Smirking Spectator? Guilty as Charged

Folks must be sure to read this piece at Popehat, "Professor Loomis and the NRA: A Story In Which EVERYONE Annoys Me." (At Memeorandum.)

What defenders of Erik Loomis conveniently overlook is his long history of violent death-wish rhetoric spewed at his political opponents. Should he be fired for this? Of course not. But that's not to say I'm not amused by the whole thing, a fascinating spectacle, to be sure. Here's the quote I'm referencing:

I support, without qualification, people writing about Professor Loomis. I find his expression contemptible. But I also find the efforts to get him fired or arrested contemptible, and I find it highly regrettable that some blogs are, at the most charitable interpretation, acting as smirking spectators to that effort. The effort is not without cost, even if neither the police nor the University take action. Trying to get a professor fired for clearly protected speech promotes and contributes to the culture of censorship in higher education that FIRE fights and that Greg Lukianoff exposed persuasively in his recent book "Unlearning Liberty."

Perhaps I'd be more bothered by efforts to get Loomis fired if I hadn't been on the receiving end of identical efforts by his co-bloggers at Lawyers, Guns and Money and by his ideological allies in the progressive ASFL fever swamps. Indeed, I almost fell off my chair laughing at this mewling piece of "free-speech" grandstanding at Crooked Timber, "Statement on Erik Loomis." You'll notice in the comments that Scott Eric Kaufman "signs" the statement in solidarity, which is about as hypocritical as one can be ---- considering that the f-ker tried to get me fired, not for threatening him, but for simply pointing out that he loves using profanity in his teaching. There was some history of flame wars before that, but my post nailing Kaufman bragging about dropping f-bombs during lectures really must have hit a nerve. The next thing you know the guy was libeling me at my college (smearing me as a pornographer and sexual harasser), posing as a concern troll with the most demonic intentions imaginable. None of these same academic and progressive idiots said a word in my defense at the time, because they all hate me with the passion of the 1000 burning suns. But when one of their own idiots gets caught in the crossfire (metaphor) ---- and Popehat does indeed slam Loomis as an anti-free speech lunkhead --- they get all stiffer than a black-stallion steroid-pumped homosexual erection. These people are the epitome of double-standards and partisan posturing --- an example of hypocrisy also hammered at the Popehat post.

Here's my post on SEK: "The Lies of Scott Eric Kaufman — Leftist Hate-Blogger Sought to Silence Criticism With Libelous Campaign of Workplace Harassment."

And as regular readers know full well, Walter James Casper III used his blog, with his co-bloggers, to post my contact information and exhort his readers to contact my college. See: "Intent to Annoy and the Fascist Hate-Blogging Campaign of Walter James Casper III." And don't miss: "Roundup on Progressive Campaign of Workplace Intimidation and Harassment."

When you see the idiot progs get all bent out of shape like a bunch of homos, be reminded of Michelle Malkin's comments:

So, it’s come to this: Advocating beheadings, beatings, and mass murder of peaceful Americans to pay for the sins of a soulless madman. But because the advocates of violence fashion themselves champions of non-violence and because they inhabit the hallowed worlds of Hollywood, academia, and the Democratic Party, it’s acceptable?

Blood-lusting hate speech must not get a pass just because it comes out of the mouths of the protected, anti-gun class.

No one is as vile as these people. Loomis is just roadkill in the partisan wars, and he won't be the last on either side. Is it decent or fair? Perhaps not, but not so many people are as stupid as Loomis the Lumberjack. No one's as stupid to violently rattle off the death chants while still an untenured assistant professor at a research university. "Dim bulb" is charitable.

Meanwhile, Robert Stacy McCain's having a field day with Loomis, to the hilarious benefit of the conservative 'sphere. See: "#Metaphor: Academics Sign Their Own Death Warrants by Defending Loomis."

Screw these people. They reap what they sow. When they start calling out the workplace harassers among their own partisans maybe I'll give a f-k about stooges like Loomis.

BONUS: From Glenn Reynolds:

I KNOW I HAVEN’T: Don’t get too excited about Professor Loomis. “Professor Loomis’ vivid tweets are not actionable threats. That is to say, they aren’t ‘true threats’ outside the protection of the First Amendment.”

That’s right. They’re just hate-filled “eliminationist rhetoric” of the sort that lefties are always accusing people on the right of, but seem to engage in rather a lot themselves. Not a firing offense, but certainly worthy of widespread mockery.

RTWT.