Are We Living in Crazytown?

The bizarre reaction to the anti-cancel culture letter.

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

The anti-cancel culture letter published in Harper's and signed by various intellectuals ranging ideologically from Noam Chomsky to Steven Pinker, and the harsh reaction to it from many "progressive" activists, has been covered in detail elsewhere.

But two specific reactions to the relevant controversy really made me feel like we are  living in Crazytown.

First, several Vox employees publicly objection to the fact that their colleague Matt Yglesias signed the letter. In response to the tensions within Vox, senior foreign editor Jennifer Williams tweeted, "The Harper's letter is revealing a deeper issue: Do we judge opinions/arguments on their merits or on who makes them? Does signing a letter mean you endorse the letter? Yes. Does it mean you also endorse the opinions of those who also choose to sign it? That's the question here."

That asking the first and third of these questions seem like a reasonable, moderate position to a senior editor of a major media company is remarkable. (In case this escapes you, the correct answers are (1) on their merits; and (3) No.)

Even weirder was a tweet by New York Times reporter Farnaz Fassihi who tweeted, "'The Letter' was shaped/spearheaded from conversations by four privileged white men. Apparently they felt entitled to really weigh in on racism, diversity & inclusion. That says it all."

The first weird aspect of her tweet is that she links to an article in her own newspaper explaining that the letter was spearheaded by the writer Thomas Chatterton Williams, who is African American. This was pointed out to her by numerous correspondents, but the tweet is still up.

The second weird aspect is that she apparently believes that a letter against cancel culture, or, if one prefers, in favor of free speech and open debate, constitutes "weighing in" on "racism, diversity & inclusion."

The third weird thing is that she thinks that white men have nothing to say worth saying about these issues, which means, in effect, that white men can never usefully express an opinion on anything related to her rather capacious definition of racism, diversity & inclusion, to include opinions on freedom of speech and open debate. (This, btw, includes two of the four "white men" who have Jewish surnames. Apparently, everything from the Pittsburgh and Poway shootings to the Holocaust notwithstanding, Jews totally don't have any experience with racism.)

But what really struck me about her tweet is her implicit claim, unlike the white men in question, to be free of privilege. Fassihi is an Iranian-American, who grew up in Portland and Iran, apparently to a family of some means. She is a relatively fair-skinned Iranian Caucasian, i.e., white in American parlance (and law). Now, she might have an idiosyncratically capacious definition of "non-white," but why that would encompass Iranians but not Jews is unclear.

She attended two of the best (and most expensive) universities in the world, Harvard and Columbia, which she proudly announces in her Twitter profile. She has a high-profile position at perhaps the most powerful and prestigious media outlet in the world.

And, the kicker… According to Wikipedia, "her great-great grandmother is said to be Taj Saltaneh Qajar, the most notable daughter of Naser al-Din Shah, who ruled over Iran from 1848 to 1896."

It seems to be that in a sane world, the Ivy-educated, descendant of kleptocratic Iranian royalty employed by an extremely influential media company would not have the chutzpah to announce that other people shouldn't be expressing their opinions because they are "privileged." But like I said, we seem to be living in Crazytown.

Advertisement

NEXT: New York Is Having a Violent Summer, But It’s Not Because of Bail Reform

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. PennCentral Railroad, circa 1969…

    Change is coming, and it’s coming fast.

    1. This has nothing to do with change. Not with any good change, anyway.

  2. As the Babylon Bee suggests, liberals like cancel culture because, if it went away, they’d have to defend their opinions with logical argument.

    1. Is it just liberals that like ‘cancel culture?’ Because Colin Kaepernick, Jemele Hill, or, heck I can remember the Dixie Chicks might demur on that point…

      1. Wow. Three examples, one from 16 years ago. Good job.

        1. Oh, there’s more, these are just the most famous that immediately came to mind.

          1. How successful was he? How many times did he outline steps and a call for action for those who could effect change? How many times did he take steps himself to cancel people?

            Bluster versus actually doing things is an important distinction when judging two people accused of the same thing.

      2. Kaepernick was repeatedly proven to be objectively wrong, so IDK why you brought him up.

        Also Jemele Hill thinks Kobe is better than Jordan. IDK what other opinions she has, but I have to assume they are equally ignorant.

        1. Why, ye Godzillas of Grievance, that includes you Jemele Hill, does Colon Crapernick deserve a job in the NFL?

          He went 3-16 over his last 19 starts, and he could not complete 60% of his passes.

          1. I fully expect my Washington [football team nickname pending] to sign him after the rebranding to complete the transition to the Woke Side.

            He could fuck up a shovel pass, so he’ll fit right in with the team culture for the past two decades.

          2. Oh, yeah he’s no Peter Suderman (of a half a dozen other QBs that were certainly worse than Kaerpernick but who got *starts** after he was blackballed for speech)

            ** not to mention the back ups

            1. Peter Suderman ?

              The Reason writer?

              1. Nathan Peterman

                1. Nathan Peterman didn’t publicly disgrace his employer repeatedly. He also didn’t have Ray Lewis personally arrange for him to sign with Baltimore, then back his gf’s public assertion that Lewis was a “house slave.” Kaepernick has a long history of extremely poor decision making. Why would any employer ever want to deal with those antics?

                  1. Those antics=speech.

                    Why do you support cancel culture?

                    1. Why do you think any team should be forced to give a terrible QB a job?

                    2. Kaepernick is the one who decided to bring his speech to the job and make it part of his job. Now you want to complain that his employer might not want to keep him around because his speech is troublesome to the business that employs him? He is the one who turned his job as a football player into a job about the politics of the country.

            2. Sure Kaepernick could be a backup, or even start on a team with QB problems. But there are a lot of QBs with those characteristics. From the position of a team owner or coach, given Kaepernick’s problems, the decision not to hire would be easy. It’s easy to find so-so QBs. The reasoning would be along the lines of “I don’t need that kind of trouble.”

              1. Why do you support cancel culture?

        2. Exactly. The only NBA player better than Jordan is LeBron. Everyone knows this. ;-P

      3. “Because Colin Kaepernick…”

        Kaepernick’s problems were largely due to the fact that he was making his statements when he was getting paid to be on the football field, during the National Anthem. I doubt people would have had a problem if he’d just written letters to the editor or something.

        OTOH, people on the left went ape-shit when Tim Tebow appeared in a Superbowl add where people actually paid for the time.

        1. Lol, yes, Tebow was canceled but Kaepernick was not!

          1. Again, Tebow appeared in an ad, where the time was paid for. I have no doubt Kapernick could have done the same.

      4. The Dixie Chicks weren’t canceled for their opinion, they were cancelled for expressing that opinion in a venue in which people did not attend so as to hear a political screed without prior warning. So too with Kaepernick. He could have spent all his own time and money protesting the cops and by and large no one would have given a solitary shit. It was when his political screed entered a place where people were paying for a particular service that people got pissed off.

    2. They’d find some other way to avoid it. The left did long before cancel culture, and will long after.

  3. Nice catch! I have so little protempt (neologism alert!) for these people that I wouldn’t want to waste the few minutes you did to find such gems of hypocrisy.

    I bow to your diligence, Professor.

    1. Neologisms are groovy. In fact, they are terrafantasplendelicious.

      1. Do you watch Donut Media?

      2. Let me offer my most enthusiastic contrafibularities.

  4. “‘Does it mean you also endorse the opinions of those who also choose to sign it? That’s the question here’…In case this escapes you, the correct answers are…No.)”

    So, we shouldn’t judge people who, say, sign a BDS petition by what some other people who signed it might have said or did, correct?

    “In a sane world, the Ivy-educated, descendant of kleptocratic Iranian royalty employed by an extremely influential media company would not have the chutzpah to announce that other people shouldn’t be expressing their opinions because they are ‘privileged.'”

    So any, say, millionaire that criticized Bernie Sanders railings against the 1% by pointing out that Sanders is in the 1%, is a citizen of Crazytown?

    1. On BDS, the petitions generally reference the official BDS movement’s “economic and cultural boycott”, and if you sign on to a petition endorsing that, you assumedly endorse it. If you just sign a petition condemning Israel’s human rights abuses or some such, and it’s also signed by people you disagree with on other matters, no, you aren’t responsible for their viewpoints.
      As for Sanders and the 1%, to the extent any other 1 percenters did that, they were alluding to what they see is Sanders’ hypocrisy, which doesn’t change based on the critics own wealth. On the other hand, if they said that Sanders is a bad person, as such, because he is rich, and they are even richer, that would be analogously stupid/crazy.

      1. 1. So you’d never criticize a signer of a BDS petition based on the fact that other people that signed it might have said extreme things about Israel, violence or what not?

        2. So a rich person could never point out that, say, another (albeit less) rich person like Sanders has little ground to speak about economic inequality? Can a thin person comment that another (albeit less) thin person’s comments on policies/practices seen to impact the obese are suspect?

        1. 1. The original question was not whether you should, under any circumstances, criticize someone for having odious co-signers, but whether having odious co-signers on a letter endorsing position A “means you also endorse the opinions of those who also choose to sign it” on completely different, or at best tangentially-related issues.

          2. Your analogy would be sound if Fahissi suggested that no one privileged, including her, should offer their opinions on certain issues. Instead, her position appears to be, I’m going to pretend despite my incredibly privileged background that I’m not privileged, so I, but not they, should be allowed to speak. It would be the equivalent of someone who inherited and still has a $50 million fortune but is currently unemployed criticizing someone else for speaking out on inequality because that person draws an annual salary of $500K.

          1. 1. “completely different, or at best tangentially-related issues”

            This seems to leave quite a bit of subjective ‘wiggle room.’ It seems to me that I’ve seen a few criticisms of people signing BDS petitions (and many other causes) based on the outrageous comments of other signers, the idea being ‘the company that you keep’ is of some importance, and that’s all that, charitably, might be involved in the comment in question here.

            2. “no one privileged, including her, should offer their opinions on certain issues”
            “so I, but not they, should be allowed to speak”

            But the only ‘speaking’ she did on the subject was to say someone similarly privileged might not ‘really weigh in.’ Essentially, she just said the first part of what you offered and said would be fine…

            1. I’ll bet you’ve never been unsarcastically accused of being too smart for your own good.

        2. Why are you being so intentionally obtuse? He answered both questions, and common sense would have answered them for you, if you had any.

          1. I’m see nothing that suggests her obtuseness is intentional.

  5. Canceling “Cancel Culture” is racist. But telling white people to shut up because they are simply white is NOT racist. Also telling white people they are all the problem is not racist either. I suppose telling black people to stop committing crimes (seeing according to facts they commit a discorporate amount of crimes per their % of population) would be racist though where telling white people they are the problem is called “common sense.” I think I am getting all the doublespeak now.

    1. That’s doubleplusgood.

  6. An exception to the “If a headline asks a question” rule.

  7. “The second weird aspect is that she apparently believes that a letter against cancel culture, or, if one prefers, in favor of free speech and open debate, constitutes “weighing in” on “racism, diversity & inclusion.”

    Hmm, the letter writers themselves seemed to see some connection…From the opening paragraph of the letter: “Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts.”

    1. That the opening statement does not constitute the main point of the letter seems to have escaped your notice.

      1. That neither Professor Berenstein nor I said it was the main point seems to have escaped yours.

        1. That neither Professor Berenstein nor I said it was the main point seems to have escaped yours.

          Uh, you certainly implied that it was. That is, unless your argument is that those who affixed their signatures to the letter in question were motivated to do so primarily by the brief prefatory blurb you cited rather than the central thesis of the letter.

          So you’re being either extremely disingenuous here, or you’re just too dumb to follow your own arguments. I’ll leave it to you to tell us which is the case.

  8. “The third weird thing is that she thinks that white men have nothing to say worth saying about these issues, which means, in effect, that white men can never usefully express an opinion on anything related to her rather capacious definition of racism, diversity & inclusion, to include opinions on freedom of speech and open debate.”

    That’s not a very charitable reading of what she said, note the words ‘entitled’ and ‘really weigh in’ for example.

    1. Except the letter didn’t “really weigh in”. So, if we charitably assume she meant it in a way that the letter did ‘really weigh in’, than pretty much saying anything at all in public is ‘really weighing in’ on those issues.

      And regardless, telling a large class of people that you can’t usefully hold opinions about racism, diversity, and inclusion is ultimately going to involve that group rejecting those concerns as valid. If you truly believe those people have the real power (cf. whiteness, the patriarchy), that’s a self-defeating line of reasoning.

      1. The letter writers themselves certainly seem to have thought what they were saying had bearing on those matters, see my quote of its first paragraph, above.

        “telling a large class of people that you can’t usefully hold opinions about racism, diversity, and inclusion is ultimately going to involve that group rejecting those concerns as valid”

        That’s begging the question that that is what she did.

        1. How is that begging the question. She pretty much literally says white people aren’t entitled to hold useful opinions on these issues.

          And that quoted sentence – they’re putting the letter in context. The letter doesn’t speak to racism, diversity, or inclusion at all. It certainly doesn’t “really weigh in” on those matters. If you can’t distinguish from the letter (and free speech) being *relevant* to those matters in the current social moment, and directly touching on those matters (which is what ‘really weigh in’ should require), you only raise questions about your own competence.

    2. So ‘weigh in’ is ok but not ‘really weigh in’? one sentence is ok but two is too much. Maybe a paragraph but no more.

      And what does ‘entitled’ mean exactly? Allowed? Permitted?

      The dictionary defines it as “believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.”

      I think she is saying they have no right at all to talk about such issues. Do you disagree?

      1. “I think she is saying they have no right at all to talk about such issues. Do you disagree?”

        Yes.

        If you read much from writers writing from certain feminist or critical race or similar perspectives (as opposed to reading what their critics have to say about them), a theme or point often made is that white straight men have dominated narratives for so long that it’s hard for them to ‘get’ the experiences and attitudes/opinions of others, and the latter is what needs much more focus. That doesn’t mean white straight males have nothing to say on the issue, it just means they’ve been dominating the conversations for ages now and there should be a priority on listening to other voices.

        1. That doesn’t mean white straight males have nothing to say on the issue, it just means they’ve been dominating the conversations for ages now

          Nobody had been “dominating” any conversation.

          and there should be a priority on listening to other voices.

          The problem is that you think that requires silencing opposing voices.

          1. “Nobody had been “dominating” any conversation. ”

            Really? For ages white straight male voices didn’t dominate most mass media?

            “The problem is that you think that requires silencing opposing voices.”

            You’re not ‘silencing’ voices by not personally giving them a platform. Perhaps you disagree? If so, email me your address and I’ll be happy to stop by for a speech. Wouldn’t want to ‘silence’ me otherwise, no?

            1. Whites dominate US society by simple genetics / counting / whatever. Why would they be any different in random media positions?

              Now let’s see how you fix black dominance in the NBA and NFL.

              1. White straight males were certainly not a population-proportionate percentage of voices in our mass media for most of our history.

                1. And that’s your problem “Queen” Amalthea. You do not have any understanding of the concept of individualism. Assuming that I am a “white straight male,” my right to weigh in on issues should not be restricted because of other “white straight males” have done in the past. That is at the heart of the concept of freedom here in America.

            2. Being white or male does not mean your voice was used in the name if whiteness or maleness. It is actually very possible, and likely, that a large number of voices that happened to come from whites and males, were used on the behalf of universalist ideas such as equal rights, equal standing before the law, etc. An example would be any white male speaking for free speech rights. To impose meaning onto the message because of the genetics of the speakers says volumes about your commitment to judging people on character and merit rather than race or gender. And simply because a white man 100 years ago spoke does not invalidate my right to speak or the validity of my arguments. That people are even talking about intersectionality or whatever progressive claptrap is the topic of the day proves that there IS a voice for the historically ignored. Fredrick Douglass lived as a slave, the lowest station a black man has held in American society. And during that era… he was able to eventually have a voice that went directly to the ear of the President. Some 200 years later a black man was president himself. MLK is taught to every school child. Both of them have had a voice on the topic far outweighing mine. Do I get to claim a spot at the table and special pleading to be heard? Or, perhaps, we buy into freedom of speech and NO ONE gets special pleading. Minorities are heard more today than they ever have been. In fact, they are heard from in respectable circles (universities, news rooms, refined public conversations, etc.) than young white men who feel disaffected by the pendulum swinging from white supremacy to an inverse rather than a neutralization. I was told as a kid that we are all equal. I took that to heart. And now that I am older I am treated with disdain because of my race… that I already had my say (even if no one spoke my message… I am white therefore any white man 200 years already used up my clock). I am befuddled. I feel cheated… I spent my life not judging people by their race. I listened to them, laughed with them, fought with them, loved with them. But now those who are the self-proclaimed champions of equality and anti-racism do not treat me in kind. I was either lied to and treating people based on skin tone is right… or these people who do it today are wrong. Both positions can’t be right at the same time. At least one position is morally bankrupt. From studying history I am quite confident I know which one.

              1. Right on, Sparkstable.

              2. I have not logged into Reason’s comment section in years.

                I do so now to tell you that your comment is completely correct and eloquently stated.

                Thank you.

              3. Very well said, and it goes to the heart of the problem with today’s entitled snowflakes. Their sense of entitlement and outrage is only possible because of all the progress made by the very people they denigrate — individuals striving to make a better life. It is astoundingly ironic that all they want to do is tear down the society which makes their caterwauling possible, instead of improving society and creating more personal wealth so their descendants can live a better life.

                Black slaves didn’t get freedom and a better life because whites of the era tore down statues, or even because they went to war to overthrow slavery. Freedom and progress came from hard and clever work, from wanting to make lots of money by selling better products to lots of people, and by not acting like spoiled entitled brats.

                If your clowns truly want to reform (not defund, what a stupid concept) police, they can start by getting jobs, working their asses off, making a difference in society, and voting against corrupt politicians. It may be significant that the biggest and worst cities have been run for decades by Democrats who put in place the corrupt police, but more likely it is because government is violence personified, and the way to reform the police is to reform the police, not by rioting and burning and pulling down statues.

                Stop signalling virtue; stop acting virtuous; start being virtuous. All it would take is simple stuff that any truly virtuous person can do: call politicians, write letters, show up at their offices and talk to them in person. Rioting and protesting just gives them chances to signal their own faux-virtue with TV appearances and campaign speeches. Stop voting for them. Don’t vote for lookalikes who want to overthrow the “corrupt” capitalist system which created the wealth which made their protests possible and improved life for the very people they claim to speak for (why do you pretend they have no agency to speak for themselves?); vote for candidates who have no track record of lies and corruption.

                Grow up is another word for it. Take some responsibility for the future.

            3. You’re not ‘silencing’ voices by not personally giving them a platform.

              If that’s the case, then it doesn’t really matter who dominated “most mass media” (you know, platforms for speech) for ages, does it? And if your argument is that a letter like this is in no way comparable to a platform like mass media, then how exactly does a letter like this in any way detract/prevent you or anyone else from listening to those you think have not had access to such platforms?

  9. It should be pointed out it is hypocritical to rail against the oppression Olympics while taking part in it yourself.

  10. The second weird aspect is that she apparently believes that a letter against cancel culture, or, if one prefers, in favor of free speech and open debate, constitutes “weighing in” on “racism, diversity & inclusion.”

    compare (source):

    Referring to law enforcement, [New York University professor David Kirkland] declared: “What does it mean when your job is to enforce the law when the law is explicitly racist? It means enforcing racism.”

    Defending freedom of speech / open debate is “racism.” Enforcing criminal laws is “racism.” Is every good & decent thing “racism” now?

    1. You left out “explicitly racist”, perhaps explicitly. Very few laws are explicitly racist. If you want to condemn cops for vowing to uphold all laws, racist or not, current or future, feel free, I’ll even join you. But it is not racist to uphold non-explicitly-racist laws.

      1. If you look at the original tweet in context, he seems to be referring to “the law” in general, not specific, explicitly racist laws, because he says we need entirely new institutions. Given that I can’t think offhand of ANY *explicitly* racist laws, I’m not sure why we would need entirely new institutions if we are limiting ourselves to that category. The good news is that he’s an NYU professor, but not a law professor. https://twitter.com/davidekirkland/status/1266877605002829824

      2. Oh, for goodness’ sake. Grinberg is obvs. sarcastic here. He doesn’t think the law is racist, any more than he thinks that the letter “against cancel culture, or, if one prefers, in favor of free speech and open debate,” is racist. He thinks they are “racist” (scare quotes intended).

      3. I guess I should have been clearer that my comment was meant to be as sarcastic as what i was replying to.

        This whole topic is just crying out for sarcasm. Even the Babylon Bee can’t top this. Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to sound plausible. Nothing in this topic sounds plausible except in the context of tomorrow’s even less plausible followup.

  11. The only way to deal with this living in crazytown is to be “Financially Independent, Retire Early“ and to have a “ride or die” crew.

    1. Better have a good asset allocation, and a really low withdrawal rate = FIRE 🙂

  12. Crazytown is paying any attention at all to anything on Twitter.

    1. There are your standard Twitter trolls, who aren’t worth paying attention to, then there are prominent New York Times reporters and senior editors at Vox.

      1. The Crazytown aspect for me is the growing number of letter signatories who are now renouncing the letter. The illogic of it all is simply stunning. Real Alice in Wonderland stuff.

      2. but you repeat yourself.

      3. And coming soon, solons in your government councils and courts.

      4. Wait, there’s a difference between senior editors at Vox and standard Twitter trolls?

        I mean, I’ll grant you New York Times reporters… barely. They’re chasing ‘equity’ in this field, though. (NYT has been downhill ever since they started using color photos – unrelated, but that’s about when the slide started. It’s barely useful as a *news*paper these days.)

  13. Prof. Bernstein, for those of us who were reading “Reason” for years before the Volokh invasion, the Crazytown of Marxist Critical Theory isn’t a new place. So, welcome to the party, I guess. There’s beer in the fridge.

  14. Perhaps, like Asa Earl Carter did in his fake autobiography The Education of Little Tree, she is impersonating a non-white person in order to forward an agenda that appears superficially to be on the side of non-white people, but is actually exactly the opposite.

  15. The sad thing is, the Right isn’t the only group of people who are gullible and can be played by people willing to appeal to their basest instincts.

    In this case, the desire to socially one-up others by appearing more morally righteous than the next person is one of the basest instincts human beings have. But the Right also has its demagogues capable of appealing to base instincts.

    1. You seem to think, though, that among people who are gullible and can be played by people willing to appeal to their basest instincts the Right has pride of place. Doubtful. Circumspice.

  16. I think Jennifer had it backwards, but is on to something?

    Do we judge opinions/arguments on their merits or on who makes them? We allow people platforms based on who makes the argument not merit. Honestly, Prof Bernstein last brought this up with Tom Cotton’s piece that was given space in the NYT, not for merit, but apparently unseen, because he was Tom Cotton.

    That’s the crux of the problem, the people who have outsized access to the marketplace of ideas are now mad that their positions of power are being threatened. Once upon a time, an opinion like Cotton’s would have sat in the Sunday paper in every house, with no substantial challenge. Now they are challenged immediately and vocally and they don’t want to hear it.

    Too bad, I say. The marketplace of ideas is the most libertarian economy we have left. The idea that the MacArthurs (Harpers) should define the discourse is a thing of the past and we are better for it. Let the people speak.

    1. The opinions of Senators Cotton and Sanders would have been side by side in the day.

    2. So you’re saying the NYT reporter has too much NYT privilege and should shut up and let the less-privileged speak for themselves?

    3. You address your argument to publishers, gatekeepers. Hm.

      We readers, by contrast, who aspire to judge not tribes but arguments, judge by their merit.

      Publishers may select for any reasons whatever, as you observe. Everyone has rights to do good or bad. People commonly choose for reasons of self-interest: commercial, ideological, whatever.

      A publisher’s purpose is often largely (if seldom wholly) to purvey argument seriously and honestly. Insofar as that is so, in selection he should subordinate his self-interests to the merit of the arguments.

  17. Anybody who’s seen the NY Community education council meeting shouldn’t have to ask if NY Crazytown.

    Nutjob1: It hurts people to see a white man bouncing a black baby on his lap!

    Relatively Sane Person: Can someone explain how that’s racist?

    Nutjob1: Read a book! Read White Fragility!

    Nutjob2: Maybe the reason we can’t explain it is that we don’t have the language. Maybe we need more antiracist training to be able to explain why that’s racist.

    1. I think that might well be the greatest amount of bat-shit crazy packed into a single YT video that I’ve ever seen. And that includes compilation videos of things like people intentionally sticking their heads in the mouths of apex predators.

    2. I watched the previous meeting where the “incident” is said to have occurred. The “racist” was a bit of a dick in the wild vid you posted (with that being the only context I had I gave WAY MORE credibility… which was already very little… to the woke crowd) so I had an idea of what happened in my head. When I went back and watched the actual vid of his supposed racist actions I was like “You have GOT TO HE FUCKING KIDDING ME!!!” He was one of the most sober and open minded people on the whole committee. His actions were SO blown out of proportion and distorted. I really couldn’t believe it.

  18. You are attempting to apply intelligence and reason to a movement that actively rejects both.

  19. I was going to say I endorse the letter, but seeing who I’m agreeing with gives me pause.

    1. So if you’re tempted to say that smoking is unhealthy, but it gives you pause to see how the Nazis made a big deal about the health risks of smoking?

  20. Even weirder was a tweet by New York Times reporter Farnaz Fassihi…

    The weird thing is that you find something so bereft of intelligence and honesty coming from a “journalist”….especially a left-wing one…weird.

  21. Frankly, I don’t understand why people even bother being bothered by the woke crusade. They haven’t earned the right to be listened to. They certainly don’t want to listen to /you/.

    Ignore unreasonable people. They’re unreasonable.

    1. You may not be interested in the revolution, but the revolution is interested in you.

    2. It will be harder to ignore them when they are in the councils of state and the courts of appeal.

  22. The radical left truly loves guilt by association.

    Group guilt is the socialist equivalent of one bad apple, the cure for which is to destroy the barrel rather than remove the rot. It’s not surgical precision, certainly, but it rids the collective of a lot of potentially harmful contaminating counter thoughts and free-thinking.

  23. Ms. Fassihi may well be qualified to discourse on “race”–after all, the late Shah was styled Aryamehr (‘Light of the Aryans’). Like Beethoven, Goethe, Hitler, and Wagner are undoubtedly rolling over.

  24. I’ve been targeted by far-left creeps I knew in high school because my surname is German and a particular boy I was once sweet on in tenth grade harbored a hate-on when I wasn’t allowed to go to a school dance with him because a couple of other mothers approached mine and told her there was something dangerous about him and his older brother, whom they knew, and my mom had read his problematic personal notes to me, (without my permission.)

    At the time, I fought my mother for the permission to date him eventually, but he had immediately turned stone cold hateful toward me and told other people my family are Nazis, racists, and similar tripe just to smear me.  Evidently he didn’t care about me, other than to possess me.

    Fast forward to today, and the truth is both he and his brother are gay pedophile sadists and more. Lesson learned.

    Truth is I’m one quarter German, one quarter Danish, one half English/ Scottish, French Alsace Lorraine and Irish, with perhaps some native American blood from 2 generations ago and Jewish ancestry, and I was never raised to be racist or an anti-semite.

    We weren’t Nazis, eugenicists, killers, or haters, but by coincidence of my German (albeit Anglicized) surname, this boy and his fellow socialist creeps condemned and targeted me and my family.

    I’ve never chosen to be racist as an adult, and my German family emigrated to the Colonies in the 1700s and 1800s, way before the sick world of WWII European fascism, but guilt by association via bloodline or ideology is practiced by creeps, period.  They should never be brooked.

    Names and words are nothing, except in the echo chamber of printed literature and the eternal internet cache, and they almost certainly never necessarily comprise the truth.  Unfortunately, implied evil by association, however tenuous or disingenuous, will prevail among the dark-hearted or brainwashed, and they are everywhere.  It would seem we spend good money to teach the next generation this satanic junk in both secular and religious schools.

    I’ve been targeted by far-left creeps I knew in high school because my surname is German and a particular boy I was once sweet on in tenth grade harbored a hate-on when I wasn’t allowed to go to a school dance with him because a couple of other mothers approached mine and told her there was something dangerous about him and his older brother, whom they knew, and my mom had read his problematic personal notes to me, (without my permission.)

    At the time, I fought my mother for the permission to date him eventually, but he had immediately turned stone cold toward me and told other people my family are Nazis, racists, and similar tripe just to smear me.  Evidently he didn’t care about me, other than to possess me.

    Fast forward to today, and the truth is both he and his brother are gay pedophile sadists and more.

    Lesson learned.

    Truth is I’m one quarter German, one quarter Danish, one half English/ Scottish, French Alsace Lorraine and Irish, with perhaps some native American blood from 2 generations ago and Jewish ancestry, and I was never raised to be racist or an anti-semite.

    We weren’t Nazis, eugenicists, killers, or haters, but by coincidence of my German (albeit Anglicized) surname, this boy and his fellow socialist creeps condemned and targeted me and my family.

    I’ve never chosen to be racist as an adult, and my German family emigrated to the Colonies in the 1700s and 1800s, way before the world of WWII European fascism.

    I’ve learned that guilt by association, no matter how tenuous via bloodline or ideology, is practiced by creeps, period.  And that these creeps and their damaged reasoning should never be brooked.

    I’ve been targeted by far-left creeps I knew in high school because my surname is German and a particular boy I was once sweet on in tenth grade harbored a hate-on when I wasn’t allowed to go to a school dance with him because a couple of other mothers approached mine and told her there was something dangerous about him and his older brother, whom they knew, and my mom had read his problematic personal notes to me, (without my permission.)

    At the time, I fought my mother for the permission to date him eventually, but he had immediately turned stone cold toward me and told other people my family are Nazis, racists, and similar tripe just to smear me.  Evidently he didn’t care about me, other than to possess me.

    Fast forward to today, and the truth that everybody know in our alma mater is that both he and his brother are gay pedophile sadists and worse.

    Lesson learned.

    Truth is I’m one quarter German, one quarter Danish, one half English/ Scottish, French Alsace Lorraine and Irish, with perhaps some native American blood from 2 generations ago and Jewish ancestry, and I was never raised to be racist or an anti-semite.

    We weren’t Nazis, eugenicists, killers, or haters, but by coincidence of my German (albeit Anglicized) surname, this boy and his fellow socialist creeps condemned and targeted me and my family.

    I’ve never chosen to be racist as an adult, and my German family emigrated to the Colonies in the 1700s and 1800s, way before the world of WWII European fascism.

    I’ve learned that guilt by association, no matter how tenuous via circumstance, attitudes, bloodline or ideology, is practiced by creeps, period.  And that these creeps and their damaged reasoning should never be brooked.

    We should be able to agree or disagree with a specific statement of principle without being accused of or slimed with any tangential detritus from other agreeing parties’ thoughts or past associations.

    I’ve been targeted by far-left creeps I knew in high school because my surname is German and a particular boy I was once sweet on in tenth grade harbored a hate-on when I wasn’t allowed to go to a school dance with him because a couple of other mothers approached mine and told her there was something dangerous about him and his older brother, whom they knew, and my mom had read his problematic personal notes to me, (without my permission.)

    At the time, I fought my mother for the permission to date him, eventually, but he had immediately turned stone cold toward me and told other people my family are Nazis, racists, and similar tripe just to smear me.  Evidently he didn’t care about me, other than to possess me.

    Fast forward to today, and the truth is everybody knows that both he and his brother are gay pedophile sadists and worse.

    Lesson learned.

    Truth is I’m one quarter German, one quarter Danish, one half English/ Scottish, French Alsace Lorraine and Irish, with perhaps some native American blood from 2 generations ago and Jewish ancestry, and I was never raised to be racist or an anti-Semite.

    We weren’t Nazis, eugenicists, killers, or haters, but by coincidence of my German (albeit Anglicized) surname, this boy and his fellow socialist creeps condemned and targeted me and my family.

    My German family emigrated to the Colonies in the 1700s and 1800s, way before the world of WWII European fascism, and I was never raised to be or chose to be racist or a religious bigot as an adult.

    I’ve learned that guilt by association, no matter how tenuous via circumstance, attitudes, bloodline or ideology, is practiced by creeps, period.  And that these creeps and their damaged reasoning should never be brooked.

    We should be able to agree or disagree with an action or specific statement of principle without being accused of or slimed with any tangential detritus from one’s distant (benign) heritage or other agreeing parties’ separate thinking or past associations.  

    On the other hand, it should always be noted when we opine and act like hypocrites and guilty of that of which we accuse others of being.

  25. Btw, a one-time edit function would be groovy…

  26. Or a preview.

  27. Ok, the above “preview” edited:

    I’ve been targeted by far-left creeps I knew in high school because my surname is German and a particular boy I was once sweet on in tenth grade harbored a hate-on when I wasn’t allowed to go to a school dance with him because a couple of other mothers approached mine and told her there was something dangerous about him and his older brother, whom they knew, and my mom had read his problematic personal notes to me, (without my permission.)

    At the time, I fought my mother for the permission to date him eventually, but he had immediately turned stone cold hateful toward me and told other people my family were Nazis, racists, and similar tripe just to smear me.  Evidently he didn’t care about me, other than to possess me.  Fast forward to today, and the truth is both he and his brother are gay pedophile/Progressive/Communist sadists and more.  What a lesson learned for me, but I remain really sad for them and those children.

    Truth is I’m one quarter German, one quarter Danish, one half English/ Scottish, French Alsace Lorraine and Irish, with perhaps some native American blood from 2 generations ago and Jewish ancestry, and I was never raised to be racist or an anti-Semite.  We weren’t Nazis, eugenicists, killers, communists, or haters, but by coincidence of my German (albeit Anglicized) surname, this boy and his fellow socialist creeps condemned and targeted me and my family out of personal animus, lies, and spite.

    My German family emigrated to the Colonies in the 1700s and 1800s, way before the sick world of WWII European fascism, but, apparently, guilt by association via ancestral (non-implicated) bloodlines or others’ ideology is practiced by creeps and should never be brooked.

    Names and words are nothing, except in the echo chamber of printed literature and the eternal internet cache, and they almost certainly never necessarily comprise the truth.  Unfortunately, implied evil by association, however tenuous or disingenuous, will prevail among the dark-hearted or brainwashed, and they are everywhere.  It would seem we spend good money to teach the next generation this satanic junk in both secular and religious schools.

    We should be able to agree or disagree with specific statements of principle without being accused of or slimed with any tangential, imagined, or manufactured detritus from other agreeing parties’ thoughts or past associations.  On the other hand, it should always be noted when we opine and act like hypocrites and are guilty of that which we accuse others of being.

    1. Well, Germans do have a reputation for persistency 🙂

Please to post comments