Greenwald: "CNN submits to right-wing outrage mob, fires Marc Lamont Hill due to his 'offensive' defense of Palestinians at the UN"
I am so sick and tired of people faking (or not) being "offended" as a way to shut down any discussion they don't like. Grow the fuck up--left, right and center. Life is being constantly offended. Democracy is being constantly offended. Deal with it.
Here's the situation as per Glenn Greenwald in full; here's a taste, and the key point:
There are few people more craven or contemptible than those who pretend to support free expression and oppose the attempts of “internet mobs” to have those they disagree with fired, only to instantly change positions when it comes to those whose views diverge from their own. Seth Mandel is the poster child for such principle-free, duplicitous frauds, but he is far from alone.
Our discourse, our newsrooms, and our academic institutions are now drowning with people who demand that any speech be banned and suppressed that they regard as “hurtful,” “offensive,” “traumatizing,” or fostering a feeling of being “unsafe.” But what they really mean is that they want speech suppressed that they and those who agree with them find “hurtful” and “traumatizing.” Speech that makes their political enemies feel offended, uncomfortable or unsafe is heralded as brave and provocative.
That double standard is unsustainable. It’s empty and depraved. It is certain to consume not just one’s political enemies but also one’s political allies, as CNN’s firing of Marc Lamont Hill just demonstrated.
[...]
If you’re someone who demands that speech be suppressed or punished if it’s “hurtful” or “offensive,” or that adults have the right to be shielded from “traumatizing” ideas that make them feel “unsafe,” you should congratulate yourself – regardless of your ideology – for your great victory in having Hill fired from CNN. There really is no doubt that the opinions he expressed, just as was true for Salaita and Nasr, were hurtful, traumatic and offensive to many.
But that’s the nature of having free thought and vibrant debate among adults: ideas that are offensive will sometimes be aired; adults will sometimes feel negative emotions from hearing the viewpoints of others; traumatizing events and thoughts will sometimes be discussed; journalism and political expression will sometimes be upsetting.
Nobody gets to create a standard where ideas that are “hurtful” and “traumatizing” to them are barred, whereas ideas that have the same effect on their political adversaries are permitted or celebrated. You either support a standard in which one has the right to engage in free political expression without punishment or you recognize that you are one who is laying the groundwork for this never-ending bickering, in which various online mobs relentlessly, and with increasing success, ensure that anyone expressing views they find upsetting are fired.
I'm actually not for a one-state solution in I/P, at least in the near-term. I'm frankly for a no-state solution for everyone, in the long-term. I am not "for BDS" in that blanket, idiotic way: I'm for targeted boycotts and divestments, on a case-by-case basis. I actually had some dealings during the Gaza Freedom March with the BDS leadership. They suck. Little Lenins who play appalling hardball.
But I don't sit down and weep if someone raises the issue of a one-state solution or in favor of BDS, let alone try to shut down the discussion. That's totalitarian--and craven--no matter who does it on any topic for any reason. It's what craven losers do. Don't tolerate it, ever.
Or course, the only way this will stop is if you call out people on your own side who do this shit. You won't, so it'll continue.
PS: Petition below; sign it. And here's the "offensive" speech. It's completely within legal and moral norms. If it's mere utterance makes you want to grab your pee-pee parts and put your thumb in your mouth as you weep, you're either a craven liar or a weakling. Either way, you don't get a pass.
Here's the situation as per Glenn Greenwald in full; here's a taste, and the key point:
There are few people more craven or contemptible than those who pretend to support free expression and oppose the attempts of “internet mobs” to have those they disagree with fired, only to instantly change positions when it comes to those whose views diverge from their own. Seth Mandel is the poster child for such principle-free, duplicitous frauds, but he is far from alone.
Our discourse, our newsrooms, and our academic institutions are now drowning with people who demand that any speech be banned and suppressed that they regard as “hurtful,” “offensive,” “traumatizing,” or fostering a feeling of being “unsafe.” But what they really mean is that they want speech suppressed that they and those who agree with them find “hurtful” and “traumatizing.” Speech that makes their political enemies feel offended, uncomfortable or unsafe is heralded as brave and provocative.
That double standard is unsustainable. It’s empty and depraved. It is certain to consume not just one’s political enemies but also one’s political allies, as CNN’s firing of Marc Lamont Hill just demonstrated.
[...]
If you’re someone who demands that speech be suppressed or punished if it’s “hurtful” or “offensive,” or that adults have the right to be shielded from “traumatizing” ideas that make them feel “unsafe,” you should congratulate yourself – regardless of your ideology – for your great victory in having Hill fired from CNN. There really is no doubt that the opinions he expressed, just as was true for Salaita and Nasr, were hurtful, traumatic and offensive to many.
But that’s the nature of having free thought and vibrant debate among adults: ideas that are offensive will sometimes be aired; adults will sometimes feel negative emotions from hearing the viewpoints of others; traumatizing events and thoughts will sometimes be discussed; journalism and political expression will sometimes be upsetting.
Nobody gets to create a standard where ideas that are “hurtful” and “traumatizing” to them are barred, whereas ideas that have the same effect on their political adversaries are permitted or celebrated. You either support a standard in which one has the right to engage in free political expression without punishment or you recognize that you are one who is laying the groundwork for this never-ending bickering, in which various online mobs relentlessly, and with increasing success, ensure that anyone expressing views they find upsetting are fired.
I'm actually not for a one-state solution in I/P, at least in the near-term. I'm frankly for a no-state solution for everyone, in the long-term. I am not "for BDS" in that blanket, idiotic way: I'm for targeted boycotts and divestments, on a case-by-case basis. I actually had some dealings during the Gaza Freedom March with the BDS leadership. They suck. Little Lenins who play appalling hardball.
But I don't sit down and weep if someone raises the issue of a one-state solution or in favor of BDS, let alone try to shut down the discussion. That's totalitarian--and craven--no matter who does it on any topic for any reason. It's what craven losers do. Don't tolerate it, ever.
Or course, the only way this will stop is if you call out people on your own side who do this shit. You won't, so it'll continue.
PS: Petition below; sign it. And here's the "offensive" speech. It's completely within legal and moral norms. If it's mere utterance makes you want to grab your pee-pee parts and put your thumb in your mouth as you weep, you're either a craven liar or a weakling. Either way, you don't get a pass.