"When a member of an oppressor class says something “hurtful,” it’s violence; when a member of an oppressed class does something violent, it’s free speech..."
U nailed it in one sentence Brad.
my hope after this shameful fiasco, is that we can stop pretending that just pointing out the hypocrisy of the SJW Left will solve anything.
I'm tired of seeing Dave Rubin, Matt Walsh or Andrew Sullivan etc. write their 300th article about how philosophically inconsistent the 'woke' crowd is.
no shit! it's not 2017 anymore!
the modern Social Justice movement is not about justice it's only about Power. and always has been. they truly don't care about principles and values and only about naked aggression and revenge.
if the current round of testimony from the Hill doesn't expose that fact...I can't see what will.
the veil has forever been lifted. let's move forward...
I don't think the thing we are talking about is rational enough to be a power grab. That would take brains. What has happened in my view is that privileged but not very bright people have discovered a religion (Social Justice) that makes them FEEL NICE on the cheap. The great tragic irony is that these dimwit no-marks find a welcoming home in our institutions of 'higher' education.
The inconsistency is a feature, not a bug. Having and enforcing nonsensical rules is a great way to demoralize people. It's also a great way to make people buy into your frame as you and Brad alluded to. If one argues about the logical inconsistencies, one is almost already buying into their framing, accepting that restrictions on speech exceeding those set by e.g. the supreme court are necessary, safe spaces should be extended to other groups instead of abolished and so on.
Pointing out the hypocrisy of course helps into shining a light into the motivation of these people.
There's not even a veil any more. The pro Hamas demonstrators carry signs printed by and proudly proclaiming "Party for Socialism and Liberation." The majority might be naive but there are hard core communist operatives ginning up revolution in America's streets.
1. Not being a glutton for punishment, i did not watch the hearing. What was the tone of the Democrat questioning? Was it challenging at all? I suspect not.
2. My suspicion is that part of the game plan was that the 3 Presidents expected their media praetorian guard to shield them from any blowback by the dastardly republicans. The cold open of SNL belatedly followed that line of attack trying to make the President's of our (used to be) finest institutions the victims of a shrill McCarthy-ite. It explains the smirks. They assumed the media had their backs and they would be the heroes in the exchange, standing their ground against the "know-nothings.". never underestimate how highly these people hold themselves in self-regard.
they can't conceive of an issue that's important to them not being defended by the Regime. so the skit had to reinterpret the event as just some idiot Republican just getting lucky cuz the poor university presidents were tired and put out by the aggresive tone of the mean lady.
"hey guys, don't forget to make the skit slightly funny before we air on Saturday night, m'kay..?"
You really nailed it -- disagreement with (or even less-than-forceful agreement for) the narrative is labeled as violence, but when it comes to calling for the eradication of Jews....well, that's complicated, you see.......
Congresswoman Steel’s questioning needs to get more views. Her incredibly calm demeanor when tearing into them on the massive amount of Qatari money these institutions are taking needs to be seen by more people.
Ramping up in Obama’s 2nd term, every “progressive” institution was flooded with money from Qatar, which, seeing as they’re Iran’s banker, could be Iranian money.
It’s so ridiculous, the Brookings Institution even has an office in Doha. Where the leaders of Hamas live.
The builders of the censorship regime are not Pro-Israel. The builders of the censorship regime want Israel wiped off the map. The 2nd term Obama Security State ghouls who run this country, and the “progressive” billionaires who fund all the institutions, are raging antisemites. Unsurprising, seeing as they are insecure clowns who pretend their nonsense credentials actually show anything impressive.
The primacy of free speech is not in doubt for those who do not ascribe to progressive ideas. The questioning was not about students’ free speech rights. The question was regarding the code of conduct that students are expected to follow at their respective universities- codes of conduct that are invoked at the drop of a hat in defense of progressive ideology.
These university presidents were not defending free speech. They were defending their complete control over what will be considered acceptable and unacceptable viewpoints on campus.
They are hiding behind the camouflage of a free speech controversy to avoid the real question: how do we have college campuses rife with antisemitism? Yes, what they have displayed is old-fashioned, Nazi-level antisemitism. How have we allowed this to happen?
The problem isn’t that we have students expressing vile sentiments. The problem is that we have a not-insignificant number of students who harbor these ideas. If there was any doubt, we are now certain that we have a huge problem in our universities, and the education system in general.
“These university presidents were not defending free speech. They were defending their complete control over what will be considered acceptable and unacceptable viewpoints on campus.”
Dead-on, and I think most people could see that. I see endlessly people saying the takeaway is that the Right wants to censor speech too not. I’m not of the Right, unless atheist libertarians are right-wing now, frankly I can’t keep up with the terminology, but what I’ve seen from the Right is fury at the hypocrisy.
Maybe I’m missing something here, but the reaction I’m seeing is to rip up all speech codes and tear down DEI, which I agree with.
It's a grave shame that the questioning did not dig into this very very rich vein of hypocrisy on the part of the academic apologists. In the event, the questioning by Stefanik was pretty weak. She pretty much rage-quit, rather than having the patience and persistence to force the hypocrites to contradict themselves. In so doing she left them with plausible deniability that (on the face of the testimony) they might be free speech absolutists. Rather than contemptuous lying scumbags.
Some dyslexic kids get by by just memorizing everything read aloud, so they appear to be able to read even though they can only repeat things they heard. It looks to me like there is a similar level of understanding on free speech on the part of these ivy league presidents. They have education that far exceeds their level of intelligence, and they probably got ahead in life mostly by memorization. They don't know what free speech is, how it works or why it's there. They only memorized their rule book, not even knowing why the rules are there, and the rule book says calling for the genocide of jews is free speech while microaggressions or using the wrong pronouns are not. It's a "banality of evil" type situation.
Divide, Eradicate and Isolate. That’s what DEI (“diversity, equity and inclusion”) actually does. Everything in the loony lefties world is bass ackwards.
This reminds me of when it was discovered that AI had written papers for students & when questioned about having done so, against the rules laid out for the AI, the AI lied & replied it had not done it. So I see the same matter here. The problem is in the programming.
It's far from true that everyone is protected from offense except for Jews. It's been open season on white people for decades, and not only did no one in any position of authority object to it, they often joined in. It's only because Jews are now being seen as part of the white oppressor class that they are now being attacked. It's also why now there are objections - rich and powerful Jews who were perfectly happy to support these institutions while they defamed white people on a daily basis now find it a bad thing when their own ox is gored.
Mostly agree that this mass phenomenon among American youth has more to do with the constant DEI drumbeat of white bashing than with Jews per se, but anti Semitism is real and in the mix too.
"When a member of an oppressor class says something “hurtful,” it’s violence; when a member of an oppressed class does something violent, it’s free speech..."
U nailed it in one sentence Brad.
my hope after this shameful fiasco, is that we can stop pretending that just pointing out the hypocrisy of the SJW Left will solve anything.
I'm tired of seeing Dave Rubin, Matt Walsh or Andrew Sullivan etc. write their 300th article about how philosophically inconsistent the 'woke' crowd is.
no shit! it's not 2017 anymore!
the modern Social Justice movement is not about justice it's only about Power. and always has been. they truly don't care about principles and values and only about naked aggression and revenge.
if the current round of testimony from the Hill doesn't expose that fact...I can't see what will.
the veil has forever been lifted. let's move forward...
I don't think the thing we are talking about is rational enough to be a power grab. That would take brains. What has happened in my view is that privileged but not very bright people have discovered a religion (Social Justice) that makes them FEEL NICE on the cheap. The great tragic irony is that these dimwit no-marks find a welcoming home in our institutions of 'higher' education.
The inconsistency is a feature, not a bug. Having and enforcing nonsensical rules is a great way to demoralize people. It's also a great way to make people buy into your frame as you and Brad alluded to. If one argues about the logical inconsistencies, one is almost already buying into their framing, accepting that restrictions on speech exceeding those set by e.g. the supreme court are necessary, safe spaces should be extended to other groups instead of abolished and so on.
Pointing out the hypocrisy of course helps into shining a light into the motivation of these people.
There's not even a veil any more. The pro Hamas demonstrators carry signs printed by and proudly proclaiming "Party for Socialism and Liberation." The majority might be naive but there are hard core communist operatives ginning up revolution in America's streets.
Brad, I don’t know who you are, or even if you’re “Brad”. And I don’t care. What I do know is that you, sir, are a great writer.
Such. A. Fucking. Great. Writer.
And getting better with every post.
Keep it coming. You’re a man among men.
So question and a comment
1. Not being a glutton for punishment, i did not watch the hearing. What was the tone of the Democrat questioning? Was it challenging at all? I suspect not.
2. My suspicion is that part of the game plan was that the 3 Presidents expected their media praetorian guard to shield them from any blowback by the dastardly republicans. The cold open of SNL belatedly followed that line of attack trying to make the President's of our (used to be) finest institutions the victims of a shrill McCarthy-ite. It explains the smirks. They assumed the media had their backs and they would be the heroes in the exchange, standing their ground against the "know-nothings.". never underestimate how highly these people hold themselves in self-regard.
The Democratic questioning I saw wasn't challenging at all.
I saw the SNL skit too.
they can't conceive of an issue that's important to them not being defended by the Regime. so the skit had to reinterpret the event as just some idiot Republican just getting lucky cuz the poor university presidents were tired and put out by the aggresive tone of the mean lady.
"hey guys, don't forget to make the skit slightly funny before we air on Saturday night, m'kay..?"
Does anyone have a link to the skit?
I don't. I imagine U could find it on YouTube tho.
maybe search SNL cold open December 9th...
So true
You really nailed it -- disagreement with (or even less-than-forceful agreement for) the narrative is labeled as violence, but when it comes to calling for the eradication of Jews....well, that's complicated, you see.......
Congresswoman Steel’s questioning needs to get more views. Her incredibly calm demeanor when tearing into them on the massive amount of Qatari money these institutions are taking needs to be seen by more people.
Ramping up in Obama’s 2nd term, every “progressive” institution was flooded with money from Qatar, which, seeing as they’re Iran’s banker, could be Iranian money.
It’s so ridiculous, the Brookings Institution even has an office in Doha. Where the leaders of Hamas live.
The builders of the censorship regime are not Pro-Israel. The builders of the censorship regime want Israel wiped off the map. The 2nd term Obama Security State ghouls who run this country, and the “progressive” billionaires who fund all the institutions, are raging antisemites. Unsurprising, seeing as they are insecure clowns who pretend their nonsense credentials actually show anything impressive.
The primacy of free speech is not in doubt for those who do not ascribe to progressive ideas. The questioning was not about students’ free speech rights. The question was regarding the code of conduct that students are expected to follow at their respective universities- codes of conduct that are invoked at the drop of a hat in defense of progressive ideology.
These university presidents were not defending free speech. They were defending their complete control over what will be considered acceptable and unacceptable viewpoints on campus.
They are hiding behind the camouflage of a free speech controversy to avoid the real question: how do we have college campuses rife with antisemitism? Yes, what they have displayed is old-fashioned, Nazi-level antisemitism. How have we allowed this to happen?
The problem isn’t that we have students expressing vile sentiments. The problem is that we have a not-insignificant number of students who harbor these ideas. If there was any doubt, we are now certain that we have a huge problem in our universities, and the education system in general.
“These university presidents were not defending free speech. They were defending their complete control over what will be considered acceptable and unacceptable viewpoints on campus.”
Dead-on, and I think most people could see that. I see endlessly people saying the takeaway is that the Right wants to censor speech too not. I’m not of the Right, unless atheist libertarians are right-wing now, frankly I can’t keep up with the terminology, but what I’ve seen from the Right is fury at the hypocrisy.
Maybe I’m missing something here, but the reaction I’m seeing is to rip up all speech codes and tear down DEI, which I agree with.
It's a grave shame that the questioning did not dig into this very very rich vein of hypocrisy on the part of the academic apologists. In the event, the questioning by Stefanik was pretty weak. She pretty much rage-quit, rather than having the patience and persistence to force the hypocrites to contradict themselves. In so doing she left them with plausible deniability that (on the face of the testimony) they might be free speech absolutists. Rather than contemptuous lying scumbags.
True or False: Americans would be better served if these hearings were run by a handful of Substack authors -- Brad being one of them.
True.
I would have least followed up with a few probing questions such as:
Does speech stating that "men can't get pregnant" or that "women don't have penises" violate your code of conduct?
What about speech calling for "Gaza to be turned into 141 miles of glass?" Or does it depend on the context?
Some dyslexic kids get by by just memorizing everything read aloud, so they appear to be able to read even though they can only repeat things they heard. It looks to me like there is a similar level of understanding on free speech on the part of these ivy league presidents. They have education that far exceeds their level of intelligence, and they probably got ahead in life mostly by memorization. They don't know what free speech is, how it works or why it's there. They only memorized their rule book, not even knowing why the rules are there, and the rule book says calling for the genocide of jews is free speech while microaggressions or using the wrong pronouns are not. It's a "banality of evil" type situation.
You should post this in long form on X. And, you should tag as many big names as you can.
This song never gets old:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY
Ha. Makes me ready for the maschism tango
Divide, Eradicate and Isolate. That’s what DEI (“diversity, equity and inclusion”) actually does. Everything in the loony lefties world is bass ackwards.
Overlooked is the fact that the Israelis are the most staunch defenders of the Palestinian common folk .
This reminds me of when it was discovered that AI had written papers for students & when questioned about having done so, against the rules laid out for the AI, the AI lied & replied it had not done it. So I see the same matter here. The problem is in the programming.
It's far from true that everyone is protected from offense except for Jews. It's been open season on white people for decades, and not only did no one in any position of authority object to it, they often joined in. It's only because Jews are now being seen as part of the white oppressor class that they are now being attacked. It's also why now there are objections - rich and powerful Jews who were perfectly happy to support these institutions while they defamed white people on a daily basis now find it a bad thing when their own ox is gored.
Mostly agree that this mass phenomenon among American youth has more to do with the constant DEI drumbeat of white bashing than with Jews per se, but anti Semitism is real and in the mix too.