rather than bodies. "I say nuke the entire site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q

Unknown said...

Possibly the next time Ann has an issue with a headline she should provide an alternate. This headline is a genious of being completely accurate and highlighting the irony of anti-cops being protected by the cops they are protesting. Someting was obviously either lost on Ann or more likely something pricked her political side.

Unknown said...

And as Ann should know free speech is speech protected from government prosecution, not from getting your arse kicked.

Terry said...

The Anarchists that Orwell fought with in Spain took over factories and fought off their enemies, Loyalists and Stalinists, with their fists and with rifles. They don't make anarchists like they used to.

jr565 said...

"There's no big contradiction between criticizing the police and benefiting from police protection when you're a victim of crime. "
But it makes you look like a hypocritical doofus. So, there's that.

jr565 said...

Althouse wrote:
It absolutely is speaking out. It's speaking out in a strong way, which does and is intended to provoke. If you think free speech is only about saying things in a nice way so people don't get upset, you couldn't be more wrong.

That really doesn't seem to be the left position on speech AT ALL.

AllenS said...

Althouse said:
1. The protesters didn't call the cops.

The headline doesn't say that the protesters called the cops.

Moneyrunner said...

“Thugs” is an interesting word. It’s derived from the Thuggee cult of India that preyed in travelers, usually after gaining their confidence. Of late is has been applied to Sicilian gentlemen who sell fire insurance in certain parts of big cities. It could also be applied to certain Reverends who sell business disruption insurance in return for a generous gift to their favorite charity; but it’s not because shut up. Because of the heightened awareness of racial sensitivity it has become one of the terms that may only by said by the anointed. When used to describe people with the racial make-up of most basketball teams who loot stores, attack police with rocks and bullets, and burn down buildings, its use is racist. When it’s used to describe people of pallor who wear sleeveless denim vests and kick over braziers to save an American flag from burning its totally appropriate.

YoungHegelian said...

Left out of all the comments & Prof Althouse's commentary: Location, Location, Location!

A mob of "right-wing" bikers physically attacked a bunch of lefty flag burners --- in Bill DeBlasio's New York City! By golly if an anarchist** can burn a flag safely in NYC, where can he burn one? Houston, I would understand, but NYC? Good golly, Miss Molly, where's this gonna happen next? San Francisco? Madison?

** Yes, yes, that these assholes call themselves "anarchists" pisses me off, too. My first political interests from when I was in high school were the Russian anarchists Kropotkin & Bakunin, so I have a nostalgic soft-spot for anarchism. When I compare K & B to this clowns, jeezo-peep.....

furious_a said...

Imagine the edged-blade pushback if they'd burned a Koran.

furious_a said...

The message to future protesters should be:

Don't start nothin', won't BE nothin'.

tim maguire said...

Prof., it's like you read my mind (though you might have gone first, I didn't compare posting times). I made a very similar argument on Instapundit and got much the same reception. One of the idiots "responding" to my comment with a load of irrelevant bullshit even got voted "most liked" comment. So I can take some satisfaction from that.

This is one of those issues that Demonstrates that conservatives can be just as hypocritical, just as "positions, not principles" as liberals, just on different issues. It's a useful reminder.

M. Bouffant said...

Gee, what a shame the protesters didn't have any Second Amendment tools w/ which to back up their First Amendment Rights.

DaMav said...

ah maaaaan, Mom says we're having too much fun "kickin' hippies asses and raisin' hell". It's back to civil discourse for the lot of us :( Fun while it lasted though :)

Ctmom4 said...

As was noted above, this was the Disarm the Police crowd, so it is somewhat ironic that they had to rely on the police. I don't think there was any actual violence though- just shouting and taunting. In one photo I saw, the counter protesters were armed with water guns, so I think weenies was an apt description if they needed protection from water guns and shouting.

cubanbob said...

The cops should have done a Baltimore and let the thugs diffuse their tension. Then arrest the thugs when they have a chance to do so after doing the normal cop things like giving out tickets, eating donuts and so on. Hey, police are a limited resource and unfortunately there aren't enough resources to enforce all of the laws. Just ask Barack Obama and his Administration.

stan said...

Ann doth protest too much.

Just enjoy the karma.

Brian J Beck said...

Ann, you're missing the point here. Freedom of speech was a two-sided principle; the right will let the left speak, and the left will let the right speak, and everyone else may listen to both sides and be convinced.

But the radical left has thrown out the principle of free speech, and now is reaping the backlash. This is a dominant theme all over leftist writings; they want a war, they want a revolution, and then they scream bloody murder when the right dares to fight back. They've screamed for a race war or a class revolution for decades, but don't realize that in an actual war, the enemy shoots back.

This isn't thuggishness. This is mutually assured destruction. You want to drive people out of their jobs, fine them hundreds of thousands of dollars, and even put them in jail for speaking their mind? Then why should we let you freely burn the flag and insult America?

tim maguire said...

Blogger Brian J Beck said...But the radical left has thrown out the principle of free speech, and now is reaping the backlash.

Since people saying things you agree with have been harassed, it's ok to visit violence against people saying things you disagree with? You've become what you hate.

averagejoe said...

Paul Zrimsek said...
This is one of those conflicts where you wish for both sides to lose.
7/4/15, 10:17 AM

No, not me. I want American flag-burners to lose every time, to lose badly, to lose teeth. The only thing I want American flag-burners to do is self-immolate. People defending the flag of this country from traitorous progressive dirtbags are heroes. Three cheers for them on this day, our nation's birthday!

Steven Davis said...

I'm enjoying the irony of the anarchy angle here.

A friend of mine was a linebacker at the state university. He pushed his way in line at the dining hall in front of another student wearing an Anarchy Now t-shirt. After several tense and uncomfortable moments had passed, he turned around and asked "So how's that anarchy thing working out for you?"

Gahrie said...

Burning a flag is protected speech. Not baking a cake is a hate crime.

Mt.Roberts attorney said...

I think a good case could be made that, within the context of these times, the burning of the American flag qualifies as a "fighting words" exception to the First Amendment. After all, Isis has threatened to massacre American citizens at random right here in the homeland.

Then there is the mocking by gay pride folks of the iconic photograph of the Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima. "Fighting words"?

Terry said...

"EXTRA! EXTRA! Lady law professor at radical university thinks flag burning is protected speech! READ ALL ABOUT IT!"

Brian J Beck said...

Tim Maguire--

One-directional free speech is not a valuable principle. Unilateral disarmament is not an effective strategy.

The left has decided to use the force of government to harm conservatives who speak against them--the Wisconsin John Doe investigation and the IRS targeting of Tea Party organizations are significant examples. They advocate for an end to free political speech in increasingly vitriolic attacks on Citizens United. The old Constitutional rules of free speech were wonderful. But if the left wants to bring a gun to a fistfight, it is not "becoming what we hate" to pull out our own guns. You can't throw out the rules and then hide behind them when challenged.

Anonymous said...

Did you see this article? http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/02/state-silences-bakers-who-refused-to-make-cake-for-lesbian-couple-fines-them-135k/

Sorry, but until Christians are allowed free speech, I will cheer and jeer every time some leftist piece of crap gets beaten up for shooting his or her mouth off.

I don't care about your feelings. If your "sense of dignity" requires others to be gagged, then you have nothing to be "dignified" about, and your "dignity" should be trampled into the dirt. If someone doesn't want to make you a wedding cake, or photograph your wedding, tough shit. Go elsewhere. They have at least as much right to control their actions as you have to control yours.

And no, going into business does not deprive them of their rights, or make them your servant.

So five cheers for the NY Post, and nothing but jeers for flag burners, and the former ACLU.

EMD said...

One demerit for you, because I didn't say the headline said they did. The headline suggests they did. It's omission/insinuation/distortion. A violation of headline standards, plainly.

Jesus lady, it's the New York Post for crying outside.

They're not writing headlines for the likes of you.

EMD said...

They burned a flag to protest cops?

They couldn't burn donuts?

EMD said...

One demerit for you

Also, enough with the schoolmarm nonsense. This isn't a classroom.

(Oh but it is, it's a meta classroom in your big teaching/blogging experiment.)

Anonymous said...

Blogger tim maguire said...

Blogger Brian J Beck said...But the radical left has thrown out the principle of free speech, and now is reaping the backlash.

Since people saying things you agree with have been harassed, it's ok to visit violence against people saying things you disagree with? You've become what you hate.

Wrong Tim. Here's what's right: It's only a "right" if everyone gets to exercise it. Since the Left won't let the rest of us exercise free speech, only an imbecile, or a leftist, would favor letting them have it.

If it's ok for Walmart to ban the Confederate flag, it's ok for a mom and pop to ban same sex "marriage" "wedding" cakes. There are no "special" "rights", they go both ways, or no ways.

You use "Civil Rights" boards / courts / universities to harass us? We'll use whatever we have under our power to abuse you. You don't like it?

Stop teh abuse from your side.

Hyphenated American said...

would KKK assume it could march peacefully through Harlem? Well, the same thing happens when hard-left tries to burn an American flag.

Skyler said...

I was going to make some comments but I notice that many people have already told Ann off quite well. Ann is very wrong.

bluespapa said...

What the hell is wrong with your audience?

You go out and make your statement. You stand by it as long as you can. You're not obliged to get your ass kicked because your statement is unpopular, or you made your point in an unpopular way. It wasn't "provocative," if you mean THEY incited a riot. They made a statement. Sucks if you don't like it, sucks if you don't like how they made it.

Getting their asses kicked is a risk, but they're not obliged to get beaten for your entertainment or to prove they meant it.

Scott said...

When I was a grad student, there were anti-nuclear protests going on at the construction site of a nearby power plant. On one particular occasion, the protestors (using a small parcel of land adjoining the power plant as a base of operations) cut through a fence, snuck onto the plant grounds, vandalized some equipment with hammers and graffiti, then unfurled a few signs. When a few of the construction workers (and some security guards) saw this, they chased them. The protestors got back through the fence, and taunted those chasing them, saying that they were on private property, and thus couldn't be pursued.

To their eternal credit, the pursuers crossed over onto the property, and beat the living snot out of the protestors.

Gahrie said...

They made a statement.

The bikers did too.


Sucks if you don't like it, sucks if you don't like how they made it.

What comes around.....

Doug said...

Moneyrunner was way ahead of me on the point-by-point takedown of Althouse.

Doug said...

@Moneyrunner - "thugs" is verboten when YOU use it. Althouse joins the SJWs who would censor your use of words like the "N" word or "queer", while protecting their own free speech.

Anonymous said...

Re: Weenies

It's the NY Post ... trying to provoke.

My dad used to joke around in a Russian accent with a quote from a burly guy in an old movie:

"I do not provoke."

(Meaning "I cannot be provoked.")

Monkeyboy said...

A bunch of asshole protestors burned a flag in front of veterans....Lets see how they like their life now.

PoNyman said...

Althouse, has something happened to your readership? I admit I don't read comments on every post, but I probably read comments on at least one post a day since near the beginning of your blogging days. But the seeming hypocrisy by some of the commenters here takes me back a bit. Moneyrunner I hadn't noticed before today along with some others. There are a few others jumping on the moneyrunner band wagon that I'm a bit surprised would advocate violence like this.
Let me ask that positions be changed. Instead of flag burning let us have the flag burners be Mohammad artists and a Muslim biker gang decides to take offense. What then? For another thing, let's say the protesters do decide to stand up and fight and each side ups the fire power each time. I don't see how standing up to the stronger power ends up helping anyone.
In the end, both forms of protest are stupid and counter productive other than to gain publicity and anger. But both kinds of protests should be protected from thuggery.

Anonymous said...

I don't think "Disarm the police" can fairly be equated to "Speaking out against bad police behavior". Demanding accountability for bad cops and then taking police protection isn't hypocritical. Demanding that the police cripple themselves and then taking police protection *is* hypocritical.

Anonymous said...

PoNyman asks "what happened?"

What happened is that we're seeing "freedom of speech" no longer being there for anyone on the right. And we've decided that if we don't get it, neither does anyone else.
Why, we "deserve it" for "inciting" and "offending" the Muslims. Fine. So of some leftist douche bag says anything we don't like, and they get beaten up, clearly "they deserved it."

No more double standards. The left is "entitled" to what we get, and not a shred more.

PoNyman said...

@gregq:

Nice Greek way of thinking. If I don't get things my way I'm going to make life difficult for everyone. Political carpet bombing. Life is not binary though. You could gain people on your side on certain issues (including me!), without bringing in every other issue that bothers you. It is time to stop the ADD approach to politics.

Unknown said...

I knew there was a pony in there somewhere! Well, it may be going beyond words, oh not now but sooner than expected.