I find it relevant. It pretty much explains the backlash happening right now.
But if you don't see what's happening as a backlash, then these are just unconnected anecdotes, if not an attempt to change the subject through whataboutery.
Any Alien Who
...
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization
The argument is that support for the government in Gaza is support for Hamas.
Hamas has been designated a terrorist group since 1997.
Let me... clarify? With a bunch of premises that strike me as being not only true but uncontroversial.
Over the past few years (decades, maybe?) there has been a fairly raucous argument involving, among other things, "Free Speech" in our culture and it bubbles up especially on campuses. Maybe it bubbles up the most there.
Campuses, and the people who graduate from them, have an outsized influence on the culture.
In recent years, the most vocal have... what's the most non-judgmental way to put this... let's say that they got a little over their skis.
Sometimes in defenses of the indefensible while crying "Free Speech!" (for example, the protests against Gibson's Bakery) and, other times, screaming about "hate speech" or similar terms to call for people to be punished for speech. "Freedom of Speech Doesn't Mean Freedom from Consequences" is one of the ways this manifested... but another was the whole distinction made between punching up and punching down. I'm sure you remember those distinctions as well.
From people on the outside, a lot of these distinctions presented pretty identically to "*I* can do whatever I want while *YOU* have to stay in line."
There were a handful of idealistic types who argued stuff like "we should have a culture that allows a broad space for this sort of thing and we should err on the side of giving a lot of leeway" and that sort of thing got responses of "why are you defending scoundrels?"
And this is where the whole "getting over their skis" thing comes into play.
People who were used to being able to say "Freedom of Speech doesn't mean Freedom from Consequences" are going through a rough time while talking about the importance of a Culture of Free Speech.
While I agree that it is important that we have a Culture of Free Speech, it also seems to me that we're well within experiencing the consequences of *I* can do whatever I want while *YOU* have to stay in line" when the person holding the whip changes.
For what it's worth, I think that it is important that we have a Culture of Free Speech that allows for a lot of leeway when it comes to what people say, even on campus.
I'm pretty sure that the Palestinian Activist made sure that his acts and speech did not provide material support to groups that the federal government has marked as "terrorist".
It's 100% possible to criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic. And, heck, even if the guy skirted the edges of anti-Semitism, that's not illegal either.
And it really sucks that we've reached the point where something like this happens and the response is cheers that something is finally being done than a full-throated defense of the importance of a Culture of Free Speech.
It'd be nice if our universities had an environment that fostered more of an Enlightenment Culture, don't you think?
As is so often the case, I am reminded of Vonnegut:
“As for literary criticism in general: I have long felt that any reviewer who expresses rage and loathing for a novel or a play or a poem is preposterous. He or she is like a person who has put on full armor and attacked a hot fudge sundae or a banana split.”
Quickly! Suit up! You've got to defend that hot fudge sundae against the women attacking it!
Okay, my thought is that the Democrats have a bit of a problem right now with the whole "Omnicause" thing. It's probably not their biggest problem but it's adjacent to their biggest problem and so one of the best ways to tackle that is to deny that it exists.
I like what Corey Booker was kinda trying to do but by giving a full script he screwed up.
What you need is to allow each of your politicians' personalities to shine through.
Have Elizabeth Warren give her response to what Trump said and then get all Warren on it. Classic Warren. Have her talk about the "nickeled and dimed" stuff as only she can. When Schumer gives his response, have him talk about Brooklyn and Queens, like it's the early 80s (when he started as just a Congressman). You've got other senators and congressmen from other parts of the country and get them to do it BUT MAKE IT THEIR OWN. Have Fetterman give a Fetterman response that is pure Pittsburgh. Have Marie Gluesenkamp Perez come out and talk about the need to be more West Coastian in our responses to Trump. Bring in Gavin Newsom. Bring it Pritzker.
One of the points to make in the middle of the speech is "we don't all agree on everything but we do agree on THIS:" and then put in something about America Works Hard and We're Working Hard for You! or something like that. Talk about the importance of fairness and justice and whatnot. But have each individual politician make it their own because each one has a charming personality and let each person be charming while talking about what they care about.
We don't all agree on everything... but we agree on (positive message) and we agree that we all have to stand up against the worst things that Trump wants to do.
And the positive message has to be broad. It's a big tent. You don't have to agree with everybody on everything. You just have to agree that America Can Do Better.
If they don’t want to see it for some other reason, it’s not relevant to what I’m saying, no matter how much you try to muddy the water by bringing it up.
Do you think that automatically categorizing people who are expressing disappointment that it's not Adam Driver are harboring some secret racism?
Because that's how some folks are spinning it, you see.
Hell, some folks are spinning not wanting to see the show at all as being racist against the casting of Snape.
And, get this, this isn't the first time this particular game has been played. Ghostbusters 2016, the remake of Charlie's Angels... there's a *LOT* of people who argued that people who didn't want to see their slop were, in fact, sexist or racist or whathaveyou.
And now we've got a brand new controversy due to the casting of Snape.
"if they are upset, or won’t see it, because an actor cast in the movie is black, then they’re racist, by definition"
As if that's the first time we've seen this game played instead of the umpteenth this decade.
Over-defining "support for terrorism" has downsides?
My goodness gracious! You'd think that the people who defended the cadets playing the circle game would be at the front of the line arguing that people should be allowed to speak freely.
If someone says "Man, I wish they got Adam Driver... now I'm not interested in the show...", can we accuse them of being secretly racist?
Oooh! If they claim that Rowling is transphobic, can I accuse them of rainbow-washing their racism?
"If you want to beat around that bush, feel free, but that’s the only bush I’m talking about."
It's an entertainment product in a marketplace that is oversaturated with entertainment products.
Feeling even the slightest of "ick"s is sufficient reason to watch Y instead of X for any Y and any X.
And accusing people of an "ism" or a "phobia" for chosing something, anything!, else in an oversaturated marketplace is a transparent attempt to inject a moral objection to a matter of taste and, get this, it trivializes the moral objection in the same way that calling wolf does.
Oh, you wanted Adam Driver to play Snape? That's racist.
Former Radcliffe Institute librarian Jonathan S. Tuttle is no longer employed at Harvard after he was filmed tearing down a poster showing the faces of Israeli hostages during a Harvard Out of Occupied Palestine rally on March 3, a University spokesperson confirmed Sunday.
By Sunday, Tuttle’s name and contact information had been removed from the Schlesinger Library’s official website, where his title was previously listed. Tuttle worked as a cataloguer of published materials at the Radcliffe Institute’s Schlesinger Library.
Harvard spokesperson Jason A. Newton wrote in a Sunday statement that the “Harvard employee involved in an incident during a protest last week is no longer affiliated with the University.”
They're busy screaming about how it should have been Adam Driver. "ADAM DRIVER WAS RIGHT THERE!"
Seriously, he was trending for two days on Twitter.
I, personally, am curious as to how they're going to handle James bullying Snape in high school or exploring how Lily didn't want to date Snape.
To be honest, I'm less expecting "I REFUSE TO WATCH THIS BECAUSE A BLACK ACTOR WAS CAST!" and more expecting a "Meh. Not for me..." response.
At which point the studios will pull a good, old-fashioned "YOU ONLY THINK IT WASN'T FOR YOU BECAUSE WE CAST A BLACK GUY!" and we can have an argument over the dark and unsettling reasons that other people aren't consuming a show that we ourselves also aren't consuming.
Sure. We can immediately talk about how the fans of the franchise are bad people.
I mean, they're fans of something created by JK Rowling so that goes without saying but now we can *REALLY* lean into how they shouldn't care about this silly thing.
"Why do you care? This is stupid and what you like is stupid. Why do you care?"
Maybe we can get the people actually creating the show to ask that.
Man, it really sucks that this precedent has been set, then.
I mean, I'd have to argue for saying that it's okay to do this stuff in front of a group of folks who are in charge of disbursing Federal Funds.
And, lemme tell ya, after the last decade or so, I'm not sure that the people who would be put in charge of arguing that this stuff should obviously be okay have the rhetorical chops to pull it off.
But I'd love to see them try and see what policies they institute after testifying that they may find such speech distasteful but college is supposed to be a hotbed of free speech activity where students will quite regularly experience speech that some might say is unpleasant.
I saw that "Whistle While You Work", a cheery song where Snow White cleans up the house while the guys are at work turned into a cheery song where she teaches the guys how to do their own housecleaning.
"SOMEONE STOLE OUR DISHES!"
"They ain't stole, they're hid in the cupboard."
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/10/25”
I find it relevant. It pretty much explains the backlash happening right now.
But if you don't see what's happening as a backlash, then these are just unconnected anecdotes, if not an attempt to change the subject through whataboutery.
"
Folks online are pointing to TITLE 8 / CHAPTER 12 / SUBCHAPTER II / Part II of the immigration law (do a find on the string "terrorist activities") and quoting this part:
The argument is that support for the government in Gaza is support for Hamas.
Hamas has been designated a terrorist group since 1997.
"
Let me... clarify? With a bunch of premises that strike me as being not only true but uncontroversial.
Over the past few years (decades, maybe?) there has been a fairly raucous argument involving, among other things, "Free Speech" in our culture and it bubbles up especially on campuses. Maybe it bubbles up the most there.
Campuses, and the people who graduate from them, have an outsized influence on the culture.
In recent years, the most vocal have... what's the most non-judgmental way to put this... let's say that they got a little over their skis.
Sometimes in defenses of the indefensible while crying "Free Speech!" (for example, the protests against Gibson's Bakery) and, other times, screaming about "hate speech" or similar terms to call for people to be punished for speech. "Freedom of Speech Doesn't Mean Freedom from Consequences" is one of the ways this manifested... but another was the whole distinction made between punching up and punching down. I'm sure you remember those distinctions as well.
From people on the outside, a lot of these distinctions presented pretty identically to "*I* can do whatever I want while *YOU* have to stay in line."
There were a handful of idealistic types who argued stuff like "we should have a culture that allows a broad space for this sort of thing and we should err on the side of giving a lot of leeway" and that sort of thing got responses of "why are you defending scoundrels?"
And this is where the whole "getting over their skis" thing comes into play.
People who were used to being able to say "Freedom of Speech doesn't mean Freedom from Consequences" are going through a rough time while talking about the importance of a Culture of Free Speech.
While I agree that it is important that we have a Culture of Free Speech, it also seems to me that we're well within experiencing the consequences of *I* can do whatever I want while *YOU* have to stay in line" when the person holding the whip changes.
For what it's worth, I think that it is important that we have a Culture of Free Speech that allows for a lot of leeway when it comes to what people say, even on campus.
I'm pretty sure that the Palestinian Activist made sure that his acts and speech did not provide material support to groups that the federal government has marked as "terrorist".
It's 100% possible to criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic. And, heck, even if the guy skirted the edges of anti-Semitism, that's not illegal either.
And it really sucks that we've reached the point where something like this happens and the response is cheers that something is finally being done than a full-throated defense of the importance of a Culture of Free Speech.
It'd be nice if our universities had an environment that fostered more of an Enlightenment Culture, don't you think?
"
He was one of the OG Blogfathers way back in the early oughts when he was "Calpundit".
I liked reading him and quoted him a lot. The world is worse off without him.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/3/2025”
As is so often the case, I am reminded of Vonnegut:
“As for literary criticism in general: I have long felt that any reviewer who expresses rage and loathing for a novel or a play or a poem is preposterous. He or she is like a person who has put on full armor and attacked a hot fudge sundae or a banana split.”
Quickly! Suit up! You've got to defend that hot fudge sundae against the women attacking it!
On “So Let’s Put Together a Democratic Party Ad Campaign”
Okay, my thought is that the Democrats have a bit of a problem right now with the whole "Omnicause" thing. It's probably not their biggest problem but it's adjacent to their biggest problem and so one of the best ways to tackle that is to deny that it exists.
I like what Corey Booker was kinda trying to do but by giving a full script he screwed up.
What you need is to allow each of your politicians' personalities to shine through.
Have Elizabeth Warren give her response to what Trump said and then get all Warren on it. Classic Warren. Have her talk about the "nickeled and dimed" stuff as only she can. When Schumer gives his response, have him talk about Brooklyn and Queens, like it's the early 80s (when he started as just a Congressman). You've got other senators and congressmen from other parts of the country and get them to do it BUT MAKE IT THEIR OWN. Have Fetterman give a Fetterman response that is pure Pittsburgh. Have Marie Gluesenkamp Perez come out and talk about the need to be more West Coastian in our responses to Trump. Bring in Gavin Newsom. Bring it Pritzker.
One of the points to make in the middle of the speech is "we don't all agree on everything but we do agree on THIS:" and then put in something about America Works Hard and We're Working Hard for You! or something like that. Talk about the importance of fairness and justice and whatnot. But have each individual politician make it their own because each one has a charming personality and let each person be charming while talking about what they care about.
We don't all agree on everything... but we agree on (positive message) and we agree that we all have to stand up against the worst things that Trump wants to do.
And the positive message has to be broad. It's a big tent. You don't have to agree with everybody on everything. You just have to agree that America Can Do Better.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/3/2025”
If they don’t want to see it for some other reason, it’s not relevant to what I’m saying, no matter how much you try to muddy the water by bringing it up.
Do you think that automatically categorizing people who are expressing disappointment that it's not Adam Driver are harboring some secret racism?
Because that's how some folks are spinning it, you see.
Hell, some folks are spinning not wanting to see the show at all as being racist against the casting of Snape.
And, get this, this isn't the first time this particular game has been played. Ghostbusters 2016, the remake of Charlie's Angels... there's a *LOT* of people who argued that people who didn't want to see their slop were, in fact, sexist or racist or whathaveyou.
And now we've got a brand new controversy due to the casting of Snape.
"if they are upset, or won’t see it, because an actor cast in the movie is black, then they’re racist, by definition"
As if that's the first time we've seen this game played instead of the umpteenth this decade.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/10/25”
Over-defining "support for terrorism" has downsides?
My goodness gracious! You'd think that the people who defended the cadets playing the circle game would be at the front of the line arguing that people should be allowed to speak freely.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/3/2025”
Is "being stupid" out of bounds?
Of course not.
Is "losing money" out of bounds?
Of course not. Wait, management is disagreeing...
"
If someone says "Man, I wish they got Adam Driver... now I'm not interested in the show...", can we accuse them of being secretly racist?
Oooh! If they claim that Rowling is transphobic, can I accuse them of rainbow-washing their racism?
"If you want to beat around that bush, feel free, but that’s the only bush I’m talking about."
It's an entertainment product in a marketplace that is oversaturated with entertainment products.
Feeling even the slightest of "ick"s is sufficient reason to watch Y instead of X for any Y and any X.
And accusing people of an "ism" or a "phobia" for chosing something, anything!, else in an oversaturated marketplace is a transparent attempt to inject a moral objection to a matter of taste and, get this, it trivializes the moral objection in the same way that calling wolf does.
Oh, you wanted Adam Driver to play Snape? That's racist.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/10/25”
From The Harvard Crimson: Librarian Who Removed Chabad Poster Is No Longer Employed at Harvard
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/3/2025”
They're busy screaming about how it should have been Adam Driver. "ADAM DRIVER WAS RIGHT THERE!"
Seriously, he was trending for two days on Twitter.
I, personally, am curious as to how they're going to handle James bullying Snape in high school or exploring how Lily didn't want to date Snape.
To be honest, I'm less expecting "I REFUSE TO WATCH THIS BECAUSE A BLACK ACTOR WAS CAST!" and more expecting a "Meh. Not for me..." response.
At which point the studios will pull a good, old-fashioned "YOU ONLY THINK IT WASN'T FOR YOU BECAUSE WE CAST A BLACK GUY!" and we can have an argument over the dark and unsettling reasons that other people aren't consuming a show that we ourselves also aren't consuming.
"
I would *LOVE* a review!
I've reached the point where I see maybe one movie a year in the theater and I can already tell that it ain't gonna be that one.
"
Sure. We can immediately talk about how the fans of the franchise are bad people.
I mean, they're fans of something created by JK Rowling so that goes without saying but now we can *REALLY* lean into how they shouldn't care about this silly thing.
"Why do you care? This is stupid and what you like is stupid. Why do you care?"
Maybe we can get the people actually creating the show to ask that.
"
Man, it really sucks that this precedent has been set, then.
I mean, I'd have to argue for saying that it's okay to do this stuff in front of a group of folks who are in charge of disbursing Federal Funds.
And, lemme tell ya, after the last decade or so, I'm not sure that the people who would be put in charge of arguing that this stuff should obviously be okay have the rhetorical chops to pull it off.
But I'd love to see them try and see what policies they institute after testifying that they may find such speech distasteful but college is supposed to be a hotbed of free speech activity where students will quite regularly experience speech that some might say is unpleasant.
On “Weekend Plans Post: March!”
OW!
MY HOUR!!!
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/3/2025”
Welp, here are the deets:
The question is whether people who refuse to watch the new one are racist.
I mean... are you going to watch it?
"
The up-to-the-minute debate is over whether or not Snape was.
"
So are you going to see it?
"
Stuff that happens in different time zones.
On “Saturday Morning Gaming: Goodbye to Monolith Studios”
I'll mention this again tomorrow but The Shadow Bundle is on sale for 90% off. That's 7 bucks!
If you like the Batman Arkham games, get this.
If you like the Lord of the Rings, get this.
It's a good game, it's a fun game, it's a game that changes minds.
And it's 7 bucks!
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/3/2025”
You know what's even worse than Democracy?
*LOCAL* Democracy.
"
Yeah, we could have nominated and elected Harris.
If only sane people had been in charge!
"
I saw that "Whistle While You Work", a cheery song where Snow White cleans up the house while the guys are at work turned into a cheery song where she teaches the guys how to do their own housecleaning.
"SOMEONE STOLE OUR DISHES!"
"They ain't stole, they're hid in the cupboard."
That's an *AWESOME* exchange.
And now it's gone. Like tears in the rain.
"
So the AP is not sufficient? CNN?