However, that still doesn’t mean that Trumpism is defined by social conservatism, just that social conservatives have adapted themselves to him.
I think social conservatives are probably the chunk of the conservative movement most prone to catastrophizing or, you know, literally apocalyptic rhetoric. Early on, Trump and his acolytes focused on those sorts of appeals (his "I alone" speech at the RNC in 2016, "The Flight 93 Election", etc.), and it seems to have worked on the SoCons.
On top of that, while I wouldn't necessarily say Trump is defined by social conservatism, he really delivered for social conservatives, probably more so than any other constituency. Maybe he doesn't have much VORRP there, but being in the right place to make Dobbs happen is going to be worth a lot.
Of course, not praising the Christian Veteran Satan Decapitator for the mighty blow of destroying an inanimate object — purposefully put there to get some Christian to overreact to it — will bring accusations of heresy.
Yeah, my first thought upon reading of the vandalism was, "Man, this may make some Christians happy, but it's the Satanists who are gonna be really thrilled."
Also, not like I'm a believer of any sort, but I find this argument puzzling:
“To Christians who defend Satanic altars when they speak with their church, family, friends, coworkers, or on @X: Would you use the same argument if you were speaking with God? Think on that,” he wrote.
Like, what, God is too busy keeping track of all those falling sparrows to catch what you say to your friends?
The weird bit about Menendez is not the extent to which Dems are giving him a pass, but the extent to which the GOP is. Like, here's a Senator from the other party being caught with stolen gold bars! Why are you tyalking about anuthing else!
None of that means you have to love Palestinians or particularly sympathize with them but Israel is at best a pretty bad ally.
This is going to sound like a snarky gotcha, but is not intended as one: they're way better than Saudi Arabia.
It's not a snarky gotcha because they're situated so that being a way better ally than Saudi Arabia is a key criterion for judging the value of their relationship with the US.
A lot of the rest of the interview reads like, "Hey, John Fetterman is junior Senator from the distinctly purplish state of Pennsylvania, and holds positions that match."
Dude's definitely got a point about Menendez, who I rarely discuss around here because he tends to inspire me to use language that gets my comments stuck in the moderation filter.
For instance, a ballot harvesting scandal in North Carolina ended in convictions of several people for stealing and destroying ballots in 2016 and 2018. The problem for the Republican narrative is that those people were working on behalf of a Republican candidate. Unlike the 2020 election, the fraud in these North Carolina elections left a trail of evidence that would stand up in court.
Spend enough time telling people that voter fraud is rampant and never punished, and some of them will believe you
I’ve had a long comment or short piece percolating about how slogans like “From the River to the Sea” are bad because they make it easy to build movements where well-intentioned people support awful leadership through their ambiguity, but this is something else….
Everybody knows what’s actually happening and it’s not about peace or liberation or anything else.
I followed up on the story, which is reported here, and in everybody's defense, they all acknowledged what was happening. It looks like one idiot threw the flag on the menorah, and even other protesters weren't having it:
The incident, captured on video in a public space near the Yale campus but not on it, lasted little more than a minute, according to a participant in a pro-Palestinian rally nearby. The protester who hung the flag quickly removed it at the urging of other demonstrators.
“Get down!” the demonstrators can be heard shouting repeatedly in the video.
“That looks bad for us,” said one person in a kaffiyeh, a scarf that symbolizes Palestinian liberation. “Take it down!”
The rest of the story is people being mad about it, which is fair enough, but also that all the people (definitely including the Yale admin) are mad about it is Good, Actually.
Just 'cause some questions are hard isn't an excuse for flubbing the easy ones.
I think the speech should be protected in the sense that it should be legal to say it.
But I also think it's good to treat it as normatively bad.
And pace @jaybird, I don't think you should be giving up the idea that some speech is normatively bad, and that people who necessarily have the discretion to choose which speech to promote should not consider normative badness when exercising that discretion, just because those people might possibly disagree with you about what speech is normatively bad and decide accordingly.
At Yale, a menorah was draped with a Palestinian flag. Is this legitimate protest of Israel or is it just being too in your face to Jewish students?
The latter to answer your obviously rhetorical question as if it were asked in earnest.
But to follow up, I think a lot of really appalling anti-Israel stuff is less clearly anti-semitic than the impulse to take one's anti-Israel sentiments out on random Jews in contexts that have nothing at all to do with Judaism.
Like all in all, somebody wants to fly a Palestinian flag out their dorm room window, it's fine and if you're offended it's time to rub some dirt on it and walk it off.
But dropping it on a menorah?
Everybody knows what's actually happening and it's not about peace or liberation or anything else.
And you will be using your limited resources to argue why you don’t interpret “from the river to the sea” as a call for peaceful co-existence tomorrow rather than using them oh-so-judiciously today.
That seems like a better plan then just feeding the rats to the cats and the cats to the rats and then being extremely surprised when I do not, in fact, get the cat skins for nothing.
Then you and a few hundred of your closest friends should occupy all the seats in the lecture hall, and when they stand to deliver their lecture, stand up, turn your backs, and leave.
It's extremely fair to demand prestigious institutions of higher learning hold themselves to an exquisitely high standard on this front, and set an example for the rest of us that we can emulate, while training the future generation of academics, executives, and political leaders how to navigate it.
And despite my general anti-anti-SJ knee jerks, it's obvious they've been doing a pretty crap job.
Nonetheless, when you look at the kind of society we actually are, it really isn't one where people navigate tough topics and hurt feelings like adults, and a lot of the people (very definitely not including you or Dr Siegel, but definitely including Elise Stefanik) who are first in line to complain about university administrators have whole freaking redwood forests in their eyes.
I think the David Duke hypothetical illustrates just how far off the rails we’ve gone.
I think it's pretty fishing on point when the original question @jaybird asked is how tolerant we should be of people who advocate campaigns of genocide against Jews!
Well, in the “is vs. ought” debate, the “is” is different than your “ought”.
Like, obviously.
And agreeing with the students and administration on the whole “preventing particularly odious speech” thing will help their “ought” a hell of a lot more than it’ll help your “ought”.
OK and the Second Law of Thermodynamics means I can't build a motor that runs forever, however much I would like to.
We're allocating limited resources. I don't see how pretending otherwise is going to help me see those resources allocated in a manner I would prefer.
“We will not have peace until Israel is destroyed” *IS* an argument that exists out there in the wild. If you don’t address it on campus, the kids will address it on the school bus.
Sorry, please let me amend my position:
It's fine to address it, but you shouldn't address it by inviting a speaker to make it.
Just like it's fine to address the argument that the Holocaust didn't happen in some contexts, but you shouldn't be inviting David Duke as a speaker in the hopes that his presence will lead to it being refuted in a useful way.
Would the angry responses be worse or as bad as the angry responses we’re currently seeing?
Yeah. I'll also concede up front that sometimes the protests on campus really do get tacit (or even explicit) administration support and solicitude, and you can probably build a solid case for hypocrisy on top of that.
I just haven't seen it yet.
On a similar note, I think @lee-esq mentioned students suing U Penn yesterday about not handling complaints of anti-semitism appropriately. My priors are
1. they probably have a case
2. there probably really was a double standard where other forms of bigotry were treated more seriously than anti-semitism
But just because the oranges are hypocritical doesn't mean you can prove it by comparing them to apples.
Do you think that the above discussion is beyond the pale to the point where the person who said it should be considered anathema and the points raised should be summarily waved away without discussion?
What is the point of answering this question?
Like, in order:
1. It's a very bad argument. I do not think it would be useful to allocate scarce resources to addressing it on campus (by inviting a speaker to make the argument)
2. Stating it in as many terms should not be regarded as harassment, but you should not be surprised if you get angry responses (protests, letters to the editor, boos, all the copies of your free newspaper being "stolen") if you make it in a public forum
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “It’s The Economy, Stupid, But That Depends on Your Definition of “Economy””
However, that still doesn’t mean that Trumpism is defined by social conservatism, just that social conservatives have adapted themselves to him.
I think social conservatives are probably the chunk of the conservative movement most prone to catastrophizing or, you know, literally apocalyptic rhetoric. Early on, Trump and his acolytes focused on those sorts of appeals (his "I alone" speech at the RNC in 2016, "The Flight 93 Election", etc.), and it seems to have worked on the SoCons.
On top of that, while I wouldn't necessarily say Trump is defined by social conservatism, he really delivered for social conservatives, probably more so than any other constituency. Maybe he doesn't have much VORRP there, but being in the right place to make Dobbs happen is going to be worth a lot.
On “Fighting Satan for Fame, Fortune, and Jesus, Or Something”
Great post.
Of course, not praising the Christian Veteran Satan Decapitator for the mighty blow of destroying an inanimate object — purposefully put there to get some Christian to overreact to it — will bring accusations of heresy.
Yeah, my first thought upon reading of the vandalism was, "Man, this may make some Christians happy, but it's the Satanists who are gonna be really thrilled."
Also, not like I'm a believer of any sort, but I find this argument puzzling:
“To Christians who defend Satanic altars when they speak with their church, family, friends, coworkers, or on @X: Would you use the same argument if you were speaking with God? Think on that,” he wrote.
Like, what, God is too busy keeping track of all those falling sparrows to catch what you say to your friends?
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/11/2023”
The weird bit about Menendez is not the extent to which Dems are giving him a pass, but the extent to which the GOP is. Like, here's a Senator from the other party being caught with stolen gold bars! Why are you tyalking about anuthing else!
"
None of that means you have to love Palestinians or particularly sympathize with them but Israel is at best a pretty bad ally.
This is going to sound like a snarky gotcha, but is not intended as one: they're way better than Saudi Arabia.
It's not a snarky gotcha because they're situated so that being a way better ally than Saudi Arabia is a key criterion for judging the value of their relationship with the US.
"
A lot of the rest of the interview reads like, "Hey, John Fetterman is junior Senator from the distinctly purplish state of Pennsylvania, and holds positions that match."
"
Dude's definitely got a point about Menendez, who I rarely discuss around here because he tends to inspire me to use language that gets my comments stuck in the moderation filter.
"
"In conclusion, Minbar is a land of contrasts."
On “Rasmussen’s Cheaters”
For instance, a ballot harvesting scandal in North Carolina ended in convictions of several people for stealing and destroying ballots in 2016 and 2018. The problem for the Republican narrative is that those people were working on behalf of a Republican candidate. Unlike the 2020 election, the fraud in these North Carolina elections left a trail of evidence that would stand up in court.
Spend enough time telling people that voter fraud is rampant and never punished, and some of them will believe you
On “House Republicans Vote To Authorize Biden Impeachment Inquiry”
Worse, boring political theater
On “Free Speech, Harassment and Hypocrisy: What the University Presidents Got Right and Wrong”
I’ve had a long comment or short piece percolating about how slogans like “From the River to the Sea” are bad because they make it easy to build movements where well-intentioned people support awful leadership through their ambiguity, but this is something else….
"
Everybody knows what’s actually happening and it’s not about peace or liberation or anything else.
I followed up on the story, which is reported here, and in everybody's defense, they all acknowledged what was happening. It looks like one idiot threw the flag on the menorah, and even other protesters weren't having it:
The incident, captured on video in a public space near the Yale campus but not on it, lasted little more than a minute, according to a participant in a pro-Palestinian rally nearby. The protester who hung the flag quickly removed it at the urging of other demonstrators.
“Get down!” the demonstrators can be heard shouting repeatedly in the video.
“That looks bad for us,” said one person in a kaffiyeh, a scarf that symbolizes Palestinian liberation. “Take it down!”
The rest of the story is people being mad about it, which is fair enough, but also that all the people (definitely including the Yale admin) are mad about it is Good, Actually.
Just 'cause some questions are hard isn't an excuse for flubbing the easy ones.
"
I think the speech should be protected in the sense that it should be legal to say it.
But I also think it's good to treat it as normatively bad.
And pace @jaybird, I don't think you should be giving up the idea that some speech is normatively bad, and that people who necessarily have the discretion to choose which speech to promote should not consider normative badness when exercising that discretion, just because those people might possibly disagree with you about what speech is normatively bad and decide accordingly.
"
At Yale, a menorah was draped with a Palestinian flag. Is this legitimate protest of Israel or is it just being too in your face to Jewish students?
The latter to answer your obviously rhetorical question as if it were asked in earnest.
But to follow up, I think a lot of really appalling anti-Israel stuff is less clearly anti-semitic than the impulse to take one's anti-Israel sentiments out on random Jews in contexts that have nothing at all to do with Judaism.
Like all in all, somebody wants to fly a Palestinian flag out their dorm room window, it's fine and if you're offended it's time to rub some dirt on it and walk it off.
But dropping it on a menorah?
Everybody knows what's actually happening and it's not about peace or liberation or anything else.
"
And you will be using your limited resources to argue why you don’t interpret “from the river to the sea” as a call for peaceful co-existence tomorrow rather than using them oh-so-judiciously today.
That seems like a better plan then just feeding the rats to the cats and the cats to the rats and then being extremely surprised when I do not, in fact, get the cat skins for nothing.
"
Then you and a few hundred of your closest friends should occupy all the seats in the lecture hall, and when they stand to deliver their lecture, stand up, turn your backs, and leave.
Right?
"
dude you're doing that thing again where I have no idea what you're talking about
"
It's extremely fair to demand prestigious institutions of higher learning hold themselves to an exquisitely high standard on this front, and set an example for the rest of us that we can emulate, while training the future generation of academics, executives, and political leaders how to navigate it.
And despite my general anti-anti-SJ knee jerks, it's obvious they've been doing a pretty crap job.
Nonetheless, when you look at the kind of society we actually are, it really isn't one where people navigate tough topics and hurt feelings like adults, and a lot of the people (very definitely not including you or Dr Siegel, but definitely including Elise Stefanik) who are first in line to complain about university administrators have whole freaking redwood forests in their eyes.
"
I think the David Duke hypothetical illustrates just how far off the rails we’ve gone.
I think it's pretty fishing on point when the original question @jaybird asked is how tolerant we should be of people who advocate campaigns of genocide against Jews!
What the heck else am I supposed to do with that?
"
Well, in the “is vs. ought” debate, the “is” is different than your “ought”.
Like, obviously.
And agreeing with the students and administration on the whole “preventing particularly odious speech” thing will help their “ought” a hell of a lot more than it’ll help your “ought”.
OK and the Second Law of Thermodynamics means I can't build a motor that runs forever, however much I would like to.
We're allocating limited resources. I don't see how pretending otherwise is going to help me see those resources allocated in a manner I would prefer.
"
Defending someone's right to say something doesn't entail inviting them to say it in your lecture hall
"
What point are you trying to actually make here?
That CUNY doesn't consult me when they decide what commencement speakers to invite?
Sure, granted.
"
What are you even talking about now?
"
“We will not have peace until Israel is destroyed” *IS* an argument that exists out there in the wild. If you don’t address it on campus, the kids will address it on the school bus.
Sorry, please let me amend my position:
It's fine to address it, but you shouldn't address it by inviting a speaker to make it.
Just like it's fine to address the argument that the Holocaust didn't happen in some contexts, but you shouldn't be inviting David Duke as a speaker in the hopes that his presence will lead to it being refuted in a useful way.
Would the angry responses be worse or as bad as the angry responses we’re currently seeing?
Responses from whom?
"
Yeah. I'll also concede up front that sometimes the protests on campus really do get tacit (or even explicit) administration support and solicitude, and you can probably build a solid case for hypocrisy on top of that.
I just haven't seen it yet.
On a similar note, I think @lee-esq mentioned students suing U Penn yesterday about not handling complaints of anti-semitism appropriately. My priors are
1. they probably have a case
2. there probably really was a double standard where other forms of bigotry were treated more seriously than anti-semitism
But just because the oranges are hypocritical doesn't mean you can prove it by comparing them to apples.
"
Do you think that the above discussion is beyond the pale to the point where the person who said it should be considered anathema and the points raised should be summarily waved away without discussion?
What is the point of answering this question?
Like, in order:
1. It's a very bad argument. I do not think it would be useful to allocate scarce resources to addressing it on campus (by inviting a speaker to make the argument)
2. Stating it in as many terms should not be regarded as harassment, but you should not be surprised if you get angry responses (protests, letters to the editor, boos, all the copies of your free newspaper being "stolen") if you make it in a public forum
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.