Writes Glenn Reynolds, in "Welcome To The Party, Pal!/Erwin Chemerinsky discovers that higher education is a hotbed of antisemitism" (Substack).
৩১ অক্টোবর, ২০২৩
"It’s not too late for the adults, like [Berkeley Law School Dean] Chemerinsky, to take control."
"But for too long they’ve given the extremists a pass, and an entirely undeserved moral legitimacy. If they want to save higher education, they’ll have to anger a lot of people they’ve never been willing to anger before."
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
৬৭টি মন্তব্য:
Reynolds is wrong. I'd never classify Chemerinsky as an "adult". He's long been too far gone in left wing ideology. I won't say that Chemerinsky is responsible for the ruination of my alma mater--Boalt Hall was in the grip of the Berzerkely fanatics before Chemerinsky arrived--but he helped put the finishing touches on the destruction--and reincarnation as "Berkeley Law".
Chemerinsky is hard core left. He reminds me of the characters in Darkness At Noon who were astonished that the Party had chosen to liquidate them.
He needs to see The Greater Good.
Oh, it is already too late. Chemerinsky will likely find himself cancelled/fired if he doesn't pipe down.
With so many conservatives currently endorsing the cancel culture they were previously saying was despicable, how can anyone tell what conservatives mean or stand for, when they're now the assholes against free speech, instead of the NewAge liberals formally on X?
They will do absolutely NOTHING. University leadership is part of, and has blessed the campus anti-semitism or the problem wouldn't exist.
They also promote hatred of many other groups that oppose their ridiculous, totalitarian, ivory tower ideologies. Like Trump voters and straight white men.
"It's not too late"
Maybe it is. The 'adults' would have to confront not just students but mostly left Hamas-defending pro-Palestinian faculty.
Still, for all the difficulty and likely failure in the very short run, the adults must try. The silver lining in the current situation, at least in the U.S., is that the revelation of rank prog antisemitism and the remnants of public revulsion may trigger #Resistance. Could the left's long march through the institutions stop here?
Chemerinsky sounds unduly shocked-shocked in his statement, but by prog standards he has been a relatively good guy on free expression (better than nothing, to invoke the Althouse criterion). What will progressive Jews like him do now? Make common cause with us deplorables? Treat us as, gasp, "allies"?
The pro-Palestinian pro-Hamas terror excusing, eternal victim boo-hoo movement has infected media, too.
NPR, PBS, Democracy now!, The Nation, NYT, WaPo,- Plus more of the standard leftist media sites pimp the same anti-Israel anti-history BS.
Oh, please. Look at the faculty. It's been an anti-police, anti-white, anti-American, anti-enforcement of law, anti-crime victim, pro-terrorist institution for decades.
Now it's a problem? Both sides of this commentary are liars.
Two points. First, university leaders are complicit. By cracking down on micro-aggressions and speech that made blacks and LGBTQ students uncomfortable but allowing campus events that demonized Israel and Zionism, they made it clear that a certain group was fair game. Second, as Dara Horn recently showed, Holocaust museums may actually increase anti-Semitism. Rather than placing the Holocaust in the context of Jewish history and stressing its uniqueness, they tend to universalize it. They also mistakenly draw analogies between the slaughtered Jews and contemporary oppressed minorities.
I've said for years that we are living through a left vs. left war. The main issue is that the left failed to self-reflect and understand it. It's why Donald Trump short-circuited their brains. The true right is set in its ways and very easy to read, but Trump is actually a 1980s patriotic urban lefty who called out the later dead-ender dysfunctional left.
The left is full of childish Peter Pans who refused to grow up in the 1960s and then oozed their indulgent recklessness across the world and dominated culture (Gates, Prince Andrew, Clinton, Epstein, Weinstein, etc.). They dominate and thereby MUST grow up and decide on a functional and pragmatic future versus ever more goofy ideological caricatures / comic book versions of reality.
I see a huge wedge splitting the moderate left from the zealous revolutionaries in real time. Welcome the "diverse" Jew-friendly, Asian-friendly moderates to the conservative wing.
The red states need to ban graduates of law schools that allow this behavior from taking the bar exam.
My daughter got her undergrad degree from Cal in 2007. I can recall her being turned off by the radical Palestinian protests back then. It’s morphed into something frightening today. Jewish students aren’t safe on campus anymore.
The idea that any american law school is a "Hotbed of antisemitism" is absurd on its face. But then what is "antisemitism"?
If a law student supports Palestine that's "antisemitism". If someone insults Judaism (as opposed to islam or christianity) that's "antisemitism". If you do something the ADL doesn't like that's "Antisemitism". Don't "Stand by Israel", that's antisemitism. Jimmy Carter has been labeled an antisemite for his peace deal with Eygpt-Israel.
OTOH, if you kill 6 million jews that's also Antisemitism.
So, its a word without meaning. Its so expansive and vague it can mean literally anything. It could mean you really do hate jews. Or it could just mean some Jew doesn't like YOU. Or maybe someone is using the charge of antisemitism as a weapon.
So, its tough to care about charges of antisemitism unless you know EXACTLY what is meant. And constantly using the charge at the drop of a hat, doesn't help.
It’s hard to believe someone so embedded in the hard left could be so blind to the intolerance burning at its core. These academics having their come-to-Jesus moment are either fools or liars. Either way, they shouldn’t be running our educational institutions.
It is heartwarming to see that only two Althouse commenters regularly voice anti-Semitic views. I think that is a proxy for where most Americans are. Interestingly, although my wife and two of my three children identify as black, black anti-Semitism here and in society at large has made me much less open to claims of being oppressed based on race. Just as BLM is now mostly seen as a sham, I expect that one effect of certain groups openly supporting terrorism will be that black victimhood increasingly will be seen as self-caused.
I thought David Bernstein's statement over on Instapundit was insightful:
"Jews were once much more drawn to the far left, but those days are gone—because Jews (and of course I’m generalizing here) thrive in meritocracy, because Jews are grateful to be Americans and see the US as a force for good in the world, because Jews can’t accept ideologically driven binaries that make Jews, in Israel and otherwise, into the inherent aggressors and because such binaries are secularized products of god/devil theology that is not part of Judaism, because societal instability is almost always bad for Jews, and because Jews are well-represented in the establishment that the far left wants to tear down.
So rather than try to extinguish antisemitism in their ranks, many on the far left want to fan it, to drive Jews out, so they can be replaced by Kendi-ites. The fact that Jews are repelled by antisemitism spewing from the far left is not a bug but a feature. It’s not a coincidence, for a while, that everyone of the “antiracist heroes” in Kendi and Reynolds’ Stamped: A Remix has a history of making antisemitic comments."
But I'm told we shouldn't hold these "children" responsible for the things they believe in college. Wait, I mean law school.
Funny, the same people condemning the naming of these "activists" and the withdrawal of employment offers to these "children" are the same one who will call for imprisonment of any 18-yr old Israeli soldier who makes a mistake when seconds count in a life or death situation.
Why does everyone believe college students are children who are unable to exercise discipline of intellect, regulation of emotions or established principles, even in the controlled environment of the campus?
The point of hiring these people is that they WOULDN'T try to take control.
The hiring committees made sure they didn't have it in them.
It’s too late to put the toothpaste back in the bottle.
I love the way you all are so convinced that everyone should share your opinion on a subject this country has barely ever seriously discussed, in the classroom or media. The average American couldn't even give you a broad outline of how Israel got started, but you're 100% sure that everyone should agree with you, and anyone who doesn't is incompetent or evil, and deserves to have their livelihood ruined forever.
It's the most insanely unfair way to run a country I've ever seen.
I'm still recovering from the shock of watching UC Berkeley going from "Diversity Equity Inclusion Safe Spaces" to "Kill the Jews" literally overnight. I'm still getting my bearings in the new landscape. But it is encouraging to see some optimism from Reynolds, who, as a professor, is closer to the situation than I am.
I think that the pro-Palestinian propaganda is rooted too deeply in our educational institutions. Most of the faculty will just try and wait this out, instead of speaking out, even if it takes years.
I suppose that I went to college in a magical time (the 1980s) where we could focus on getting our degrees without constant political propaganda, rallies and protests distracting us. I went back to LMU about 15 years ago and as I was walking around the Fine Arts complex, some professor had places a giant "I hate George W. Bush" montage in front of his office. Then I went to go and see four student written one act plays and three of the four were about an Iraq veteran who suffered from PTSD and then came out as gay. (seriously) None of these student authors had ever been in the military or were gay. They were just jumping on the propaganda bandwagon.
One way that you can tell when you're doing propaganda instead of art is when propaganda soaked people praise you for your work.
Too late. Burn it to the ground. Start over.
Yes it is.
Only lawsuits and criminal RICO cases against universties are the only ways forward left to us now.
Somebody, maybe Hugh Hewitt, used to have Chemerinsky on his radio show when the latter was UCI law school dean. He sounded like a pussy then and seems to have remained the same.
The Crack Emcee, that is a perfectly valid question. Why are conservatives embracing this now? Because we have no choice. We made the argument that cancel culture was wrong, that everyone had a right to free speech, and, most especially, that colleges and universities should be places for the exchange of ideas. We lost. The result was we were told to go **** ourselves, we were canceled repeatedly, we were called Nazis, we were targeted by the FBI, IRS, etc., and we were threatened with violence or actually physically attacked for our troubles, to the rejoicing of higher learning, the media, the entertainment industry, much of the corporate world, and the Democratic Party.
We wanted peace. They wanted war. They got war. If they want to sue for peace, I suspect that the terms will be reasonable. All I have heard so far is that it is unfair to apply the rules to them when they do far worse than 99% of the people they have canceled in the past. If these are the rules that we will be forced to use, then it will apply to everyone equally.
In this particular case, would you hire someone who literally wants to kill some of his or her co-workers, espouses Nazi ideas as it relates to Jews, and rejoices in the gang rape of young girls and the beheading of infants? I'm pretty sure those are left off the resume for a reason. Kinda a deal breaker.
I can’t wait to see what happens next on this front.
rcocean "If a student supports Palestine that's "antisemitism." "OTOH, if you kill 6 million jews that's also Antisemitism."
Friend, you skip over a lot of necessary steps here.
If the student "supports Palestine" by calling for a two-state solution or for Palestinians to accepted into the Arab countries that agreed to accept them (when they exiled a million Jews who went to Israel), that's one kind of support.
If the student "supports Palestine" by endorsing the continued terrorism and bombings by Hamas ruling Gaza, even though Hamas has clearly stated that their aim is to eliminate the Jews by taking their land from the river to the sea, might that not be a problem?
It might even qualify as a step--and not the first step--toward killing 6 million Jews.
Shouldn't one taking the early steps along that path be called out--first as a friendly warning to himself, later as a warning to others who might associate with him in his "support for Palestine"?
It's not the Right that has degraded the term "antisemitism" to include criticizing what George Soros is financing. Except for the leftist Democrats and you, rcocean, the word has a pretty clear meaning. And you are dishonestly eliding exactly what those brats chanting about "Palestine" are actually saying.
Adults like Chermerinsky have been in control; that's a big part of the problem.
Our country is closely related to the UK. So when there are questions about adjustments in the unwritten constitution of the UK, like leaving the European Union, do we see progressive Jews in academe raising excited protests and encouraging their students to demonstrate? When the Anglican Church is involved in debates between UK church officials and those in Africa, do American Episcopalians feel the need to join in the debate?
Progressive Jews have tended, like most progressives, to consider themselves the experts who know what Israeli voters and governments should do, and how they should do it. Those who are safe in the US feel they have the best advice for those in danger in Israel.
So yes, men like Chemerinsky have helped to defame Israel's government and encourage the idea that the Jewish state has to be perfect, or it doesn't deserve to survive.
“They will do absolutely NOTHING. University leadership is part of, and has blessed the campus anti-semitism or the problem wouldn't exist.”
They forget why the Jews have long had a seat at the Dem table, with an outsized influence, despite their numbers. It’s partially that they are the brains. I knew that the Republicans were in trouble in the Senate, when Harry Reid retired - Schumer is much smarter than Reid was, and more effective. Every Dem Administration has a large number of Jews at the top, and it shouldn’t be the least bit surprising that they provided most of the brainpower for the LawFare attacks on Trump, starting before his election, and continuing to this day (including the Special Prosutor case, as well as the attempts to keep him off ballots through the 13th Amdt). But traditionally, more important is the money. They have been top Dem party funders for many decades now. As a good Jewish friend always says: “follow the $money$”.
But more and more Jews today seem to be considering hedging their bets. Trump was in town (Vegas) this last weekend talking to a group of Jewish Republicans. He, at least, understands this, and is seriously engaged in Jewish outreach. He can (figuratively) speak their language, having spent his career dealing with them in the NYC real estate market, and has a Jewish daughter, SIL, and grandchildren, whom he is close to. The longer this goes on, I expect the more effective he, and other Republicans, will be with their outreach.
The Crack Emcee said...
"With so many conservatives currently endorsing the cancel culture they were previously saying was despicable..."
Now the Left wants a cease-fire in the Cancel Wars. Kind of like Hamas wanting a cease-fire after they've had their murder-rape-mutilate-burn-desecrate party. Oh, we get a free shot at our enemies but any retaliation is just a contribution to the Cycle of Violence!
Sometimes retaliation is righteous, and necessary to bring about awareness of consequences.
Conservatives warned the Left that they would not like the new rules they were making if they started to be used on both sides.
The Left, however, having control over academia, the press, and the majority of the federal bureaucracy, felt smug in that the new rules never would be. So: searching for something someone said in high school to cost them their livelihood - fine; finding a picture of them standing near someone who later turned out to be vile to smear their reputation - great; punishing anyone with a MAGA hat and running them out of restaurants - perfect.
But people chanting support and being "exhilarated" after finding out civilians (including the elderly and children) were specifically targeted and killed (including by burning, beheading, and the whole rape thing) - NOW cancel culture is bad?!
I can't say that I truly support it, but I sure as hell am not going to feel sorry for them. And now it is the RIGHT showing a double standard?
Clutch your pearls harder, Buttercup.
Doesn't UC Berkeley still employ John Yoo, the architect of Bush's torture regime? Didn't Althouse defend the use of torture after 9/11 (as did Rush and a bunch of other right wing pundits)? Didn't Glenn Reynolds suggest after 9/11 that the fate of the Muslims "would be genocide unavoidable, and provoked, perhaps, but genocide nonetheless, akin to what Rome did to Carthage, or to what Americans did to American Indians."
And I am supposed to take moral direction from all of you?
"The Crack Emcee said...
With so many conservatives currently endorsing the cancel culture they were previously saying was despicable, how can anyone tell what conservatives mean or stand for, when they're now the assholes against free speech, instead of the NewAge liberals formally on X?"
Crack, you should know that one of Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", specifically number 4, is to "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." We didn't make the rules, your side did. Your side used those rules to damage the careers of many people, so pardon me if I don't shed any tears over some people from your side getting damaged as well. You're trying to be like the Hammassholes who attack others then immediately call for a ceasefire. Sorry, not this time. After sufficient payback, we can discuss mutually getting rid of Cancel Culture, but not yet.
I suppose that I went to college in a magical time (the 1980s) where we could focus on getting our degrees without constant political propaganda, rallies and protests distracting us.
I call bullshit on this. The '80's' was free of political propaganda, rallies, and protests? Where the hell did you go to college. Because as I recall it, the '80s were a time of political turmoil and the rise of the right, led by Ronald Reagan.
Sometimes retaliation is righteous, and necessary to bring about awareness of consequences.
That sounds like a very biblical reference. Where exactly in the Bible is it? I am sure it must be included in one of Jesus' parables. Perhaps the parable of "kill them all and let God figure it out".
hawkeyedjb said...
"Now the Left wants a cease-fire in the Cancel Wars."
Wait, you're not pretending I'm on the left, are you? And how can there be a cease-fire in the cancel wars if you weren't part of it? Conservatives were AGAINST canceling people. We hadn't joined in. All you're saying is you have no convictions and you'll do anything when it's convenient.
Static Ping said...
"The Crack Emcee, that is a perfectly valid question. Why are conservatives embracing this now? Because we have no choice."
No, you have no convictions. If you did, you wouldn't abandon them. Free Speech is not an issue an American is flexible over. You don't give it up just because there's a war in Israel. Especially when you know most Americans don't know anybody in Israel, have never been to Israel, will never go to Israel, have never studied the issues surrounding Israel, and aren't seeing most of what's going on in Israel right now. The idea of canceling somebody under those circumstances is absurd, and bound to lead to nothing but trouble.
Blogger Michael K said...
Somebody, maybe Hugh Hewitt, used to have Chemerinsky on his radio show when the latter was UCI law school dean. He sounded like a pussy then and seems to have remained the same.
10/31/23, 12:56 PM
——————-
He would have John Eastman on with Chermerinsky to debate legal issues.
Hewitt referred to them as “the smart guys”.
What's the big deal??
This is only critical legal theory in action. It's like Jimmy Stewart in Rope complaining that his students actually did what he said they had the privilege to do.
"Except for the leftist Democrats and you, rcocean, the word has a pretty clear meaning."
How absurd. Provide the definition and "clear meaning" , and explain why a person refusing to "Stand with Israel", or a law student signing a petition supporting Palestinians or Jimmy Carter are antisemites.
Yknow just like Hitler.
Zionists and the ADL seem to be like Communists, Randians, and Leftwing race hustlers. They constantly use these vague insults "Racist, Big Government, Sexist, Bourgouise, etc" and when you ask them what they mean specifically, they start tap dancing or Huff-and-puff and declare "everyone knows what it means".
And of course, I don't expect anyone to give a persuasive rebuttal. Its just "pushback" - another leftwing/zionist propaganda technique.
Reynolds has been around the academy too long. He doesn't realize that Erwin Chemerinsky is the problem. The reason the academy needs to be burned down to the ground and plowed with salt is to keep guys like Erwin Chemerinsky from having any say about anything. That fucking Commie moron is teaching Law!
JK Brown,
Why does everyone believe college students are children who are unable to exercise discipline of intellect, regulation of emotions or established principles, even in the controlled environment of the campus?
A very good question. I went to Cal myself, in 1984, and even then there was a huge pro-Palestinian movement, though at the time it was rather overshadowed by the mock "shantytowns" set up to dismantle Apartheid (the South African original, not the later business of attaching the same name to Israeli policy).
I was 16 when I got to Cal, and thought I was a "progressive," until I went to a meeting of the Campus Progressive Coalition, and discovered five other people in the room, none of whom had anything of interest to say. So I just said "Oh, bollocks" to myself and went back to my physics and chemistry. (I was a MechE student at the time.)
Later I was a music history student, and The Institution Formerly Known As Boalt was right on the way between the Music Dept. and the indispensable Caffe Strada, just past the hilariously miscast Architecture building.
Law students are young, but even your average 1L is 23 or so. These aren't "kids." They've been able to vote in at least one Presidential cycle. They (the men, anyway) have been eligible for the draft for five years. They have no business blaming "youthful mistakes" or any such cr*p for outrages such as a dozen student organizations at TIFKAB banning any speaker who might be described as Zionist from appearing at the school, whatever the topic. This was obviously well before 10/7, and I seem to recall Chemerinsky rather waffling about it. I am glad that he has finally bestirred himself from slumber.
One thing about Cal, though: The antisemitism was much, much worse at SFSU.
Conservatives warned the Left that they would not like the new rules they were making if they started to be used on both sides.
Yep. I've said it many times, 'rules for all or rules for none.'
The left wanted rules for some.
Now, they're going to get rules for none.
And I don't give a shit if they don't like it. It's the only way they'll learn.
rcocean "explain why a person refusing to "Stand with Israel", or a law student signing a petition supporting Palestinians or Jimmy Carter are antisemites."
Again, Rcocean, you insist on keeping to vague generalities. Under what circumstances are people refusing to "Stand with Israel," or "signing that petition," or behaving like Jimmy Carter?
When "supporting Palestinians" means holding that Israel is not justified in attacking Hamas after Hamas has attacked Israeli citizens (not just the recent horrific attack, but years of rockets and attacks from tunnels), and has declared its intention of destroying the Jewish people, then yes, signing that petition is an antisemitic act.
Field Marshall Freder and Crack appear to be very, very, very upset that the "rules" shoved down the throats of conservatives by the left are now, as was inevitable, being turned on the "rules" creators themselves, and appropriately so.
Even more interesting, the "rules" our resident islamic supremacist-allied New Soviet Democraticals used against conservatives to destroy their livelihoods and deplatform them (micro-aggressions, refusing to accept biological lies, misgendering, refusing to accept transparent lies related to elections/COVID, etc) were considered perfectly acceptable by our lefties whereas there is now consistent wailing by those same lefties because their clear, irrefutable, undeniable alliance with their beloved 7th century death cult has consequences.
Gee, who didnt see that coming?
Field Marshall Freder: "That sounds like a very biblical reference."
Given the actions, statements and clear intent of your islamic supremacist allies, biblical references are quite appropriate in this context.
Btw, how do you even have time to post at Althouse when there are so many posters of missing Israeli children that Team Dem is targeting for tear downs? I would imagine those actions would keep you quite busy.
The Crack Emcee: No, you have no convictions.
Well, that is quite the insult. I'm going to explain my position as best I can in a sign of good faith.
First of all, as we have been told over and over again by the same people complaining right now because the worm has turned, the First Amendment only protects free speech from punishment from the government. I totally want a culture that protects free speech beyond that, but I lost. If you haven't noticed, the culture of free speech, as opposed to the First Amendment protections, is opposed by all right-thinking people, by which I mean the Democratic Party, the media, etc. So, they want to go back to the culture of free speech? I'm all on board! Where do I sign up?
Second, how do I get back to a culture of free speech? I can argue all I want that society is better off with a free exchange of ideas, that employees should be able to express themselves without worrying about repercussions, and that being an American is to be tolerant. They aren't listening and they have no interest in listening. We've tried. You cannot debate the finer points of things with an irrational mob, which is exactly what we are seeing. They want to punish anyone and everyone that slightly annoys them, then declare the slightest deviation from their orthodoxy, which changes daily, to be violence, while suffering no consequences. Congratulations! Now they get a taste of their own medicine. Maybe it will get them to see what foolishness and cruelty this is. I readily admit it is a means to an end. It's a tactic. If they want to call the whole thing off, well, fine by me. That's what I wanted in the first place.
Finally, there is a big difference between supporting the Palestinian cause and supporting this. I think you or anyone else should be able to support the Palestinians without any repercussions whatsoever. What these people are supporting is GENOCIDE. They are supporting the torturing of children, the gang rape of women, the beheading of babies, the kidnapping of grandmothers. There's no going back from that. These people are evil. They are Nazis, in one of the few times it is appropriate to compare someone to the Nazis. Who in their right mind would hire these people? It is not supposed to be in the interview packet whether the candidate wants to murder his or her Jewish co-workers, or if the appropriate response to someone you don't like is to take them out the back, rape the **** out of them, break their legs, and toss their lifeless bodies in the dumpster. We are basically having the equivalent debate of demanding that pedophiles be hired as nursery school teachers, or the KKK running a nursing home for African-Americans.
Please be clear that I am not exaggerating that last point. "KILL THE JEWS!" and "RIVER TO SEA!" mean something, and it means exactly what it says. Yes, they have crossed that line. I don't like the fact that they have crossed that line, but here we are. Evil is staring us in the face. Cancel culture? No, we are well beyond that.
There you go.
Field Marshall Freder:
And I am supposed to take moral direction from all of you?
God no, Freder ! Take your moral direction from your friends the Islamists. Join them, in fact. I'm sure you will have a great time cutting babies heads off.
@LarryJ - Crack is no leftist! As far as I can tell, he isn’t on anyone’s side, possibly because no one is on his side. He is admirably free to think his own thoughts, articulate them, and defend them as he can. I like him.
Why does everyone believe college students are children who are unable to exercise discipline of intellect, regulation of emotions or established principles, even in the controlled environment of the campus?
... right up to graduation day, when they are magically transformed into adults worth six-figure salaries... or else they are being discriminated against on the basis of whatever intersectional box(es) they check.
It's my non-lawyer understanding that even the First Amendment itself has been held to allow exceptions such as fighting words and credible threats. Paragliding terrorists certainly posed a credible and deadly threat; posting a silhouette of one with a statement of support for what they actually did would seem to be susceptible to being treated as a credible threat too, wouldn't it? Maybe that person was just being stupid, and thank goodness, they quickly took it down, but there would seem to me to be a clear case for that particular speech's not being protected.
Or the prof who threatened the Israel-supporters by pointing out that "we know" their addresses and where their kids go to school, followed by knife and blood emojis? Isn't there a clear case for that particular speech's not being protected?
Or the 21yo Cornell student now in custody for his violent threats against his fellow students who are Jewish?
The "girl" who had her employment offer pulled over her enthusiasm for murderous anti-Israeli terrorists - how is that different from anyone else whose social media reveals something ugly to a potential employer, such that the employer decides not to burden itself with that person's toxic baggage? And that is a very clear case of the consequences of her speech's not being meted out by the government, and if the subject of her offensive speech had been, for instance, support and approval for the actions of the Jim Crow-era KKK, would anyone have any problem with that law firm's not giving her a job?
Again with the moral equivalencies. Just stop it.
Blogger Larry J said...
"We didn't make the rules, your side did."
What "side" does your dumb ass now assume I'm on? I'll remind you I haven't voted for a Democrat since before 9/11. Go on - take a shot.
Where am I?
Drago said...
Field Marshall Freder and Crack appear to be very, very, very upset that the "rules" shoved down the throats of conservatives by the left are now, as was inevitable, being turned on the "rules" creators themselves, and appropriately so.
Wow. After 10 years on this blog, you guys are gonna pretend that I haven't been voting with you the entire time. Now, because I don't agree with you 100% on everything, you're all going to talk about me like I'm a Democrat.
Fine - fuck you guys.
Static Ping said...
"Please be clear that I am not exaggerating that last point. "KILL THE JEWS!" and "RIVER TO SEA!" mean something"
You guys always say this like you're the only one who heard it, or you're the only ones who think it means anything or understands what it means. You're patronizing - not persuading. You are not Superman or the guardian of the world. We're all here, hearing the same thing. But you only listen to one side, and so, only take that side seriously. When you listen to the crazy shit that Zionists say, too - which is just the same eliminationist bullshit - then everything doesn't look so clear. And the fact, it's the Zionists who are sitting on the Palestinian's land, makes the ethics and the rhetoric become even more murky.
Face it: you guys talk a good game in peacetime, about freedom of speech and the rights of man, but - as soon as something brews up - you're more-than-willing to immediately abandon all that and become fascists. For the "greater good."
How conservatives can expect anyone to follow their current "logic," when they're openly saying they'll change it at will, based on circumstances, is beyond me.
Michael K said...
"Take your moral direction from your friends the Islamists. Join them, in fact. I'm sure you will have a great time cutting babies heads off."
You're 85 years old - about to fucking croak - and you got nothing better to do with your time than misrepresent people online.
Angry white men are fucking amazing.
When you listen to the crazy shit that Zionists say, too - which is just the same eliminationist bullshit - then everything doesn't look so clear.
Setting aside the "bullshit" part, what "eliminationist" rhetoric are the Israelis using? Or, if you're talking about supporters of Israel instead of Israel itself, same question? Is it "Hamas has to be destroyed or this will keep happening"? Because you're right that I, at least, don't think they should be stopped from saying that, especially if it's a reflection of what they actually intend to do. It's useful information for the Palestinian people.
And the fact, it's the Zionists who are sitting on the Palestinian's land, makes the ethics and the rhetoric become even more murky.
Ok, so it's not the supporters of Israel you're talking about when you say "Zionist." It's Israel itself. Then, I think you're objection is pretty moot, since Israel will certainly have to bear the consequences of its speech, just as Hamas and, unfortunately, even those Palestinians who don't agree that Hamas is taking the correct approach to Jews in the land have to bear the consequences of their actions (they have been substantially able to speak freely, however violently, for decades).
And I doubt anyone here wants Hamas, Palestinians more broadly, or Muslims even more broadly, to stop speaking, no matter how eliminationist their rhetoric. Again, it's useful information for Israel and the rest of the world, to know what they intend to do, or what they think about what others intend to do, about the problem of non-Muslims.
But death threats made against - threats exhorting the actual killing of - Jews (or anyone else) in the US - I'd be interested to find a place where someone here has supported death threats against, say, black people in the US, or gay people in the US. Death threats are not protected speech, any more than is "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Objecting to death threats is not of the same order as "Saying trans women aren't women is actual violence!"
Furthermore - I think, and have always thought, that speech isn't consequence-free; you always run the risk of losing a friend or having a server spit on your food, for example, by speaking your opinion freely. The fight is about the chilling of free speech in the universities and the public square, caused by having the consequences of speech like "it's impossible for a person to change sexes" or "inner city black communities have a culture problem" be loss of not just job but - at least in the apparent intent of the speech police - permanent livelihood. And you're manifestly on "our" side in that fight, Crack.
But the fact that you have failed to notice nuance in "absolutist" arguments for free speech doesn't mean it hasn't always existed. Probably this means no one should have adopted the label "absolutist," but there we have it.
Angry white men are fucking amazing.
So are angry black men? I wouldn't want you to feel left out!
Unfortunately we angry-ish suburban women are pretty normal.
Reynolds is being very charitable to Chemerinsky. I get why he did that, you have to give people a lane, but still.
Crack: "Wow. After 10 years on this blog, you guys are gonna pretend that I haven't been voting with you the entire time."
That wasnt the topic.
But there you go again, squishing off in a different direction.
You being you.
Jamie said...
"What "eliminationist" rhetoric are the Israelis using?"
Are you expecting me to post more links - that all of you are going to ignore - as you just use your own mouths to back up what you say? I've posted examples of Zionists talking shit, over and over again, and all of you ignored them. There's enough of them on my blog that you can find them if you really find it important.
I'll change my attitude to providing evidence when you guys change yours.
Drago said...
"There you go again, squishing off in a different direction."
Gahrie's dead, but I still got you around, like a small dog peeing on my leg.
Crack Emcee: "Gahrie's dead, but I still got you around, like a small dog peeing on my leg."
If you stop writing stupid and transparently false things, you won't get called out on it.
Its not complicated.
Drago said...
"Its not complicated."
Fuck you Drago. What's "not complicated" is when white people outnumber me, and then a few of them decide to follow me around, like they're the fucking police. I can name several people on this blog who act like you do, yet none of you can say I do the same to anybody on here.
If we knew each other in real life, I would've punched your lights out by now.
Crack Emcee: "If we knew each other in real life, I would've punched your lights out by now."
I knew a thousand brothers like you growing up in the Bay Area.
You wouldn't do a thing unless you had a dozen buddies around you...and even then you'd probably just hang back.
Your go to move was likely ganging up and jumping some smart black kid for "acting white".
But keep blustering while writing stupid things...just dont act surprised when people notice.
The Crack Emcee,
"Please be clear that I am not exaggerating that last point. "KILL THE JEWS!" and "RIVER TO SEA!" mean something"
(That isn't TCE, but someone else.) What those statements mean, Crack, is that the land formerly known as Israel should be forever Judenrein. Is that clear? Any Jews in the area shall be killed. Or (per Sydney) "gassed." There might be a handful of Christians allowed to survive in the "from the river to the sea" Palestine (Edward Said was very useful to them, once upon a time), but Jews will be shot on sight. Even those who bought their land legitimately a century ago.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন