Jan 29 2020 (Vol. XXXII, Is. VI) - Binghamton Review

BINGHAMTON REVIEW Editor-in-Chief Contents

P.O. BOX 6000 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-6000 EDITOR@BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Founded 1987 • Volume XXXII, Issue VI Tommy Gagliano

Managing Editor Brian Murray Copy Desk Chief Matt Gagliano

Business Manager Joe Badalamenti

Social Media Shitposters Lacey Kestecher, Sebastian Roman

Editor Emeritus

Patrick McAuliffe Jr.

Staff Writers

Bryn Lauer, Harold Rook, Joe Dorn, Kevin Vorrath, Madeline Perez, Jon Lizak

Contributors Musclini

DEFAMATION & PREJUDICE: A REFLECTION ON 2019

PAGE 10 3 4 5 6 8 9 12 14

Special Thanks To:

Intercollegiate Studies Institute Collegiate Network

15

by Spencer Haynes

Editorial

by Tommy Gagliano Press Watch

by Our Staff Friends to Foes

by Kevin Vorrath World War I Remastered: Iranian Edition

by Harold Rook Political Compass of BU’s Clubs by Our Staff The California Crisis

by Joe Badalamenti COPPAs and Sobbers: YouTube’s Looming Doomsday

by Patrick McAuliffe How to Write a Filler Article for a Student-Run Newspaper at Binghamton University on

by Sebastian Roman Production Night FUCK LIBERTARIANISM by Musclini

Binghamton Review was printed by Gary Marsden We Provide the Truth.

He Provides the Staples

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Direct feedback to editor@binghamtonreview.com 2

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

Vol. XXXII, Issue VI

EDITORIAL Dear Readers,

From the Editor

Ah damnit, is school back in session already? Ugh. Hope you all had a great break and a wonderful winter holiday (if you celebrate one). Unfortunately classes have started back up, but it’s not all bad! With the return of school also comes the return of the Review!

Some interesting things have occurred in US and world politics since the last time we spoke, and our team worked hard to make sure you’re all caught up. If you turn to page 6, Harold Rook will fill you in on everything you need to know about the ongoing situation between the United States and Iran. As tensions between those two nations rise, they also rise closer to home, between two former allies. A rift is growing between 2020 Democratic candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. In “Friends to Foe,” Kevin Vorrath describes the growing feud.

YouTube is undergoing some changes, and people aren’t happy. No, I’m not talking about the Adpocalypse. Or YouTube Rewind. Or the change from the 5-star system to a like or dislike system. What am I talking about, then?

You’ll have to read Patrick McAuliffe’s “COPPAs and Sobbers: YouTube’s Looming Doomsday” on page 12 to find out.

Joe Badalamenti takes a trip out west to California, but it’s not a pleasant as it may seem. In “The California Crisis” he discusses the problems that are occuring in two major cities in The Golden State, and how they may be able to be rectified.

As protests become more frequent at Binghamton University, and politics become more aggressive, everyone begins to wonder where others stand. We did some homework, and charted a number of clubs and student organizations on the political compass. Check it out on page 8, so you can know whether you’re obligated to automatically like or hate each group.

Ever been stuck and unsure of what to write as the deadline quickly approaches? I know I have. You can rid yourself of this problem, though. Sebastian Roman details exactly how to write a bunch of filler when you don’t have anything meaningful to say. There is a catch, though. His guide only works when you’re writing an article for a student-run newspaper at Binghamton University on production night.

Finally, Musclini returns, with another over-the-top take, this time on libertarianism. There is no good way for me to summarize it, you’ll just have to read it for yourself on page 15.

Thank you everyone for your continued support. I hope you are as excited for this semester as I am. For anyone that may be new: You can always contact me at editor@binghamtonreview.com with questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Tommy Gagliano Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run news magazine of conservative thought founded in 1987 at Binghamton University. A true liberal arts education expands a student’s horizons and opens one’s mind to a vast array of divergent perspectives. The mark of true maturity is being able to engage with these perspectives rationally while maintaining one’s own convictions. In that spirit, we seek to promote the free and open exchange of ideas and offer alternative viewpoints not normally found or accepted on our predominately liberal campus.

We stand against tyranny in all of its forms, both on campus and beyond. We believe in the principles set forth in this country’s Declaration of Independence and seek to preserve the fundamental tenets of Western civilization. It is our duty to expose the warped ideology of political correctness and cultural authoritarianism that dominates this university. Finally, we understand that a moral order is a necessary component of any civilized society. We strive to inform, engage with, and perhaps even amuse our readers in carrying out this mission.

Views expressed by writers do not necessarily represent the views of the publication as a whole. editor@binghamtonreview.com

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

3

CPampus resswatch The momentum of BU protests must continue after winter break Michael Levinstein, Pipe Dream, 12/9/19 “About 200 students spontaneously protested and shut down a Turning Point USA table on the Spine.”

Recruiting people through group chats, including one with over one thousand students in it, is “spontaneous?” Those students didn’t all just happen to be in the right place at the right time. The mob did not form naturally.

“Students occupied the Couper Administration Building for 15 days in 2017 to protest the planned blue lights initiative, which would have placed blue light phones and street cameras in Binghamton’s West Side, a heavily student-populated neighborhood.”

I love how you say this as if protesting against student safety is something to be proud of.

“Students, particularly students of color, face harassment on and off campus, and are met with mostly lackluster responses from the police and the University.”

Students, particularly conservative and libertarian students, face harassment on and off campus, and are met with mostly lackluster responses from the police and the University.

“Laffer decided not to speak when faced with criticism.”

Ha! No. He was escorted out of the building by police due to concerns about his safety. There was no choice or decision.

“The vote on the annoyance law was postponed until Dec. 19…”

This was listed as an accomplishment of the protest, but the delay on the vote was actually a countermeasure against the protestors. By delaying the vote, students would be home at break so the vote could actually proceed.

4

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Written by our Staff

We know you don’t read the other campus publications, so we did it for you. Original pieces are in quotes, our responses are in bold.

Right-wing attacks on free speech are hypocritical Seth Gully, Pipe Dream, 12/9/19 “New York State Sen. Fred Akshar has no right to criticize BU student’s actions” Fred Akshar has as much of a right to criticize BU students as you do to criticize him. You’re arguing for free speech on your side while denying it to someone else. Talk about being hypocritical.

“Free speech has become a buzzword for the modern right” No, it has always been the First Amendment to the Constitution, and with the rise of the radical left, it has simply become more relevant now than ever before. “...[Akshar] hasn’t expressed support of the protestors who were using their freedom to protest, which is found in the First Amendment, when they were arrested.”

The heckler’s veto, a term that describes the act of shouting down and silencing a speaker’s ideas, is not protected by the First Amendment.

“It’s stunning he would dare call out students for acting with ‘leftist mob mentality and brute force intimidation’ when two people died under his watch when he worked as the captain of law enforcement division…”

It would also be stunning to assume that Akshar is personally responsible for the death of two people with no evidence.

A liberal arts education is essential - especially for those in the sciences Madelaine Hastings, Pipe Dream, 12/9/19 “As the number of STEM majors increased from 15 percent to 21 percent in this period, the number of humanities majors stayed stagnant at 14 percent.”

The number of people pursuing majors in the Humanities is not relevant.

You are arguing that STEM majors should take Humanities classes as a part of their college career, not become double majors. Secondly, the change is due to the demand for people with STEM degrees. There are more openings in STEM because the demand for people with those skills are greater than for those with knowledge of the Humanities. “[The New York Academy of Sciences] found that in the United States, company recruiters are continually struggling to fill three-quarters of open positions that require middle- or high-level STEM skills...”

Does this not contradict your point?

If the demand is so high, will employers care about how many Humanities courses a candidate for the job has

Vol. XXXII, Issue VI

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Friends to Foes

FRIENDS TO FOES

By Kevin Vorrath

A

s the field of Democratic candidates has continued to dwindle in the days leading up to the Iowa Caucus on February 3, it appears two former allies in the race have turned on each other. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), the two most progressive candidates running for the Democratic nomination, have largely avoided attacking each other throughout the campaign season. It’s been widely reported that the two have held a pact to not attack each other, so as to not weaken the progressive movement.

That suddenly changed on January 13, when a CNN report alleged that Senator Sanders stated to Warren in a closed door meeting in 2018 his belief that a woman could not win the presidency. Sanders has vehemently denied saying such a thing.

Days later at a Democratic Debate on January 15 in Des Moines the two were asked for their account of the conversation by CNN correspondent Abby Phillips. Sanders stated that he never said that he believed a woman could not win the presidency, while speaking about his long history of supporting women. Philips then followed up by asking Warren, “what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?” This biased question shows us that CNN and Philips believed Warren’s account of the conversation. After

editor@binghamtonreview.com

the debate concluded the two got into a verbal exchange where Warren accused Sanders of calling her a liar on national television, with Sanders responding that “now is not the time for this conversation.” Afterwards #NeverWarren was trending on Twitter with Bernie supporters sharing their displeasure with the senator and CNN. Fresh in the minds of many Bernie supporters are the events of the 2016 Democrtaic primary, where leaked emails suggested that the DNC had

rigged the nomination towards former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

It was refreshing to see the other side see CNN’s shoddy journalism techniques firstahand. CNN for years has attempted to maintain their image as neutral while concurrently shifting towards the left. With the questioning from the debate, many Sanders supporters were left wondering how CNN could be so blatantly biased. However if you look at the network’s coverage of conservatives, particularly president Trump, it’s been clear that the network has been far from fair to everyone the past several years.

The events of the past several days have come at a time when support for Sanders has risen, while Warren’s has fallen according to the Real Clear Politics Average, leading many to question the legitimacy of the allegations. While we may never know the true details of the two candidates’ conversation, the rift between the two was inevitable in many ways. As candidates have continued to withdraw from the race, the two have needed to differen-

tiate themselves from one another, as many of their policies and views are similar, most notably being Medicare for all. If one of the two wants to be the nominee, they need to capture the others’ voters to build enough support to overtake the current frontrunner, former Vice President Joe Biden, who still holds a sizable lead (RCP Average) despite appearing absolutely braindead multiple times throughout the campaign.

While we will most likely never know what was truly said in their conversation, I personally find it hard to believe that Sanders would say such a thing to Warren. His history in politics indicates that that would be unlikely. More probable, however, could be that Sanders shared that he believed Warren as a candidate could not win the presidency. I’m actually fairly intrigued as to why people would support Warren over Sanders in the first place, as she just comes off as very inauthentic to me. Despite disagreeing with Bernie’s views on pretty much everything, I can see why people support him. When you listen to him, you can clearly tell he is passionate about what he is saying and has a long track record showing his progressivism.

Warren has only moved to the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party in recent years and does not have the same long history supporting the movement that Sanders does. Finally, on February 3, we will get to see what some of the public thinks about the candidates with the Iowa Caucus and get a clearer picture as to who will be taking on President Trump in the general election.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

5

WORLD WAR I REMASTERED: IRANIAN EDITION

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

World War I Remastered: Iranian Edition

By Harold Rook

A

ttention, ladies and gentlemen, pack your emergency MREs and head straight to your local fallout shelter, because World War III is here! Haven’t you heard? Tensions between the United States and Iran are at an all-time high, with President Trump giving the goahead for the assassination of Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani.

With the death of this modern-day Archduke Franz Ferdinand, a global war is sure to come, and soon enough we’ll be drafted! Therefore, I decided to do the bravest thing I can think of: run as fast as I can to my own private bunker, away from the impending chaos that is sure to come. Of course, the possibility of Mutually Assured Destruction may make this decision pointless; what good will running for the hills do if no one else knows what is happening? So, to avoid being the only person left alive when nuclear destruction ravages the world, I am going to tell you all the story that led up to it.

After this, hopefully everyone else can know just what is going on and be prepared to survive World War III.

“...although the state appears to operate as a republic with democratic principles, it is really run as an Islamic theocracy, with Supreme Leader Khameini as its ruler.”

Where does our story begin? Realistically, there are several points of interest that we can analyze to understand US foreign policy towards Iran: the ousting of the Western-friendly Shah in the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the establishment of an Islamic Republic under the rule of Ayatollah Khomeini, and the immediate taking of 52 American hostages that lasted over a year. Things are off to a great start!

What made the situation even worse was geography; following the revo-

6

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

lution, the new Iranian government gained control of the Gulf of Hormuz, a strategic area for supplying oil, causing a world-wide energy crisis in 1979.

From this point forward, the United States and Iran took a more hostile stance towards the other, cemented with American support for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War. Following the war, the United States and other western nations placed sanctions on Iran in what Iranian leaders claimed to be “economic terrorism.” Perhaps there is some truth to this claim; the decades to follow would see inflation skyrocket due to the sanctions and low oil prices, with one US dollar being equal to just under 31,000 Iranian Rials by 2016. In addition, Iran started its own nuclear program in the 1980s, with the intent of enriching uranium and creating secret facilities to do so. This led many observers, including the United States, to worry about the possibility of Iran using uranium for nuclear weapons instead of clean energy. Tensions were mildly reduced when, in 2015, Iran agreed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (otherwise known as the Iran Nuclear Deal), lifting the economic sanctions in exchange for greater transparency in its nuclear program to an international committee.

Then, to the surprise of everyone, Donald Trump was elected President of the United States. Calling the Iran Nuclear Deal a “total disaster,” Trump pledged that, upon election, he would pull out of the agreement. Following his victory and after two years in office, Trump initiated the United States’

withdrawal from the provision on May 8th, 2018 and reinstated the sanctions that were previously in place.

This came before labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) a terrorist organization, citing its support for radical terror groups through financing and proxies. In response, the IRGC would shoot down a US drone in international airspace, claiming that it was in Iranian airspace. With Trump staving off his more war-hawk advisors by firing John Bolton, additional sanctions are placed on Iran, leading to the price of gas rising as high as 200%, and causing protests that continue to this day. How does Iran respond to these protests? By killing at least 1500 protestors, although some figures suggest the death toll is higher. Regardless, the IRGC, seeing increased economic strain on Iran and Trump embroiled in his impeachment, decided to back a pro-Iranian militia in their effort to storm a US embassy within Baghdad on December 31st, 2019. This brings us to where we are now: Trump does an Archduke Franz Ferdinand to Soleimani on January 3rd, 2020. Admittedly, the details regarding this decision are somewhat hazy, with some sources stating that Trump had actually authorized this seven months prior, that this was presented as the extreme option to motivate Trump to pick a more moderate approach, that Soleimani was planning imminent attacks on at least four US embassies, and so on. Either way, the result is a dead Soleimani, contradicting justification from the White House, and Iran swearing retaliation.

Before we get into reactions, a brief tangent on Iranian politics and Soleimani himself. Iran has called itself an Islamic Republic, with citizens being able to elect a president as well as members to Iran’s parliament, the Majlis. They also have a say in choosing an “Assembly of Experts,” who can pick the Supreme Leader of Iran. Sounds democratic, right? Well…not really.

Vol. XXXII, Issue VI

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM The Supreme Leader, Ali Khameini, is the highest authority figure, having the final say in foreign, educational, economic, military, and political policies.

Additionally, Khameini can appoint the head of the judicial system of Iran and six clerics to the Guardian Council, both of which must be experts in Islamic law. The Guardian Council, for its part, is made up of the six clerics appointed by Khameini and six judges elected by the head of the judicial system. Their responsibility in government is to carefully vet candidates who are running for president, Majlis, and the Assembly of Experts, ensuring that they follow Islamic and constitutional law. If all this sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare, that’s because it is. The important thing to know is that, although the state appears to operate as a republic with democratic principles, it is really run as an Islamic theocracy, with Supreme Leader Khameini as its ruler.

In this messy web of theocratic government, Soleimani served as the commander of the IRGC Quds Forces, which functions comparatively to the CIA. During his career, he would direct his forces to aid Hezbollah, a Lebanese terrorist organization, in their fight against the Israeli Defense Force during the July War. In addition, Soleimani formed the pro-Iranian proxy group called the National Defense Forces as a means of bolstering the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in

editor@binghamtonreview.com

WORLD WAR I REMASTERED: IRANIAN EDITION the ongoing Syrian Civil War. Most importantly, he was viewed by some in Iran as a war hero, with him being the likely successor to Supreme Leader Khameini. Quite literally, Soleimani was the Franz Ferdinand of Iran.

“...Iran did respond with what it calls a “slap in the face” to the US, firing missiles at American troops in 2 Iraqi bases, killing…nobody. Wow, strong slap you got there, Iran. Do you even lift, bro?”

So, because of all this, war is obviously here! Republicans and Democrats alike were furious with Trump’s decision to kill Soleimani.

For example, Senator Rand Paul (RKy) and Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va) have sponsored a measure to prevent Trump from taking further military action against Iran. Of course, Iran is also enraged, vowing harsh retaliation against the United States. I’m certainly not a fan of the events that have unfolded, sitting in this bunker, but the best reactions, by far, have come from Twitter, with many celebrities condemning President Trump’s actions.

One such reaction came from actress Rose McGowen, who, in a Twitter meltdown, called the United States a terrorist regime, apologized to Iran, said that Soleimani potentially plotting attacks on US embassies is “not the point” and “f*** your freedom…” to critics of her response. However, my personal favorite comes from Michael Moore, who sent the Supreme Leader a personal appeal to not respond to this assassination with violence. Yes, Michael, I’m sure that the theocratic dictator of a country that operates under strict Islamic law, bars most forms of democracy, censors its media, chants “Death to America,” kills its own protestors, ignores human rights, hangs gay people from cranes, and restricts the freedom of women to maintain modesty will listen to your appeal.

Well, I’ve been in this bunker for several hours, and I’m certain that World War III has destroyed

the world. Should I check outside?

It’s risky, but I will. I’m opening the door and see…nothing. As in, nothing happened. What gives? Well, Iran did respond with what it calls a “slap in the face” to the US, firing missiles at American troops in 2 Iraqi bases, killing…nobody. Wow, strong slap you got there, Iran. Do you even lift, bro? In all seriousness, this was likely deliberate, only as a display of force against the US. With all this said, are we really going to war? Should we worry about being drafted to fight in a conflict thousands of miles from our soil? Putting it bluntly, no. Iran itself is in no position to decisively take direct military action against the US; the government is still contending with protestors as well as facing international pressure from shooting down a Ukrainian passenger plane. Does this mean that we should not worry at all?

While a “war” is likely not going to occur, Iran may direct proxies to do its bidding against our troops. There are also political implications: there was no congressional approval for the killing. In playing hardball with Iran, Trump risks foreign entanglement into a potential conflict that we, as citizens, have no say in, be it direct or through congressmen. Make no mistake, Soleimani was by all accounts a threat to national security at home and abroad; the cries by those attempting to downplay this are pathetic, but making reckless decisions in foreign policy, shocking your citizens, and circumventing congressional approval can only harm us in the long term. World War III isn’t here today, but we certainly have to imagine a possible World War I Remastered scenario.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

7

POLITICAL COMPASS OF BU’S CLUBS

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Political Compass of BU’s Clubs

Pipe Dream: Left-wing propaganda machine pretending to be an objective source of campus news.

Free Press: One would expect a club titled “Free Press” to be more libertarian, but alas...

Alzheimer’s Foundation of America on Campus: I can’t remember why we put them there.

BU Poker Club: #LegalizeOnlinePoker Divest Bing / College Progressives: The same collection of angry communists under two different club names.

Asian Outlook: China.

College Democrats: Center-right, just like Hillary Clinton.

College Republicans / College Libertarians / TPUSA: The same collection of angry conservatives under three different club names.

The BUTT: The Bing BUTT is conservative, and therefore epic. Word to Josephi Krakowski.

Cheese Club: Bunch of fucking Nazis... and they always side with the Curds.

Student Association: All club operations must be approved by the SA’s tyranical dictatorship.

Ellipsis: Much like the Libertarian Party, they don’t actually do anything.

Binghamton Review: Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.

8

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

Vol. XXXII, Issue VI

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

The California Crisis

THE CALIFORNIA CRISIS

By Joe Badalamenti

W

hen one thinks of California, they will most likely picture several specific things. Perhaps they will think of Hollywood, inhabited by many wealthy actors, or maybe they’ll think of Silicon Valley, and the prosperity achieved by innovation of digital technology. However, this is a very general view which ignores many important details, such as the decay of cities through issues such as the housing and homelessness crisis. While these problems do exist elsewhere, they cause daily issues in California cities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles.

So, what exactly is happening in California? Well, one of the biggest problems is homelessness, primarily in the cities. According to a 2018 Forbes report, California contains three of the five cities with the highest homeless population, with about 7000 in San Francisco and almost 50000 in LA. This is important because a large homeless population can produce many negative effects, primarily poor sanitary conditions and makeshift housing within the city. For example, tents and used needles are a common sight within the city of San Francisco. These conditions have led to the spread of harmful diseases such as Bubonic plague. Additionally, these conditions have effects on the mental states of the people living there. While homelessness may be one of the biggest issues in California there are other issues, such as wildfires, that combine to produce a crisis. While these problems are very severe, this doesn’t mean that these problems are unsolvable.

So, what is the reason for all these problems? It is a complex issue with a number of causes, they can primarily be traced back to the actions of the California state government. Let’s take the housing situation for instance. In the cities of California, the government has imposed many regulations against industries such as construction. These regulations include licencing or permit requirements in order to

editor@binghamtonreview.com

begin construction as well as numerous fees that increase the cost of these projects. Additionally, these projects must wait long periods of time for approval by the city. These regulations have resulted in the decrease of new construction projects including apartment buildings within cities such as San Francisco. As a result, the supply of housing units has remained artificially low despite the high market demand, resulting in abnormally high prices for simple apartments within these cities. Because apartment space is so limited, many have resorted to renting what are called “pods.” These pods are communal shelters that provide beds and utilities, but not much else. The issue here is that people are paying large percentages of their income in rent in order to live in places that can barely meet one’s needs.

Another cause of this homelessness is mental illness and drug abuse. While these cities do provide an abundance of resources to help these people, these policies have been ineffective at lowering the number of homeless people in these cities. The city of San Francisco offers food insurance and even financial assistance to anyone in need, but despite these generous benefits, the number of homeless in San Francisco keeps increasing. In fact, some “solutions,” such as the handout of free needles, actually worsen these problems. Moreover, police are unable to do anything to prevent this dangerous lifestyle and can only help in drastic situations. Furthermore, the high taxes required to support these programs further raise the cost of living for the citizens. Despite the high costs and bad conditions, California continues to pass and enforce economic regulations. Recently a regulation was passed that restricts jobs in the gig economy.

As a result, many jobs that people have relied on in areas such as trucking and journalism have been lost. Another result of these regulations is emigration from the state of California. In fact, this outward migration is so massive

that California is predicted to lose an electoral district in the electoral college.

So, what solutions exist to solve these problems? Well there are two solutions which can reverse the damage caused by these problems. The first is to repeal many of these regulations and let the market solve the demand for resources. Removing regulations will lead to an increase in construction projects in order to satisfy the housing demand. An increase in the supply of housing will result in lower prices for housing units, and therefore reduce homelessness and improve quality of life. The main obstacle is the overwhelming Democratic majority within the state government of California.

In both houses of the state legislature, Democrats have a two-thirds majority in seats. With supermajorities such as these, one party can pass whatever bills it desires without consulting opposing assemblymen so long as they maintain their majority. Additionally, this issue has been exacerbated by political polarization and the spread of socialist and authoritarian ideas within the Democratic Party. If this trend of migration continues and the populations of these cities decrease then perhaps this supermajority may narrow out.

The second solution involves using the local community in order to ease the effects of these problems.

Traditionally, local communities within society such as churches, temples, charities, and clubs have come together in order to provide relief in the form of homeless shelters, food pantries, and more. These organizations are usually successful at causing positive change and improving conditions. Additionally, these organizations are represented by individuals who are better than connecting with people than government agencies. They could volunteer to pick up trash, or provide the homeless with resources. Hopefully communities can come together in order to improve their cities. Until then, California looks to be stuck in crisis.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

9

DEFAMATION & PREJUDICE: A REFLECTION ON 2019

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Defamation & Prejudice: A Reflection on 2019

By Spencer Haynes

A

s I have reflected on the political tumult of the past year, certain quotes, and newspaper articles have stuck out to me, helping me understand how certain biases and attitudes came to fruition this fall.

“By adding this misinformation, the writer stopped being a journalist, and instead resorted to defamation: defamation that turned readers and the university against the College Republicans.”

I would first like to discuss Pipe Dream, and their bias against the College Republicans. To expose this bias, I will compare articles from the past year covering very similar events. The first covers the Republican/Turning Point tabling event and protests from November 14th. The other covers the Students for Justice in Palestine tabling and small protest from May 9th.

The first difference between the Pipe Dream’s coverage of the two situations was that Turning Point USA’s non-SAchartered status was the first information given, while the non-chartered status of Students for Justice in Palestine was never even mentioned in their article. In fact, the SA gave SJP permission to table without SA Chartered status, breaking their own rules. Pipe Dream also decided to invent details in the article on the Republican’s tabling.

In this story, the writer chose to treat two pro-gun signs as evidence that this was a 2nd amendment rally occurring hours after a shooting. In reality, the tabling was set up before any reports of the shooting came out at 10:30 Eastern Time/7:30 Pacific, and the tabling was meant to promote Art Laffer and the Turning Point Chapter, not guns. By adding this misinformation, the writer stopped being a journalist, and instead

10

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

resorted to defamation: defamation that turned readers and the university against the College Republicans. The Students for Justice in Palestine article does not mention anything about “Anti-Semitic posters” that could excuse the Zionist’s attack. In both cases, the attack is the problem, not their speech.

In accordance with this principle, the May 9th article emphasizes the victim’s story, which reads in part, “...there were students nodding in agreement [with the attacker], and it was really disheartening when he [the attacker] was acting in such a manner and no one was coming to our defense.” The November article includes no accounts that express the Republican’s disappointment in this way, despite being threatened by a crowd of 200, and having all their property destroyed.

Now, I would now like to move on to the second half of this article: sharing quotes from my encounters with the protest leaders. My goal will be to unravel the false narratives surrounding the past semester, and provide some examples of the mistreatment my friends and I have encountered in the fall.

Quote 1: “We have no reason to join the tabling protest because we’re going to do whatever we want anyways” -Taj Robinson, President of the College Progressives - 9/2/19 In September, the College Republicans were already planning to table without SA permission. In the opinion of the group, free speech cannot be infringed on public property no matter what form the speech takes. I thought this issue would be a good opportunity for the Republicans and College Progressives to table together, as the Progressives protest more than any other group on campus. Instead, the fact I mentioned the Republicans at all made me an enemy of the Progressives’ E-Board. Fast forward to the protests of November 14th. Now the same College Progressives who “don’t care about campus rules” are citing those rules to shut down the Republican’s tabling. One said the Republicans would “...never be able to table again.” Another got into the face of a student, saying “...I can stand right here, because this is public property,” ironically making the same argument we did to support the tabling. However, only four days after the tabling protest, the progressive groups on campus had no problem breaking campus rules by shutting down the Art Laffer speaking event, despite being provided an adjacent lecture hall by the university. It is not the first time that these groups have interrupted scheduled events in this way.

Their repeated attempts to disrupt and shut down company recruiting events on campus is one example. Fortunately, the groups involved in the Art Laffer disruption are under investigation by the SA, and support for the College Republicans has grown across the state and the nation. Despite these advances, College Republicans on campus have faced more personal trauma throughout the fall. Many of us have

Vol. XXXII, Issue VI

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM received threats and insults and have felt unsafe walking through campus.

I would like to share two quotes from my fall semester as an example of this.

“You would also think that having an ally from an unlikely political possession could be of more use in changing the minds of those around them, but instead, I was disqualified from discussion under the assumption I must align with hate groups as a Republican.”

Quote 2: “If you really cared about your transgender friends you wouldn’t be here” Quote 3: “When you align yourself with hate groups people will treat you differently”

-Members of the Progressives E-Board, 11/15/19 Before I make my points on these quotes, I need to provide some context. Although I consider myself a Republican, there are several issues where I diverge from the current party platform. One of the areas I diverge on is that I heavily support LGBT rights.

My feelings on this are related to my personal experience with the issue. A member of my family came out after years of hiding it for fear of bullying.

Two members of my church congregation transitioned, one into a man, and the other into a woman. They too were afraid to express who they really are, with one developing severe depression before transition. As I observed all of this, I realized that members of the LGBT community are experiencing real struggles, regarding both their mental health, and physical safety. For these reasons, I visited a moving art exhibition on transgender Remembrance Day, and was invited to the memorial service that night. Before this service I was pulled aside by the two members of the College Progressives. They be-

editor@binghamtonreview.com

DEFAMATION & PREJUDICE: A REFLECTION ON 2019 lieved I was trying to make a joke out of the memorial, so I explained that I care about transgender issues because of my personal experiences. It was at this time they told me I was destroying the safe space at the memorial, and that if I cared about my transgender friends I would leave. The reason this struck me was that their words stood in direct opposite to the message of the memorial: that anyone can be an ally.

You would also think that having an ally from an unlikely political possession could be of more use in changing the minds of those around them, but instead, I was disqualified from discussion under the assumption I must align with hate groups as a Republican.

My positions align most closely with the republican party, but that does not mean I have to agree with every part of that party umbrella, or with every group or individual that also aligns with that. Either way, I know that my transgender friends appreciated my participation in the memorial service, and they know I care about them.

bring my girlfriend, an African immigrant, to campus as a political tool to “look less racist.” While I am insulted by her judgment of my character, my real concern is how this reflects on my girlfriend. For one, this view implies that my girlfriend must be complacent enough to be used as a political pawn. Secondly, it suggests that my girlfriend’s race should make a difference in our relationship, and thirdly, it tells a woman Dheiva knows nothing about, that she will be harassed if she comes to visit her boyfriend. My girlfriend has done nothing to deserve that kind of treatment. In fact, she is one of the kindest and strongest people I have ever met. She works 30 hours a week to pay her own way through college, while taking care of her 5 younger siblings every night while her mom works. If I ever even suggested that our race difference had any bearing on our relationship I would be dumped immediately. If Dheiva knew anything about my girlfriend this statement never would have been made. My message from this is simple: political discourse should never result in personal attacks, and some topics should always be out of bounds. One’s romantic life is certainly one of those topics.

I hope this article will be useful to assess the left-wing biases and prejudice infesting the print media, and the minds of progressive leaders on campus.

Quote 4: “You’d better not bring your girlfriend to Campus” - Dheiva Moorthy, 12/1/2019 This was the most egregious statement addressed to me last year, and it completely blindsided me. I don’t know how Dheiva, Vice President of the Progressives, found out that I have a girlfriend, or who she was. However, I did figure out why she would say something like this. Much like the students I mentioned from the transgender memorial service, Dheiva believes that I embrace all factions of the Republican Party. This includes a belief that I am a white supremacist and against free immigration. For this reason, Dheiva believes that I will

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

11

COPPAS AND SOBBERS: YOUTUBE’S LOOMING DOOMSDAY

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

COPPAs and Sobbers: YouTube’s Looming Doomsday

By Patrick McAuliffe

B

inghamton Review’s YouTube channel is on the cusp of 100 subscribers. It may not seem like much, but for the work that the staff has put into it, especially over this past semester, this is a huge milestone. I couldn’t be more proud of everyone’s efforts, but such a first step only means that we are entering a much larger world with many more pitfalls to doom our online platform. Specifically, new policies enacted by YouTube on January 1st could doom not just our channel, but the livelihoods of many popular creators on the site. Any boomer would be proud to know whose fault this catastrophe is: the kids.

Drafted in 1998, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) forbids websites from gathering data on children under 13 years old, which companies would then use in targeted advertising. For reference, this law is so outdated that it permits parents to send a facsimile or postal letter to the owner of the website giving them permission to collect data on their children, or call a toll-free number for the same purpose. YouTube has always made itself appear compliant with COPPA, including age floors of 16 and 13 in their Terms of Service to even have a YouTube account - either unsupervised or with a parent/guardian’s permission, respectively.

However, almost everything about YouTube’s business model shows that children under 13 are the favored demographic of viewers. In early September of last year, Google was fined $170 million by the Federal Trade Commission for violating COPPA and collecting data on underage viewers, as reported by CBS News. The FTC’s report contains evidence that YouTube told toy companies like Hasbro and Mattel that the site is “today’s leader in reaching children ages 6-11” and “[the] #1 website regularly visited by kids.” Famous YouTube personality Jake Paul has repeatedly bragged about his primarily child audience. Large advertisers like Disney, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and Johnson & Johnson, among others, have even boycotted YouTube intermittently since 2016 because they believed that content had become too violent or edgy, in what is called the YouTube “Adpocalypse.”

“Where does a channel like Jaiden Animations fall, where her videos aren’t specifically made for children but they may find her characters cute and appealing? How does Markiplier identify, where he may shout expletives while playing a horror game but children may laugh at his reactions?”

Starting January 1st, as part of the September lawsuit, YouTube must now be completely compliant with COPPA, and it is taking this mandate in a subtly dangerous way. Channels must self-identify whether their content is made for children, following guidelines set by the FTC, such as: directly targeting children, containing characters or toys that appeal to children (including animations), having a predominantly child audience, or containing activities that appeal to children. This identification must also be made on every video posted by a

12

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

channel. Channels that unbox toys or perform strange pantomime skits in Elsa and Spider-Man costumes are clearly targeting children, but many channels fall into a grey area. Where does a channel like Jaiden Animations fall, where her videos aren’t specifically made for children but they may find her characters cute and appealing?

How does Markiplier identify, where he may shout expletives while playing a horror game but children may laugh at his reactions?

This has been covered - with a sense of dread, I might add - by creators big and small, from PewDiePie to Factnomenal. I think The Game Theorists have done the most thorough job explaining the wording and consequences of these new policies, and I encourage you, dear reader, to check it out. This information is crucial, because these consequences would be dire if the FTC decides that a channel’s content is child-friendly. Creators can be fined up to $42,000 per video that violates the FTC’s guidelines. Beyond this extremely taxing measure, YouTube is removing 80-90% of targeted ads from channels that identify as child-friendly. These new policies are squeezing from both sides: content cannot be too child-friendly because of demonetization or FTC fines, and content cannot be too adult-friendly or violent because of advertiser preferences, bringing more demonetization. It seems like making a living off of YouTube is going to be much harder for many channels in the near future.

Vol. XXXII, Issue VI

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM We’ve covered the rock; now, we turn our attention to the hard place.

YouTube has also implemented policies to crack down on bullying and harassment on the site, announced on December 11th on their blog. This was most likely a response to a clash last June between Carlos Maza, producer of Vox Media’s “Strikethrough” series, and Steven Crowder, a popular conservative commentator and comedian.

Crowder frequently joked about Maza’s race and sexuality in his rebuttals of “Strikethrough” episodes, and Maza appealed to YouTube to ban Crowder’s channel, Louder with Crowder. LWC has not been banned since the controversy, although many of Crowder’s videos were demonetized and links to his merchandise store were disabled for a time, as per Insider.

On the day of the new harassment policy’s announcement, YouTube removed a Content Cop video from creator iDubbbz’s channel on former creator LeafyIsHere, presumably for the potentially offensive attacks made on Leafy’s appearance and behaviors by iDubbbz. This removal came as a shock to many content creators, who now realized that, like the new FTC guidelines, YouTube’s new harassment policy is applied to past videos as well as any future videos. Phillip DeFranco and PewDiePie expressed their worries in their respective videos on the topic, and the hashtag #youtubeisoverparty was trending on Twitter on December 11th. iDubbbz even tweeted a screenshot that day of YouTube’s video re-

editor@binghamtonreview.com

COPPAS AND SOBBERS: YOUTUBE’S LOOMING DOOMSDAY moval notification with the caption “Download ur favorite bullying vids, before yt takes them down [sic].”

Looking at this disturbing trend of events over the past few months, I also share the concerns of the community. YouTube was founded as one of the first mainstream platforms that permitted near-limitless creative expression. Naturally, a community founded with these principles would inevitably bring out the worst in people, but PewDiePie believes that preventing such content is best done by fellow creators. He says in his video on the topic: “The only thing keeping these YouTube vultures in check is other YouTubers...” A series like iDubbbz’s Content Cop does a great job of calling out problematic creators and channels, and the backlash from PewDiePie’s occasionally controversial actions has arguably corrected his behavior online, to name a few examples.

Regulations for what is published on YouTube can exist, but policing themselves is what YouTube creators can do very well.

What is to be done for both hardworking creators and loyal viewers, now that YouTube’s future is looking grim? Unfortunately, there isn’t much to be done yet. YouTube has a sort of near-monopoly in the video-sharing site market. As Chris Ray Gun puts it in his video on the harassment policy, “Opening up a YouTube channel... on Bitchute as opposed to YouTube is like deciding to open up a pizza parlor in the middle of the desert as opposed to the middle of New York City.”

Competitors to YouTube such as the aforementioned BitChute or Vimeo

have nowhere near the amount of traffic or technological advancement that YouTube has. There may be more regulation on YouTube, but that is where a creator’s audience can be primarily found.

The point of trying to flush out all of these intricacies in YouTube’s new restrictions and guidelines is one that a free-market-minded person would agree with. If a private entity is no longer behaving in a way that suits you, you have the right to look for and use something better. YouTube is not the free marketplace of creation that it used to be; the most profitable path to YouTube success these days is to be a late-night comedy host. I don’t believe there will be a mass exodus off of YouTube overnight, or even in the shortterm, as these new regulations squeeze creators both financially and creatively. However, a better option can and will come along, whether as one of the smaller existing video-sharing sites or an even better site incubating in the mind of a young innovator. Be a conscientious consumer, and when the content you used to enjoy has started to disappear, consider not selling out to one giant company and find the best alternatives for your entertainment needs.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

13

HOW TO WRITE A FILLER ARTICLE

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

How to Write a Filler Article for a Student-Run Newspaper at Binghamton University on Production Night

By Sebastian Roman

S

o you completely forgot to write an article for the first issue of the semester (or if you’re Free Press, the only issue). Don’t worry, I’ve got you covered. With this well-thought-out article, which was in production for weeks (trust me), I will help you write an article that will take up plenty of space. I’ll get to that eventually, but I need to ramble a bit more for the word count. (I’m sure you realize that’s what I’m doing but I’m pointing it out anyway to get a higher word count out of this very sentence that I am typing right now.)

Step 2: Include lots of pictures. It doesn’t even matter if they’re related to the top that you are writing about.

Just smack a few fair-use JPEGs on the article to fill up space without have to write more.

So now you know how to write a filler article for a student-run newspaper at Binghamton University on production night. And before you ask, no, this does not work on any other night.

The key is procrastination.

Step 3: *Insert third point here*

Step 1: Make the title long. Ridiculously long. As long as you can possibly make it. Since the title has the largest font size, you can take up more space with fewer words.

Step 4: Profit.

14

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

Vol. XXXII, Issue VI

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

FUCK LIBERTARIANISM

FUCK LIBERTARIANISM

By Musclini

W

hat’s up guys, it’s Musclini. I’ve been asked by the boss, the fans, and my conscience to have a quick, half page go off moment. So without further ado, let’s talk about libertarians. As a former libertarian, I don’t blame you for being less mentally developed than me, so I just want to lay down my thought process on transitioning from a cringe libertarian to an epic traditionalist.

First, libertarians are, at best, unaware, and at worst, collusive when it comes to immigration. The practice of unregulated, concentrated, mass LEGAL immigration is a destructive force that this country has accepted with open arms. Democrats love it because it means more votes, Republicans love it because businesses love it, businesses love it because it means lower

wages (see “supply and demand” for more information), and libertarians love it because it means more money overall. Huh, the continuation of this policy means a Democrat will literally never lose a presidential election again within ten years and this nation will become permanently socialist? Heh, as long as the GDP is going up!

Second, libertarians have nothing to say against societal deterioration, and everything to say FOR degeneracy. How on God’s green Earth can you not “officially” have a stance on the murder of children? You people are all about freedom, the non-aggression principle, and respect for other people, yet you value the “freedom” of a woman to have a slightly more convenient situation over the freedom of a human being to, uhh, you know, BE ALIVE?

That’s only one example, and I’m convinced LibBros only think that way because they think girls will like them for that position, but there are countless libertarian takes that are just straight up satanic and evil. We’re all religious Catholics, right? Let me relate this all to you like this: drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, drag queen story hour, and pornography, among many other things, are ALL SINS. Don’t believe me? Want me to elaborate on these points? Don’t care, have fun in hell, loser. Finally, look… these “people” are utterly SILENT when it comes to the struggles of gamers. Do you really think that we don’t have a say, that we don’t have voices and f- Oh, that’s my time? Right, it’s only a half pager. Alright boys, see you in February for the s*x edition.

Want to add the greatest diss track ever created to your playlist? Well now you can! Pipe Down: Pipe Dream Diss Track is available on Spotify, Apple Music, iTunes, Amazon Music, TIDAL, and probably wherever else you may get your music.

Search for Binghamton Review!

editor@binghamtonreview.com

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

15