Streetwise Professor

August 7, 2022

Reversal of Polarity: Not Protecting Rednecks From Hate, But Protecting Modern Day Reds From Competition

Filed under: Economics,Politics,Regulation — cpirrong @ 5:33 pm

Missed me on Twitter? Well, probably not, but if so, there’s an explanation. The thumbsuckers on Twitter locked me out for a week for this innocuous (IMO) tweet:

(NB: “Thumb” is a euphemism. Know what I mean? Nudge Nudge. Say no more.)

The beatdown notice came literally within seconds of posting, meaning that the tweet offended Twitter’s algorithms. Who knew they were so solicitous of rednecks’ feelings?

Lesson learned: next time I’ll say “peckerwoods” instead.

I guess Randy Newman must be banned for life, like James Lindsay (with trannies claiming credit for the censorship):

Twitter’s algo also apparently has some logical issues. The phrase “redneck racists” does not imply that all rednecks are racists. Just that there are racists who are rednecks. Does anyone deny this? Actually, does anyone at Twitter deny this? Indeed, I think it is more likely that the average pierced tattooed fascist at Twitter is highly likely to believe that all rednecks are racists. And they think all people like me are rednecks.

Or maybe Twitter is hypersensitive about accusations that leftists can be racists. They probably should be, because as my tweet suggests, leftist racism is pervasive and far more insidious than the traditional peckerwood variety. Insidious because of its fundamental dishonesty. Its condescension. Its manipulative use of blacks in particular to advance its anti-freedom, anti-American agenda. And the fact that leftists hold far more power in 21st century society than some Klansman wannabe.

Case in point: the leftist effort to rename monkeypox, because the name allegedly stigmatizes black people. Well, if your first association with the word “monkey” is black people, who is the racist, exactly?

Ironically, my time in the penalty box coincided with my reading of a Coase essay “The Market for Goods and the Market for Ideas,” and my watching of a documentary on Monty Python. They both demonstrate how much the left has changed from they heyday of American liberalism to today.

Back in the day, the liberals–the 1960s establishment left (not the New Left)–were the defenders of free speech, not its sworn enemies, as the left is today. The ACLU was all about free speech then: it is all about suppressing it now.

The Python documentary covered the controversy over The Life of Brian, which, among other things, resulted in its censorship in South Carolina at the behest of Strom Thurmond. The documentary showed earnest young liberals protesting the censorship, and defending free speech.

You know that their modern day successors hate free speech, and are the prime supporters of censorship on campus and throughout society generally.

The Coase essay is of particular interest, because he was trying to explain why the left of his day were anti-economic freedom (“market for goods”), but near absolutists on freedom of speech (“market for ideas”). His explanation was that liberals had a vested interest in freedom of speech since they were disproportionately represented in media and academia.

Well, they are even more dominant in the commanding heights of speech today than they were in 1974, when Coase wrote. (In the American Economic Review, I might add. The thought of anything similar appearing in the AER today would be ludicrous. In fact, the thought of anybody like Coase being a leading light in economics today is ludicrous).

So what explains the undeniable shift in attitude from pro-free speech to ardently anti-free speech in the space of 50 years, in the face of the strengthening of the force that Coase identified as the driver of pro-free speech attitudes?

Well, I hypothesize that it is exactly the overwhelming dominance that exists in traditional fora today, combined with the emergence of non-traditional outlets in the internet age. Although liberals held the upper hand in the 1960s, they did not have a monopoly over traditional media or academia then. The environment was more competitive, and liberals thought that they could prevail in that competition and feared they would be squelched to prevent them from prevailing. So they supported free speech because they thought that it worked to their competitive strength.

Now, however, they have a virtual monopoly over print media, television, and academia. They dominate social media, but they face more competition there. So their economic, social, and political interests have flipped: they benefit from suppressing competition, rather than encouraging it.

And as is the case with the regulation of the “market for goods,” vested interests in the “market for ideas” conspire with government in order to advance those interests. The unseemly–and almost certainly unconstitutional–collaboration between the United States government in particular and social media companies is not at all different from the collusion between industry and government to suppress entry and competition that is at the root of Stigler’s now 51 year old article on the economics of regulation.

In a nutshell, the Old Left was in favor of free speech because they believed it worked to their competitive advantage. The New Left hates free speech because they believe it works to their competitive detriment.

This reversal of polarity has nothing to do with principle. It is about power, pure and simple. The “principles” are purely instrumental, and intended to advance the political and social interests of a particular class. The censorship of some peripheral figure over a mild comment indicates how dominant that class is, and how sensitive it is to the maintenance of its dominance. Not a sparrow falls, as it were.

In other words, this isn’t about protecting rednecks from hateful comments: it’s about protecting the social dominance of today’s reds.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. Exactly right, Craig. Power, not principle.

    And the leftist hatred of capitalism isn’t about economics. Capitalism is their stalking horse for the destruction of individualism.

    The left is all about the triumph of collectivism. And collectivism is about slavery. So, the left are the new slavers.

    I have the idea that the Enlightenment was a speciation event in the true biological sense. The full emergence of Homo sapiens individualisticus.

    The older species, call it Homo sapiens collectivistica, survived competition over evolutionary time through group loyalty. They enforced group loyalty. They were selected for group loyalty. They do not feel psychologically safe in a society of individuals where ethics are negotiated rather than socially directed.

    It’s possible that the Greek Enlightenment was the first appearance of Hsi in history. They were eventually ruthlessly suppressed by Hsc using Christianity as their unifying ideology. Progressive ideology is their modern rally.

    They don’t believe any of their ideologies because their societies always devolve into the same tyranny, no matter the utopian pronouncements. The trappings are just window-dressing. Obedience is the core. Heresy always features large in their collective.

    At its very visceral bottom, the fight is between two competitive species for control of the cultural and physical environment. The one about individualism and personal freedom, the other about collectivism and slavery. The supposed reasons for battle are delusional — psycho-cultural excuses to rationalize what is in fact a mindlessly biological battle of survival.

    Collectivists are obligate organizers. Individualists are facultative. We see that difference in today’s events. I expect the fight to be mortal. Which group prevails determines our species’ future history. Possibly even whether we have one.

    Comment by Pat Frank — August 8, 2022 @ 12:29 am

  2. Yikes !! I was just going to say, why do you even bother with Twitter Prof.? Yet after reading Pat’s comments, this is, apparently, a battle to the death. Now I’m really, really depressed . . . fortunately I’m old, so I’ll either forget or croak.

    Comment by Donald Wolfe — August 8, 2022 @ 7:08 am

  3. I’m with Mr. Wolfe.
    Yes, we know who they are. Reds will be reds. Brown[shirts] will be brown. What else is new?
    Craig, why don’t you cut them off first? it’s a matter of dignity…of course, I am not their subscriber, never was and will never be – but even from outside, this “battle” looks rather pointless.

    Comment by Tatyana — August 8, 2022 @ 5:43 pm

  4. I sort of follow twitter if there’s a link, and then unfollow when they try to get me to sign up.
    But I have sneaking suspicion that quite a few people are on twitter to see if they can can post something so outrageous they get banned. Then crow “censorship” and see if twitter relents. An amusing game for some.
    Just a suspicion, but I wonder if you are trying it on too, prof.

    Comment by philip — August 8, 2022 @ 6:40 pm

  5. But…Truth Social?!

    Seriously though, was this a straight red card from Twitter, or did you get – and ignore – their yellow card? Bit dopey if the latter – I mean, just fiddle with the spelling.

    Interesting that they’ve included abusing people based on their ‘national origin’ as a virtual crime. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve insulted the Welsh on Twitter. Maybe they don’t count, or the powers-that-be think likewise?

    BTW I think you’re all over thinking this – the Deep State is gonna Deep State, what can you do? You’ve all had your fun with Trump, ant-vax, anti-lockdown, climate denial etc etc – it’s high time we put a lid on all this craziness.

    Comment by David Mercer — August 9, 2022 @ 3:30 am

  6. “Trump, ant-vax, anti-lockdown, climate denial”: apart from the Orange Oaf, that’s a list of entirely sensible views (unless the anti-vax views should happen to be anti all vaxxes).

    And even Trump, flaws and all, was a better bet than Hillary and an infinitely better Prez than the husk of Joe Biden.

    Comment by dearieme — August 9, 2022 @ 5:58 am

  7. @ Deari: That’s just like your opinion man…

    I’d contend Biden is infinitely more preferable than Trump, if only on the basis we barely hear from him. Trump was, and remains, a f*cking moron, to quote Tillerson. In this respect peace has been restored to the social mediaverse.

    Comment by David Mercer — August 9, 2022 @ 6:37 am

  8. To be a moron you have to be sentient, which rules out Brandon.

    Comment by dearieme — August 9, 2022 @ 7:41 am

  9. @5 climate denial

    Refute “Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections” David

    Comment by Pat Frank — August 9, 2022 @ 7:54 am

  10. @9: 6 years to get this through? I can only imagine the fun + games that entailed.

    Have to say your conflict of interest statement is disingenuous. No mention of Heartland? Shall I raise it to them? 😉

    Comment by David Mercer — August 9, 2022 @ 2:21 pm

  11. @10 blah, blah, blah, David. Refute the paper or go away, science denier.

    Meanwhile Edward Dowd tells us that insurance companies are reporting a 40% increase in deaths among the 25-44 set. Following the mRNA jab, David. The inoculation you blindly call a vaccine.

    And Mike Yeadon discusses the incredible coincidence that all three manufacturers somehow all picked the identical super toxic protein as their mRNA synthon:

    Physical reality doesn’t care about politics, David. It’s going to come and bite you.

    Comment by Pat Frank — August 9, 2022 @ 3:58 pm

  12. @11 So an alleged science advocate puts a link to a Youtube video with an ex-Wall Street banker? Riiight. I see he’s now advocating we all buy bitcoin – maybe you should swallow this advice too, close the gap with the kids at Mountain View?

    Actually this link is helpful in that it kind of proves Craig wrong, namely that there is at least one redoubt online for the terminally credulous – Youtube comments! No censorship at all, from the looks of it. Fill ya boots, peeps!

    Comment by David Mercer — August 10, 2022 @ 2:56 am

  13. @Pat:
    Here you go: and
    Or here:
    Or here:
    Or here:

    While I’m not qualified to evaluate the paper or to evaluate the refutations, I AM qualified to say that constantly posting that paper on this blog and referring to it as absolute, perfect, unassailable proof that global warming models are incorrect, is not reasonable behaviour. The paper has been widely disputed by people who appear to be well qualified to do so.

    (NB: This is not a request for you to defend the paper. I, personally, am not disputing your findings due to not being qualified to do so, and furthermore your effort and expertise would be wasted on me. I just want to call attention to your constant and unreasonable dismissal of other people’s views).

    Comment by HibernoFrog — August 10, 2022 @ 3:16 am

  14. @12 Far more credible than you, David.

    Norman Fenton about the situation in the UK:

    Covid vaccine deaths are being reported at over 70 times the rate [13] of all other vaccines combined – if that isn’t a safety signal, then what is?

    Comment by Pat Frank — August 10, 2022 @ 8:39 am

  15. Fenton has been on the ball for some time. Earlier he asked whether vaccine efficacy was a “statistical illusion” and showed the technique the illusionists had used.

    His analysis was directed at the observational data – I think he must have written before the trial data was eventually, reluctantly, released (which showed, you may remember, that more people had died in the vaccinated group than in the placebo group. Oops!).

    Comment by dearieme — August 10, 2022 @ 8:47 am

  16. Deari – so you’re not vaccinated? You had Covid yet?

    I’m sure I’ve said this before but I and many people I know were reluctant recipients of the various vaccines, knowing full well that they were developed at an unseemly pace. That said, I’ve not heard of anyone having an adverse reaction. I do however know of several people who went through the mill with Covid, including an ex-work colleague who spent the summer of 2020 in intensive care. We make these judgements based on the information we have available all the time – it’s all part and parcel of life’s rich tapestry….

    One thing’s for certain I won’t be basing my next decision regarding the booster on the rantings of some washed-up ex-Wall Street crank who thinks the sky is about to crash on our heads (again).

    Comment by David Mercer — August 10, 2022 @ 11:09 am

  17. some washed-up ex-Wall Street crank who thinks the sky is about to crash on our heads (again).

    Sneers from in-denial-powered willful ignorance.

    Try this interview with Mike Yeadon:

    Ex-VP of Research at Pfizer UK. He makes the same case. A ‘washed-up ex-Pfizer crank‘ will he be for you?

    One of my brothers is 4x jabbed and got covid omicron anyway. All evidence is the jabbed get Covid and it’s worse for them. Because the jab injures one’s immune system.

    You may wish to check your jab batch prognosis here:

    Lots to explore on that site.

    You might want to check the “Body Count” link there. “Several sources, including life insurance companies, report a 40% increase in all-cause mortality in the USA occurring in 2021 compared to 2020

    Paardekooper records that most deaths occur within 3 days after the jab, followed by a second die-off 120 days later.

    Comment by Pat Frank — August 10, 2022 @ 12:09 pm

  18. “most deaths occur within 3 days after the jab”

    Ah, Pat, in many places you didn’t count as vaccinated until two weeks after the jab. That formed part of Fenton’s exploration of the illusionists’ efforts.

    Comment by dearieme — August 10, 2022 @ 3:06 pm

  19. Yeah I know that, dearieme. The delay was a self-serving a criterion by these lying medical thugs to hide responsibility for their murders.

    About 75% of the jab leaves the site of injection and migrates through the body. In whatever organ it settles, an autoimmune reaction occurs as cells begin expressing spike protein.

    Myocarditis, pericarditis, vascular inflammations, arthritis, pulmonary dysfunction, possible Alzheimers’-like disease. Possible sterility as well, if the mRNA settles in the ovaries or testes.

    There’s apparently been a recent plague of still-births as well among women who were jabbed while pregnant.

    Comment by Pat Frank — August 10, 2022 @ 3:50 pm

  20. “thumbsuckers” Like that. I’ll remember to use it in future.

    Meanwhile, having received an email from the lady at the building’sa managing agent that now spells out her preferred pronouns (“she, her”), I’ve decided to join the woke crowd:

    Preferred pronouns: Bad m/f, Big Bad m/f

    No, I’m not gender-fluid and the m and f have got nothing to do with male and female 🙂

    Comment by Simple Simon — August 14, 2022 @ 10:20 am

  21. Prof,

    You are slipping. Jackson Browne did it better than Randy Newman.

    (And I didn’t even know Jackson Browne was a hater.)

    Jackson Browne – Redneck Friend

    Comment by Charles — August 15, 2022 @ 3:08 pm

  22. @Charles.

    Jackson Browne’s was a double entendre 😉

    I love that song BTW.

    Comment by cpirrong — August 15, 2022 @ 8:22 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress