Man, attacks on the free speech of those who support Palestine or criticize Israel have been happening for decades, in the media and universities. The only thing new here is that it's the government doing it. So yeah, I think you're miles off, but more than that, I think you've just chosen to make it about what you care about instead of the actual issue of the friggin' government detaining someone for political speech.
I've thought a lot about this comment (went for a run soon after, so I had time). I realize what I said was harsh, and while I stand by every part of it, I want to add some context.
For those of you who haven't been around for 15 years, between 2009 and 2016, I commented on this site pretty much daily, so Jaybird and I have known each other for a very long time in internet time. We've had many conversations on and off of this site, and while I disagree strongly with this politics, that's true of literally every single person on this site and always has been (there were some strong new deal/social democrats, and of course Freddie, once upon a time), so it doesn't for the most part affect my respect for him, or my ability to recognize that he's a very smart person who often has interesting things to say. Which is part of why I find this sort of Scheiße so fottutamente disappointing.
The people crying wolf 20 years ago weren't just liberals and the left. There were tons of libertarians who, if they voted for one of the two parties, almost certainly voted for Republicans. In fact, in the wake of the Patriot Act, increased domestic surveillance, and the invasion of Iraq, a bunch of libertarians spent half a decade trying to convince themselves and their fellow travelers that they should abandon the libertarian-conservative alliance and build an at least tenuous libertarian-liberal alliance. In some ways, I think it was the aftermath of 9/11, and the split it caused among libertarians, between those who remained with the right and those who looked to the political center or alliances, that ultimately resulted in the end of libertarianism as an American political faction, and perhaps even as a political ideology altogether.
It must get exhausting trying to make these comparisons, instead of just saying, "You know what, this is bad!" Especially when it involves comparing kids who ultimately were not punished by their college to a permanent resident who was detained, shipped who knows where (no seriously, his family didn't know where), and who may be deported, for political speech. Did people overreact to those kids? Absolutely. Is it related to political persecution by the government? Dude, you are gonna need to write a coherent (I mean, by ordinary standards, not your own) essay with many thousands of words to make that argument, and I am 99.9999% certain you're gonna fail.
I don't even know, man. You thoroughly dominate this site's comment section; pretty much all of it is a dialogue with you. This would be a better place to hang out, in an internet world in chaos right now, if you'd cut this bullsh*t out.
Eh, I see it differently: I see it as a reason for remaking it, not a challenge to overcome. Otherwise, why on earth remake it? I know Hollywood remakes things because it's easy money, not for artistic reasons, but if I were an artist, making a more modern version of a 90-year old movie would be a pretty good reason for doing it, if it tells a story that can still resonate.
I've already seen people whom I personally witnessed warn of the risk of the security state built up during the Bush administration under the guise of the "War on Terror" being used for political persecution domestically go out of their way to justify this detention because they disagree with his politics, so yeah, I'm not confident we'll heed the warning.
I think I've already answered all of these questions with my comments, but I'll say it one last time, and let you go on beating around the bush as much as you like after that: if they are upset, or won't see it, because an actor cast in the movie is black, then they're racist, by definition. 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.
I mean, she's right, the movie is dated. There aren't many movies made in the 1930s that aren't.
To me, her comments sound like an artist pointing out the reasons why a modern retelling of the story is justified, which would I would consider good PR. But that's probably because I don't have 1930s views on gender, so I'm not offended when someone points out that they weren't great.
I admit I'm not much of a fan of the original, though I have seen it too many times thanks to my two children, and I assume most of the audience for the new movie will be children who also won't care that she's criticized aspects of the almost 90-year old version. I'm not really sure what to make of adults who do think criticizing the original is out of bounds for someone making a new version of it, though. I definitely don't think it speaks well of them.
The Taste of Things: Really enjoyed it, but it also made me very hungry.
Sleeping Beauty: I have seen this so many times at this point that even the wonderful animation has ceased to impress me, but we did see it in a theater I love (The Paramount on Congress Ave, for folks who know Austin), so there's that.
Paddington 2: Also saw it at the Paramount (they do a summer classic film series, with kids movie matinees on the weekends). Good movie, and my partner's first time seeing it, so she cried a lot, as did the then 4 year-old.
Moana 2: I damn near fell asleep, but the then 4yo loves all things Moana, she has a Moana outfit, she frequently wears Moana's necklace, and as a result, she loved the movie, and keeps asking me when we can watch it on Disney Plus.
I didn't see it in theaters, unfortunately, but if you haven't seen Flow, it's a (sort of) kids movie I recommend for adults. I enjoyed watching it with the 5yo, but I do warn parents of kids that young: she cried so hard, and for so long (basically from about 5 minutes in until the end) that she looked like she had the beginnings of two black eyes.
Let me be clear: if a black actor is cast, and because that actor is black, a person is upset, or refuses to see the movie, then yes, absolutely, that person is a racist. If they don't want to see the movie for other reasons, and don't care about the race of the actor cast for a given part, then no, they're not racist, or at least we can't tell whether they are from their willingness to see the movie.
If you want to beat around that bush, feel free, but that's the only bush I'm talking about.
If they're refusing to watch it because a black actor was cast, then yeah, they're racist, by definition. I still fail to see why this is even a question, or why you're so determined to defend them.
By the way, if you want to understand why French politics are less infused with what American conservatives call "postmodernism" (if I used enough scare quotes to convey my contempt for the conservative use of that term, this comment would be entirely quotation marks), it's not because of their Catholicism, which is at best vestigial at this point, but because, in addition to having a very different Enlightenment tradition and a very different intellectual, cultural and political impact of that tradition, they have also dealt, or rather not dealt, with their history of racial and colonial oppression very differently than we have. Theirs is pushed into the banlieues, of Paris and of their minds, while ours pervades our society, culture, and politics in ways that can't be merely swept aside.
There are a lot of reasons for this, but a big part of it is, I think, that the French have a very good idea of what it means to be French, while in this country, we're still litigating what it means to be American, which produces a discourse that interacts with America's extreme (relative to most of the developed world) religiosity, its history of slavery and colonialism, and its own Enlightenment ideals, to produce a pretty unique political discourse, including what conservatives decry as "postmodernism."
Then, psychologically, France lacks the crippling sense of historical guilt that still pervades Germany
There's much in that piece that gives away the game, but this one might be the largest, given France's near complete lack of reckoning with its own fascist and brutal colonial history, its collaboration with the Nazis, and its complicity in the Holocaust.
To write that sentence in a piece calling for increased European nationalism comes very close to saying the quiet part loud, as the kids say.
Refusing to see it because Gal Gadot is in it is also bad.
See, that's remarkably easy! I didn't have to beat around the bush, or defend racists. I can just say: Yeah, those people are bad.
I realize that the world is a complicated place, full of gray areas, but when people are upset about a movie because of someone's acting in it's, ethnicity, religion, or nationality, I think things are pretty black and white. That you feel the need to defend it for tribal reasons puts you in a tribe defined explicitly by its racism, and man, that's just not where I'd want to be.
I was here when a certain former front-pager argued that casting a black actor as Indiana Jones would be bad because if he'd been a kid and Indiana Jones had been black he wouldn't have gone into archaeology. That was also inarguably racist.
What other reasons, that exclude any reference to her race, ethnicity, or skin tone, might there be for opposing her casting on grounds that it is "woke."
Look, I think there's some wiggle room in anti-wokism that makes it difficult to call everyone who's anti-woke racist/misogynistic/anti-LGBT, but the only reason for being upset about this casting decision is racism.
Seems like it to me. Generally when you have a protest like that, you don't let counterprotesters in. Since most supporters of Israel are not Jewish, it's quite a stretch to call this discrimination against anything but counterprotesters.
That said, if we're going with that, what about universities canceling speakers who support Palestine? Ban Palestinian flags from events (but not other flags)? Ban pro-Palestinian protests specifically? Deny tenure to faculty who support Palestine? Are these forms of discrimination, because if so, man, we have a whole lot of universities that should lose funding.
I think if the legal one includes "protesting a genocide" and "supporting Palestinians" and, in fact, basically just being a Palestinian, then, gasp! It ain't the students/faculty/school doing the discrimination.
People have talked about this administration producing Constitutional crises, but I suppose here's the first chance for them to produce a genuine one: do they comply with an order of the Supreme Court, or do they simply ignore it? I'm actually betting they'll ignore it. And even if they actually comply, what will the administration's response be? Packing the court? Getting to Congress to say he doesn't have to pay the money? Going after individual justices? Some combination of all three? So many opportunities for real Constitutional crises. These are exciting times.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/10/25”
Man, attacks on the free speech of those who support Palestine or criticize Israel have been happening for decades, in the media and universities. The only thing new here is that it's the government doing it. So yeah, I think you're miles off, but more than that, I think you've just chosen to make it about what you care about instead of the actual issue of the friggin' government detaining someone for political speech.
"
I've thought a lot about this comment (went for a run soon after, so I had time). I realize what I said was harsh, and while I stand by every part of it, I want to add some context.
For those of you who haven't been around for 15 years, between 2009 and 2016, I commented on this site pretty much daily, so Jaybird and I have known each other for a very long time in internet time. We've had many conversations on and off of this site, and while I disagree strongly with this politics, that's true of literally every single person on this site and always has been (there were some strong new deal/social democrats, and of course Freddie, once upon a time), so it doesn't for the most part affect my respect for him, or my ability to recognize that he's a very smart person who often has interesting things to say. Which is part of why I find this sort of Scheiße so fottutamente disappointing.
"
The people crying wolf 20 years ago weren't just liberals and the left. There were tons of libertarians who, if they voted for one of the two parties, almost certainly voted for Republicans. In fact, in the wake of the Patriot Act, increased domestic surveillance, and the invasion of Iraq, a bunch of libertarians spent half a decade trying to convince themselves and their fellow travelers that they should abandon the libertarian-conservative alliance and build an at least tenuous libertarian-liberal alliance. In some ways, I think it was the aftermath of 9/11, and the split it caused among libertarians, between those who remained with the right and those who looked to the political center or alliances, that ultimately resulted in the end of libertarianism as an American political faction, and perhaps even as a political ideology altogether.
"
It must get exhausting trying to make these comparisons, instead of just saying, "You know what, this is bad!" Especially when it involves comparing kids who ultimately were not punished by their college to a permanent resident who was detained, shipped who knows where (no seriously, his family didn't know where), and who may be deported, for political speech. Did people overreact to those kids? Absolutely. Is it related to political persecution by the government? Dude, you are gonna need to write a coherent (I mean, by ordinary standards, not your own) essay with many thousands of words to make that argument, and I am 99.9999% certain you're gonna fail.
I don't even know, man. You thoroughly dominate this site's comment section; pretty much all of it is a dialogue with you. This would be a better place to hang out, in an internet world in chaos right now, if you'd cut this bullsh*t out.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/3/2025”
Eh, I see it differently: I see it as a reason for remaking it, not a challenge to overcome. Otherwise, why on earth remake it? I know Hollywood remakes things because it's easy money, not for artistic reasons, but if I were an artist, making a more modern version of a 90-year old movie would be a pretty good reason for doing it, if it tells a story that can still resonate.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/10/25”
I've already seen people whom I personally witnessed warn of the risk of the security state built up during the Bush administration under the guise of the "War on Terror" being used for political persecution domestically go out of their way to justify this detention because they disagree with his politics, so yeah, I'm not confident we'll heed the warning.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/3/2025”
I think I've already answered all of these questions with my comments, but I'll say it one last time, and let you go on beating around the bush as much as you like after that: if they are upset, or won't see it, because an actor cast in the movie is black, then they're racist, by definition. 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.
"
I mean, she's right, the movie is dated. There aren't many movies made in the 1930s that aren't.
To me, her comments sound like an artist pointing out the reasons why a modern retelling of the story is justified, which would I would consider good PR. But that's probably because I don't have 1930s views on gender, so I'm not offended when someone points out that they weren't great.
I admit I'm not much of a fan of the original, though I have seen it too many times thanks to my two children, and I assume most of the audience for the new movie will be children who also won't care that she's criticized aspects of the almost 90-year old version. I'm not really sure what to make of adults who do think criticizing the original is out of bounds for someone making a new version of it, though. I definitely don't think it speaks well of them.
"
In 2024, I saw 4 movies in the theater:
The Taste of Things: Really enjoyed it, but it also made me very hungry.
Sleeping Beauty: I have seen this so many times at this point that even the wonderful animation has ceased to impress me, but we did see it in a theater I love (The Paramount on Congress Ave, for folks who know Austin), so there's that.
Paddington 2: Also saw it at the Paramount (they do a summer classic film series, with kids movie matinees on the weekends). Good movie, and my partner's first time seeing it, so she cried a lot, as did the then 4 year-old.
Moana 2: I damn near fell asleep, but the then 4yo loves all things Moana, she has a Moana outfit, she frequently wears Moana's necklace, and as a result, she loved the movie, and keeps asking me when we can watch it on Disney Plus.
I didn't see it in theaters, unfortunately, but if you haven't seen Flow, it's a (sort of) kids movie I recommend for adults. I enjoyed watching it with the 5yo, but I do warn parents of kids that young: she cried so hard, and for so long (basically from about 5 minutes in until the end) that she looked like she had the beginnings of two black eyes.
"
Let me be clear: if a black actor is cast, and because that actor is black, a person is upset, or refuses to see the movie, then yes, absolutely, that person is a racist. If they don't want to see the movie for other reasons, and don't care about the race of the actor cast for a given part, then no, they're not racist, or at least we can't tell whether they are from their willingness to see the movie.
If you want to beat around that bush, feel free, but that's the only bush I'm talking about.
"
If they're refusing to watch it because a black actor was cast, then yeah, they're racist, by definition. I still fail to see why this is even a question, or why you're so determined to defend them.
"
I have a 5 year old, so yes, of course I'm going to see it, as I have the, er, pleasure of getting to see every new Disney movie.
"
By the way, if you want to understand why French politics are less infused with what American conservatives call "postmodernism" (if I used enough scare quotes to convey my contempt for the conservative use of that term, this comment would be entirely quotation marks), it's not because of their Catholicism, which is at best vestigial at this point, but because, in addition to having a very different Enlightenment tradition and a very different intellectual, cultural and political impact of that tradition, they have also dealt, or rather not dealt, with their history of racial and colonial oppression very differently than we have. Theirs is pushed into the banlieues, of Paris and of their minds, while ours pervades our society, culture, and politics in ways that can't be merely swept aside.
There are a lot of reasons for this, but a big part of it is, I think, that the French have a very good idea of what it means to be French, while in this country, we're still litigating what it means to be American, which produces a discourse that interacts with America's extreme (relative to most of the developed world) religiosity, its history of slavery and colonialism, and its own Enlightenment ideals, to produce a pretty unique political discourse, including what conservatives decry as "postmodernism."
"
Then, psychologically, France lacks the crippling sense of historical guilt that still pervades Germany
There's much in that piece that gives away the game, but this one might be the largest, given France's near complete lack of reckoning with its own fascist and brutal colonial history, its collaboration with the Nazis, and its complicity in the Holocaust.
To write that sentence in a piece calling for increased European nationalism comes very close to saying the quiet part loud, as the kids say.
"
I'm sure that's why the anti-woke folks are upset that she's starring in it: they just want to defend the quality of the original as cinema.
"
Refusing to see it because Gal Gadot is in it is also bad.
See, that's remarkably easy! I didn't have to beat around the bush, or defend racists. I can just say: Yeah, those people are bad.
I realize that the world is a complicated place, full of gray areas, but when people are upset about a movie because of someone's acting in it's, ethnicity, religion, or nationality, I think things are pretty black and white. That you feel the need to defend it for tribal reasons puts you in a tribe defined explicitly by its racism, and man, that's just not where I'd want to be.
"
Ah, I didn't know UCLA was a Columbia campus.
"
Aha, so people have been saying since 2023 that they don't like a movie that has yet to be released in 2025. Definitely not racist.
"
I don't think so? When was it?
I was here when a certain former front-pager argued that casting a black actor as Indiana Jones would be bad because if he'd been a kid and Indiana Jones had been black he wouldn't have gone into archaeology. That was also inarguably racist.
What other reasons, that exclude any reference to her race, ethnicity, or skin tone, might there be for opposing her casting on grounds that it is "woke."
"
I'd love to see some video or accounts that confirm your understanding.
"
Look, I think there's some wiggle room in anti-wokism that makes it difficult to call everyone who's anti-woke racist/misogynistic/anti-LGBT, but the only reason for being upset about this casting decision is racism.
"
Seems like it to me. Generally when you have a protest like that, you don't let counterprotesters in. Since most supporters of Israel are not Jewish, it's quite a stretch to call this discrimination against anything but counterprotesters.
That said, if we're going with that, what about universities canceling speakers who support Palestine? Ban Palestinian flags from events (but not other flags)? Ban pro-Palestinian protests specifically? Deny tenure to faculty who support Palestine? Are these forms of discrimination, because if so, man, we have a whole lot of universities that should lose funding.
"
I think if the legal one includes "protesting a genocide" and "supporting Palestinians" and, in fact, basically just being a Palestinian, then, gasp! It ain't the students/faculty/school doing the discrimination.
"
What are some examples of this discrimination?
On “Comment Rescue: DavidTC on the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Unfreezing of Funds”
People have talked about this administration producing Constitutional crises, but I suppose here's the first chance for them to produce a genuine one: do they comply with an order of the Supreme Court, or do they simply ignore it? I'm actually betting they'll ignore it. And even if they actually comply, what will the administration's response be? Packing the court? Getting to Congress to say he doesn't have to pay the money? Going after individual justices? Some combination of all three? So many opportunities for real Constitutional crises. These are exciting times.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.