Categories
education and schooling First Amendment rights ideological culture

Bright Sheng Dimmed

Resolved: pedagogic enthusiasm plus naivety about the likely reactions of the “safe space” brigade shouldn’t be a burning-at-the-stake kind of offense. 

Or any kind of firing offense.

Bright Sheng, University of Michigan professor of composition and survivor of China’s Cultural Revolution, showed his class the 1965 movie “Othello,” which stars Laurence Olivier. Olivier was in blackface. 

Sheng failed to give a trigger warning so that safe-space aficionados could either gird their loins or skip the class.

Uh oh.

As Reason magazine’s Robby Soave notes, Olivier’s use of blackface “was controversial even at the time.”

Given the sub-venial nature of the sin, what might any sane-but-offended student have done? Go up after class and say, “Gee, Professor Sheng, love your class, but shouldn’t you have made some preparatory comment about the blackface? Well, have a nice day.”

But no. It’s got to be a wailing reenactment of Edvard Munch’s painting The Scream, with rabid students (and others) demanding Sheng be booted. No attention to context, no proportionality, no common sense.

Sheng has offered an abject apology, saying, in part, that “time has changed, and I made a mistake in showing the film, and I am very sorry.”

Was the mob demanding his ouster appeased? No. The mob never is.

The professor has for now stopped teaching his class, and the university is “investigating.”

The investigation actually needed, alas, will not be done. What administrators must discover is a backbone.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment ideological culture Regulating Protest

“He’s Got a Weapon!”

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it.

Voltaire

Our enemies are ridiculous. So why do they seem to be winning?

For today’s lesson, catch the pro-trans protests outside the offices of Netflix. Trans activists and a few of Netflix’s own trans employees were protesting the occasion of the online streaming giant’s “platforming” of comedian Dave Chappelle, whose latest special, The Closer, took a few digs at the huge influence that the tiny trans “community” has on American cultural and political life. 

Chappelle referred to the way J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books, was treated online for defending biological women, declared himself a feminist on “Team TERF,” and talked about a trans friend of his who committed suicide after defending him online in a previous comedy special trans-fracas. 

Did Chappelle say something untrue? Unfunny? Doesn’t matter. What he said, protesters proclaimed, was hurtful.

Each of us will judge all that in our own way. But we should be able to agree on one thing: the way the small protest mob treated one counter-protester was not truthful but very ridiculous

Relevant details: a man attended the event holding aloft a sign saying “We Like Dave” on the obverse and “Jokes Are Funny” on the reverse.

A protester on the trans side of the divide tore up his sign, leaving him holding the naked stick, then shouting, “He’s got a weapon!” The crowd echoed, “He’s got a weapon!”

Activists these days often say “speech is violence” and “words are weapons.” Here, they violently rob a man of his speech and declare what’s left of his attempt a literal weapon. They think they are clever. But they are merely ridiculous.

Not funny like Dave Chappelle.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture partisanship

Authoritarian Ardor

Glenn Greenwald calls it a “mountain of data.” 

On his Rumble account, “System Update,” the journalist shows “how authoritarian self-identified followers of the Democratic Party have become.”

While admitting that “authoritarian tendencies” are in every group, Greenwald insists that “when you examine this data . . . and really compile it, and look all at once at it, it is extraordinary — no matter how low your expectations are of Democrats — how authoritarian they have become, particularly in the wake of the Trump years.”

Citing Pew Research from August, the well-known reporter begins by showing how opinions on free speech have diverged over the last three years: while Republicans wanting the federal government to “take steps to restrict false info online” declined from 37 percent to 28 percent, Democratic support rose from 40 percent to 65 percent. 

And the itch to have tech companies do the dirty work for the federal government “even if it limits freedom of info” shows the same spread: R’s went down 9 points and D’s went up a whopping sixteen!

Greenwald also explores Democrats’ enduring affection for corporate media news, how enthusiastic Democratic politicians are for curbing the basic rights of their political opponents, and how much ardor Democrats show the CIA and the FBI.

All the data, Greenwald insists, shows Democrats getting “more authoritarian by the minute.”

Why?

It might best be looked at in an insider/outsider context. Democrats are becoming more authoritarian because it is their hold on power that they are defending, and Republicans are reacting against that stranglehold. An old principle may be at work: outside of power, people tend to demand freedom; inside, they demand more power.

Authoritarianism is more appealing to insiders, viewing themselves as “authorities.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Greenwald

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
education and schooling ideological culture

Burning Down the House

A sign of the times: in Virginia’s gubernatorial race, the Democrat, Terry McAuliffe, is brazenly telling voters: “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

Presumably, parents should just sit back, relax, and let their children be indoctrinated at will, including with the latest “anti-racist” racism.

Of course, we’re being assailed on many fronts. Things seem to be cracking up faster than ever, which is the theme of a recent Legal Insurrection post, “Gradually and Then Suddenly,” published on the blog’s thirteenth anniversary.

William Jacobson argues that for years now, “all the ‘progressive’ pieces were in place but needed a spark to burn the house down.”

The spark was the death of George Floyd in May 2020, followed by “state-sanctioned lawlessness, rioting, and looting; a vicious cultural purge from academia to corporations to the military to historical monuments; gaslighting and burying of news by a corrupt and dishonest mainstream corporate media and Big Tech; and the solidification of our post-truth world . . . where telling facts some people don’t like can get you fired, denounced, and boycotted.”

In addition to fighting back, Jacobson advises that we prep for the worst. This means, for one thing, stocking up on food with a long shelf life. (The preppers were “early,” not wrong.) We should also rely more on each other rather than on institutions. 

Jacobson provides a bonus tip (one I’ve also advised): If at all possible, get your kids the heck out of the public schools.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

burning house

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom ideological culture

The Unhinging of the World Mind

Dr. Mattias Desmet, of the University of Ghent, teaches Gustave Le Bon’s The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind (1895) and how crowd psychology explains totalitarian movements. 

But even he didn’t see, right away, how “mass-formation” (his Le Bonian theory) explains the madness of the coronavirus pandemic.

I am still processing Desmet’s ideas, having caught parts of his Pandemic Podcast interview, but judge them important enough to pass on.

Le Bon’s main conjecture was that crowds, in certain conditions, form a “group mind,” the “psychological crowd” quite distinct from the individuals inside it in their normal course of life. Desmet, expanding on this, says that when key conditions are met, alarming developments can occur. When people suffer from

1. social isolation, with

2. lack of ‘sense making,’

3. free-floating anxiety, and

4. and general discontent,

they can become unhinged.

Into this situation comes the hinge to hang it all on: a demagogue, a revolutionary political party, or . . . news purveyors pressing one theme relentlessly. In the current pandemic, politicians, bureaucrats, and mainstream media offered a focusing issue and a means of alleviating it: mask-wearing, lockdowns, and subsidized, rushed-to-market vaccines.

And then mandates galore.

This sort of crowd can get really ugly, lashing out at newly created “enemies” (the unvaccinated!) to set up a social system easily exploited by the unscrupulous, the connected, and the fanatical.

Desmet has been studying socialism and fascism, and has a book in the works. He says that about a third of today’s population is caught up in this “mass hypnosis.”

Hitler used Le Bon’s book as a how-to. We should use it as a how-not-to.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

unhinged/network

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability ideological culture social media

Stossel Sues Facebook

“After 40+ years of reporting,” offers John Stossel on his Facebook page, “I now understand the importance of limited government.”

“I just sued Facebook,” Stossel posted yesterday. “I didn’t want to sue. I hate lawsuits. I tried for a year to reach someone at Facebook to fix things, but Facebook wouldn’t.”

What needs fixing?

Facebook’s fact-checkers dinged him with a “partly false”/“factual inaccuracies” label for his StosselTV video “Are We Doomed?” — without challenging any specific fact. And regarding another video, “Government Fueled Fires,” Todd Spangler of Variety quotes the case, which accuses Facebook of “falsely attributed to Stossel a claim he never made, and on that basis flagged the content as ‘misleading’ and ‘missing context,’ so that would-be viewers would be routed to the false attribution statement.”

Stephen Green writes in support of Stossel’s $2 million lawsuit, demurring only to add that there’s only one little problem: “If there’s a way through the courts to change Facebook’s bad behavior, it’s going to take a judgment with a lot more zeroes on the end.”

The lawsuit in question is a defamation lawsuit.

I confess: it is for breach of contract that I am most annoyed with Facebook. The company brought us all in with an openness ethos and now relentlessly pushes progressive talking points. I suppose it’s futile to compete with Facebook’s lawyers on grounds of Terms of Use agreements, so perhaps that’s why the focus is on slander and libel and all that. 

It is as liars and promise-breakers that Facebook’s ideological tyrants most grate.

What they did to John Stossel is unconscionable. But, sadly, not nearly uncommon enough.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts