The problem of SJWs

Post Reply New Topic

Jordanian-American Natasha Tynes is an award-winning author who faced government prosecution in Egypt for her work defending free speech and a free press. In May, Tynes saw a Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) worker eating on the train—something she understood to be prohibited for all riders. She asked the employee about it. The woman responded, “Worry about yourself.” Frustrated that she rides the Metro hungry in order to comply with the rules while someone she understood to have the power to ticket her for eating was not complying with the rules, herself, Tynes “tweet-shamed” the employee by writing a complaint to WMATA and posting it on Twitter along with a photo of the woman eating.

Horrible behavior? I’d say so. Disappointing to see someone behave that way? Sure. But in a world in which online shaming is the new norm, it’s not surprising. What is surprising is that less than 45 minutes after posting the tweet, Tynes deleted it, apologized for what she called a “short-lived expression of frustration,” and contacted WMATA to say it was an “error in judgment” for her to report the employee. She even asked that WMATA not discipline the employee.

But Twitter’s outrage machine turned on her. She became “Metro Molly.” The independent publishing company set to distribute her novel tweeted that Tynes had done “something truly horrible” and they had “no desire to be involved with anyone who thinks it’s acceptable to jeopardize a person’s safety and employment in this way.” Her publishing deal was canceled.

Does this seem like a high price to pay for a 45-minute lapse in judgment? Or even for acting like, well, a jerk?

Enter Kyle Kashuv, the conservative Parkland school shooting survivor who declined lucrative scholarship offers in order to attend Harvard University only to have his admission rescinded after schoolmates alerted the Huffington Post to some extremely offensive, racist, and antisemitic comments Kashuv (who is Jewish) made in a private online chat when he was 16 years old. Kashuv, now 18, apologized publicly and unequivocally, and acknowledged his misdeeds in a letter to Harvard’s admissions office. He even sent a separate a letter to Harvard’s diversity dean. As David French remarked in the National Review, Kahsuv did “everything we want a young man to do when he’s done something wrong.”

One might think that Harvard would relish the opportunity to educate a young man who seems to have an interest in being a decent and productive member of society but appears not to have had the benefit of growing up in an environment in which uttering racial slurs is unthinkable. What could be better for him than spending four years in a community in which the thinking that produces that kind of behavior is replaced with better thinking (producing better behavior)?

Imagine the success story Harvard could have told: Teen with racist past graduates from Harvard with a commitment to social justice. But as Robby Soave of Reason Magazine noted, instead, a “corrosive impulse to seek and destroy” resulted in Harvard’s decision, seemingly “an endorsement of the position that people should be shamed and punished for their worst mistakes as kids.” On the other hand, former university president Michael Nietzel thinks Harvard was right to rescind the admission. “The idea that Mr. Kashuv should not be held accountable for his behavior because he was only 16 just doesn’t cut it. … Harvard was reasonable to say that his choice had consequences.”

Zack Beauchamp of Vox thinks the political left and right don’t see eye to eye on this incident because the view from the right is “sympathetic” while the view from the left is “critical.” What he sees as the “conservative view of racism” approaches racism as a “personal failing.” According to this view, he says, people can overcome their racism by “striving not to let race affect the way (they) speak and act,” and “the real threat isn’t the racist comments themselves,” because they can be overcome, “but the impulse to punish people for them.” From this "sympathetic" perspective, penalizing everyone for their past transgressions leaves them no room to grow, and even opens up the possibility of punishing the innocent.

While the “conservative” view focuses on individual growth and development, what Beauchamp defines as the “liberal and leftist” view sees racism as “a structural problem”—less of a personal failing to be overcome and more “unshakable,” leading “even people who firmly believe in ideals of equal treatment to act or speak in prejudiced ways.” According to this view, he says, “Kashuv looks less like a kid who made youthful mistakes and more like a young man who’s trying to escape responsibility for his actions.”

Despite Beauchamp's theory, it is not only people on the political right who find it difficult to support giving such harshly punitive consequences to a recent high school graduate who transgressed at age 16. Perhaps, then, this is not really a clash between liberal and conservative perspectives, but a difference between two paradigms: the apocalyptic and the prophetic.

Those on the political right might be more inclined than those on the left to see the world and its people as requiring reform and salvation, so it can appear to be a political difference. But it is an apocalyptic view, not a liberal one, that rejects redemption and forgiveness in favor of condemnation and excommunication. It is an apocalyptic perspective, not a liberal one, that sees the world as needing to be destroyed and replaced rather than improved and perfected. It is an apocalyptic paradigm in which history and its imperfect figures are irredeemable; in which, for example, part of the country represents not people who are struggling, but a “basket of deplorables.”

A prophetic culture seeks deliverance through historical persons, but Cancel Culture seeks apocalyptic deliverance through ahistorical means; without the help of morally polluted historical figures and without any of history’s contaminated tools. Jennifer Senior of the New York Times described it best when she wrote, “purity tests are the tools of fanatics, and the quest for purity ultimately becomes indistinguishable from the quest for power.” In Cancel Culture, the powerful don't give forgiveness, they take revenge.

“Think of people as people, not as abstractions,” writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie exhorted in her 2018 Harvard commencement speech. People are “fragile, imperfect, with prides that can be wounded and hearts that can be touched.” But an apocalyptic culture is not interested in wounded hearts. It wants to destroy, not heal. It wants retribution for moral impurities, not forgiveness for kids. And it uses the new tools of social media to accomplish its apocalyptic goals.

Anyone who says that what happens online doesn’t matter hasn’t been a target of Cancel Culture.

Yet.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) National Convention in Georgia this weekend came to a screeching halt when one delegate formally complained of "sensory overload" from "guys" whispering in the room -- prompting another "comrade" to grab the microphone to angrily demand an immediate end to the use of "gendered languag

The back-to-back moments of impassioned hypersensitivity at the gathering of the largest socialist organization in the United States led to bipartisan mockery from commentators, who compared the scene to something out of the sitcom "The Office."

"Uh, quick point of personal privilege, um guys," began one delegate, who identified himself as James Jackson from Sacramento, and specified that he uses the "he/him" personal pronouns.

As soon as Jackson said the word "guys," an individual in the audience could be seen becoming visibly irate in a livestream video of the convention posted online.

just want to say, can we please keep the chatter to the minimum? I'm one of the people who's very, very prone to sensory overload," Jackson said. Several other delegates could be seen waving "Jazz hands" in the air, instead of applauding, as he spoke. (Jazz hands are considered less "triggering" to those sensitive to loud sounds.)

"There's a lot of whispering and chattering going on. It's making it very difficult for me to focus. Please, I know we're all fresh and ready to go, but can we please just keep the chatter to a minimum? It's affecting my ability to focus."

"Thank you, comrade," the chair responded.

But the situation would not end so easily for the approximately 1,500 socialists gathered at the convention.

Within seconds, the individual who had appeared irritated by Jackson's words stumbled toward the microphone to yell, "Point of personal privilege! Point of personal privilege!"

"Yes?" the chair asked.

"Please do not use gendered language to address everyone!"

"OK," the chair said, seemingly flustered.

Jackson, however, would soon come back for another round.

Quick point of privilege ONCE again!" Jackson said later in the day, before reciting rotely, "Hi, James Jackson, Sacramento DSA, he/him."

"I have ALREADY asked people to be mindful of the chatter of their comrades who are sensitive to sensory overload," Jackson said. "And that goes DOUBLE for the heckling and the hissing. It is also triggering to my anxiety. Like, being comradely isn't just for like, keeping things civil or whatever. It's so people aren't going to get triggered, and so that it doesn't affect their performance as a delegate."

Jackson said that while "your need to express yourself is important," it does not "trump" his own personal needs.

Wrote Human Events managing editor Ian Miles Cheong: "Real life is worse than that BBC skit making fun of social justice warriors offended by everything."

Cheong also called the person who complained about gendered language a "manchild."

Later, Cheong flagged that a delegate from New York (also using the "he/him" pronouns) objected to the "tactical" use of the term "democratic" in "democratic socialists," as a way to market the socialist ideology to Americans.

This is what the Left is all about today," wrote author Tarek Fatah. "Ho Chi Minh and Rosa Luxemburg just rolled in their graves."

Joked satirist Titania McGrath (real name Andrew Doyle): "POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE! Could the individual who called out the offensively gendered language of the individual who called out the sensory overload of the aggressive whispering please refrain from speaking at such an excessive triggering volume."

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin MacAleenan was forced to leave the stage before giving the keynote address at the 16th Annual Immigration, Law, and Policy Conference at Georgetown University on Monday morning, after protestors shouted down his repeated attempts to give the speech.

The speech was prefaced by an introduction from Andrew Selee, the president of the Migration Policy Institute, who appealed to the students to respect the university’s commitment to civil discourse.

“Today you’ll again hear voices from across the spectrum and from different vantage points,” Selee stated. “Undoubtedly you won’t agree on all of them, but at the time when just about every aspect of immigration has become so polarized, we believe firmly that it is important as ever to hear directly from key stakeholders on what’s animating their thoughts and actions, to be able to question them, and to have a thoughtful, civil, and informed dialogue.”

After being introduced by Selee, MacAleenan attempted to begin his address, before protestors in the auditorium stood up and began to shout down the speech. Holding a sign that said “Hate is not normal,” the protestors repeatedly chanted “when children are under attack, what do we do? Stand up, fight back.”

Despite repeated attempts by Doris Meissner, a Migration Policy Institute Senior Fellow and panelist for the speech, to get the protestors to stop and allow MacAleenan to give the address, the activists continued to drown out the speech.

“As a career law enforcement professional, I’ve dedicated my career to protecting the right to free speech, and all the values we hold dear in America, from all threats,” MacAleenan began, before being cut off for a third time.

In a profile in The Washington Post published on Oct. 1, MacAleenan voiced his qualms about the term “illegal alien,” saying “I think the words matter a lot,” and said the Trump’s child-separation policy was “well intended” but “went too far.”

Student protesters at Binghamton University prevented a prominent conservative economist from delivering a speech on campus last night.

Art Laffer, the Father of the Laffer Curve and Supply Side Economics, had been invited to speak by the school’s College Republicans.

According to university officials, Laffer’s lecture was immediately disrupted and prevented from speaking.

Witnesses say University Police were forced to whisk him away and cancel the event.

One protester with a bullhorn and another who interfered with police were arrested.

“Masks and armbands, they came in, shouting us down, they had a megaphone and they had this whole pre-written speech, telling us to leave, telling us we don’t belong on this campus. It’s disgusting, I’m horrified,” says secretary of the BU Republicans, Jon Lizak.

Last night’s incident comes on the heels of another confrontation between the College Republicans and protesters that took place last Thursday.

Protesters reportedly surrounded a table set up to promote the Laffer event, shouting slogans and eventually tearing down the table and confiscating the Republican materials.

The leader of the College Democrats says Laffer should have been allowed to speak.

President of College Democrats at Binghamton University Tim Markbreiter says, “We agree with everyone’s rights to protest, nonviolently, and to engage in civil discourse. We do not, however, endorse the use of violent protests, nor do we think the economist yesterday should have been interrupted and shut down.”

Markbreiter says that his group had nothing to do with the violent protest.

University officials contend that they took reasonable steps to ensure Laffer’s right to address the audience, following the confrontation of last week.

They moved Laffer’s speech to a larger venue, provided an adjacent lecture hall for a counter presentation, increased the police presence and implored protestors not to disrupt the event.

The school says it is incredibly disappointed by the outcome and reserves the right to pursue criminal charges or disciplinary action against any organizations or individuals involved in the disturbance.

State Senator Fred Akshar says a leftist mob mentality and brute force intimidation are being given preference over free speech and the right to peacefully assemble.

He’s critical of the university’s handling of events.

“I don’t believe that they handled the first incident on Thursday appropriately. I think that they made excuses,” says Akshar.

Akshar did commend the efforts of the University Police.

The Senator says he’s moving a meeting he had scheduled with the Southern Tier Young Professionals this evening off campus as a matter of principle.

He’s invited the leaders of the College Democrats, College Progressives and College Republicans to a meeting at his office tomorrow to discuss ways to support free speech on campus.

A pitched political drama unfolded last week in which ideology and tribal allegiances prevailed over reason, supposedly smart people made nonsensical arguments, and those who went against the mob were threatened with excommunication. And I’m not even talking about the battle over Donald Trump’s impeachment.

The drama that riveted many in the progressive community had to do with a book that promotes progressive values — specifically, defending the humanity of migrants crossing the border from Mexico — but has been deemed offensive because of who wrote it and how. The novel, “American Dirt” by Jeanine Cummins, is a best-seller. But Cummins’s book tour has been canceled due to reported threats, and people who have endorsed the book — from Oprah Winfrey to prominent Mexican-American writer Sandra Cisneros — have been under pressure to withdraw their support.

What’s the problem? Mainly, it’s that Cummins is a white woman (though with a Puerto Rican grandmother) writing about the experiences of Mexican migrants — specifically, a woman who is forced to flee for her life with her young son after her journalist husband is slain by a drug cartel. Cummins, who apparently spent a lot of time doing research, has been accused not only of cultural insensitivity and inaccuracy, but of exploiting oppressed people of color for prestige and profit.

The “American Dirt” backlash is a disturbing example of what some have called “cancel culture” on the left: a climate in which people whose speech or art has crossed certain ideological lines are denounced and ostracized.

The lines are arbitrary and ever-shifting. A worthy effort to use one’s privilege to bring attention to the plight of the oppressed can be easily labeled “white saviorism.” A sensitive portrayal of human tragedy can become “trauma porn,” an actual accusation lobbed at Cummins. Dealing with the reality of sexual violence can lead to charges of defining female characters as rape victims. Well-meaning words can be given a sinister twist: Cummins’ comment in the foreword that “we” often perceive Latino migrants as a “helpless … faceless brown mass” has been indignantly cited as dehumanizing migrants, rather than protesting their dehumanization. The novel’s rare mentions of a brown person’s skin tone (a total of three, as culture writer Kat Rosenfield reports in the online magazine Arc) have been presented as a skin-color obsession.

Yet cultural sensitivity is very much in the eye of the beholder. Cisneros, for instance, insists that the book is wrongly accused of stereotyping Mexicans. Meanwhile, most of the people trashing “American Dirt” as disrespectful use the trendily gender-neutral word “Latinx,” which butchers the Spanish language and, according to a recent poll, is preferred by only 2 percent of Latinos and Hispanics in the United States.

Progressives who scoff at the term “cancel culture” argue that criticism and pushback are being equated with censorship and silencing. But there’s a difference between criticism and denunciation, and what’s happening to Cummins and her book is definitely the latter — often from people who haven’t read the book. The novel has been attacked as “harmful” and “an atrocious piece of cultural appropriation.” More than 80 writers have signed a petition urging Winfrey to rescind her decision to pick “American Dirt” for her book club; that call has been joined by some prominent commentators, such as Boston Globe columnist Renee Graham.

Unlike the politically correct police in totalitarian regimes, American culture warriors don’t have the power to literally silence their targets. But they can, and do, create a toxic climate that, in its own way, is as dangerous as the Trumpian loyalty cult on the right. Both are the enemy of independent thought.