Some paranoid reactions to Trump EO treating Jews as a nationality (as @SethAMandel shows in thread). It allows non-discrimination laws to cover Jews.
The problem is it's aimed at silencing criticism of Israel. Mandel likes that part, because he wants gov to suppress that speech.
The problem is it's aimed at silencing criticism of Israel. Mandel likes that part, because he wants gov to suppress that speech.
@SethAMandel Mandel's thread of over-the-top reactions to Trump's EO is a quintessential anti-anti- take.
Because he's right; some of the tweets he highlights are ridiculous and deserve criticism.
And by fixating on those, he can defend a bad policy he likes without actually defending it.
Because he's right; some of the tweets he highlights are ridiculous and deserve criticism.
And by fixating on those, he can defend a bad policy he likes without actually defending it.
@SethAMandel Trump's not singling out Jews as a prelude to concentration camps (that's ridiculous).
He's appealing to right-wing Jews and Evangelicals by singling out a protest movement they don't like, which the government will use its power to silence.
He's appealing to right-wing Jews and Evangelicals by singling out a protest movement they don't like, which the government will use its power to silence.
@SethAMandel It's not an attack on Jews. It's an attack on free speech.
Defenders of free speech on college campuses should have their hair on fire. Student demonstrators trying to silence speech have some power, but not nearly as much as the federal government.
Defenders of free speech on college campuses should have their hair on fire. Student demonstrators trying to silence speech have some power, but not nearly as much as the federal government.
@SethAMandel My stance on the BDS movement and other protests against Israel is straightforward: agree or disagree, it's speech. If you don't like it, argue against it. Call it antisemitic if you want. But government power suppressing political speech is wrong, and a dangerous precedent.
@SethAMandel To defend Trump's EO on the merits, you'd have to argue that:
1) "Jewish" and "Israel" are the same thing, or at least close enough that saying negative things about Israel is discrimination against Jews in general.
2) Anti-Israel speech should not be covered by 1A protections.
1) "Jewish" and "Israel" are the same thing, or at least close enough that saying negative things about Israel is discrimination against Jews in general.
2) Anti-Israel speech should not be covered by 1A protections.
@SethAMandel But it's hard to make a good argument for government suppressing political speech you don't like. Much easier to focus on other people's over-the-top, misguided reactions to the speech-suppressing effort (some of which are quite ridiculous) and criticize those.
(END)
(END)
