Except this is not aggression, but response - a necessary karma pushback against people who have already been far too successful at canceling their opponents.

Many on the Left exploit the reluctance of Conservatives and big-L Liberals to repay the politics of personal attack in the same coin.

Time to take off the gloves is long past.

As The Donald has shown.

Ben-David has a point. Cancel culture has been used for too long by leftists to ruin the lives of conservatives and even other liberals who don't toe the line on every since microissue.

If conservatives want to respond in kind, I can hardly cry foul.

Even though I agree that freedom of speech applies especially to those who don't agree with me and even for ideas that I know beyond all doubt are totally ridiculous.

I only draw the line when those ideas present a clear and present danger to others.

It is a prisoner's dilemma problem. When one party acts poorly and can benefit by acting poorly they have no reason to stop. Oddly the solution is to have a least common denominator of civilized behavior. When both act poorly together and are punished together then both will walk away from their bad behavior to mutual benefit.

Progressives have set the rules. Let them live by the rules.

Once they're ready to go back to the old rules, we can have that discussion. Meanwhile, take those scalps.

To ask is to answer: would this institution of higher learning employ a member of the Nazi Party?

Time to take off the gloves is long past. ~ Ben david at May 20, 2020 3:57 AM

An eye for an eye, eh?

"Very good. That way the whole world will be blind and toothless." ~ Tevya

While I agree it's time the Democrats and Leftists got a taste of their own medicine, I wonder if electing The Donald wasn't burning down the house to kill a cockroach.

While I agree it's time the Democrats and Leftists got a taste of their own medicine, I wonder if electing The Donald wasn't burning down the house to kill a cockroach.

Conan the Grammarian at May 20, 2020 8:07 AM

I chose not to elect his opponent, the queen cockroach.

Under other circumstances I would agree; but, not in this case.

In this case, this person is someone who supports the Anti-Israel (really anti-Jewish) BDS movement which includes the actions of boycotting and/or excluding Israeli academics. This BDS movement is against free speech for others.

This statement from the student group sums it up nicely:

" . . selected an individual who has worked to hinder international dialogue."

This goes to the very core of what academia should be about - sharing ideas and discussing those ideas, especially those ideas that one disagrees with. This interim dean sounds like the opposite of what academia should be about.

Israel is a state-- a political organization-- not an individual. Individuals have rights; states (collectives) do not. I oppose all political organizations-- especially states-- because the political means is antisocial in every instance. I don't oppose Israel more (or less) than any other state, but I do oppose it because it's a state.

I don't oppose Jews; Jews are people, not a state. I don't oppose Americans, but I do oppose the USA (the government/state which infests America). I can be against every state on the planet without being against any individuals.

> I wonder if electing The Donald
> wasn't burning down the house
> to kill a cockroach.

That's a best-case metaphor. I'd say indescribable loses are being suffered for much less; killing a cockroach is almost always worthwhile.

Israel is an ethnostate that will put a few Arabs in the Kensett for window dressing but wants to maintain an ethnic Jewish majority. It also keeps a large Arab population under brutal repression because if it didn't the Jewish majority would be demographically overwhelmed.

I think Israel should be forced to grant all the Palestinians Israeli citizenship. None of this two state solution crap, a one state solution--like the kind that was forced on South Africa. And if the Arabs outbreed and outvote the Jews well that's democracy.

There is a lot of sleight of hand going on. If you dare suggest that the Chinese government hid their statistics on corona (and maybe it was a gov't lab accident) you are both a racist (for criticizing a gov't) and a conspiracy theorist. People are calling the BDS movement merely about politics (per Kent above) but it is in many cases linked to financial assistance to terrorists and even overt calls for genocide. Should a prof be calling for genocide? I think that is a bad look for a school.

I'm sorry, but having principles means you live by them, regardless of what anyone else does. "Payback" does not make it right. If you believe in free speech, you back it. Doesn't matter what someone else has done, you either believe in it, and back it, or you obviously never did believe in it to begin with, you just want an excuse to shut down the other side.

-

...killing a cockroach is almost always worthwhile. ~ Crid at May 20, 2020 11:50 AM

I'm not entirely sure that killing, or at least wounding, what our political culture was becoming wasn't worthwhile as well, although I concede that electing Trump may have been pouring gasoline on the fire - as the entrenched political culture seems to be fighting back with a unforeseen vengeance.

Politicians are ignoring the message voters sent then in 2016. The Democratic nomination process was chock full of veteran political operatives wedded to and dependent upon the status quo - yes, even Bernie who has been a member of the US Congress since 1991.
-

This appears to be about actually hiring a Jew hater, rather than simply letting Jew haters speak their mind on the campus green.

Feldman is a candidate to head a department of international affairs. One of the primary job duties of a dean is to facilitate the exchange of academically rigorous work of all scholars, not just the work of scholars with which she agrees, or who come from societies politically acceptable to her. Contrary to the requirements of the job to which she aspires, Feldman has publicly endorsed a policy that excludes scholars for political, not academic, reasons.

The issue isn't that she has expressed pro-Palestinian views. The issue is that she had endorsed an ideological position that conflicts with the requirements of her job.

Can an engineering dean who publicly calls for terminating academic relationships with Chinese universities for political reasons complain when Chinese grad students protest his appointment? Would the issue be freedom of speech, or his ability to perform his work duties?

Any scholar who endorses academic boycotts is unqualified to serve in university administration.

Ben Q Anon: "It also keeps a large Arab population under brutal repression because if it didn't the Jewish majority would be demographically overwhelmed."

Wow, Ben Q, you are nothing short of ignorant of history and of basic facts.

The Israelis declared a independent state and were immediately attacked by neighboring Arabs with the intent of wiping them off the map. They fought to defend themselves in that war and more wars intended to wipe them off the map. In the process Israel gained more ground than they originally claimed. Spoils of war one might call it. But, did Israel declare that new territory all their own and kick every single non-Jew out? That was meant as a rhetorical question; but, given your historical ignorance I'll give you the answer; NO, Israel did not do that.

Today, if you know the facts, Israel and the US do more for those "repressed" Arabs than any other country, including the so called Palestinian leaders. Israeli hospitals take in Palestinians in need of medical care. Can a Jew seek medical treatment in a hospital in an Arab country? Those Palestinian leaders and other Arab leaders are more interested in using the Palestinians as cannon fodder in their war to wipe Israel off the map and kill every Jew that they can.

Also, one has to ask: why are their Arab refugees decades later and why are there no Jewish refugees? Didn't both "sides" have displaced people? The answer is yes, both Arabs and Jews were displaced. But, the reason there are Arabs (Palestinians) still living in "refugee camps" decades later is because, despite all their claims of caring for Palestinians, most Arab countries don't give a shit about the Palestinians except for their propaganda value. Israel on the other hand has taken in Jewish refugees and given them a new home and better opportunities.

Ask yourself why Israel has an Arab population (for window dressing? Man, that statement is laughably ignorant) while the Jewish population of Arab countries no longer exist. From Morocco to Tehran there were about 1 million Jews living across the Arab/Muslim world who were forced out of their homes by their neighbors (right friendly neighbors, ay?). Israel took them in instead of forcing them into "camps."

Ask yourself: What would happen to a Arab in Israel if he wandered into a majority Jewish neighborhood? then ask what would happen if a Jew wandered into a majority Arab neighborhood in a neighboring Arab country? Oh, wait, the second couldn't possibly happen because the minute a Jew stepped foot into most Arab countries he would not even have the chance to wander anywhere before he would be killed.

Educate yourself pal, your ignorance is appalling.