What I wish people would realize about anti-semitism is that it isn't enough to say "it's theoretically possible to harshly criticize Israel without being anti-semitic".
Yes it is. But lots of Palestinian Cause types traffic in anti-semitism and don't face sufficient opprobrium.
And again, hashtag "not all Palestinian Cause types". Absolutely right. Some strident advocates for Palestinians and even some one state solution types do express proper horror about October 7, Bondi Beach, etc.
But lots of others look immediately to justify and minimize.
And again, they don't face sufficient opprobrium for it.
Remember Russell Rickford, the Cornell professor who said he was "exhilarated" by October 7? He should have been shunned. Confronted. He shouldn't be canceled, but people should stand up to folks who say stuff like that.
Same with all the public figures in Palestinian movements who engaged in post-October 7 rape denialism. Nobody should lose their job, but this sort of thing should be SOCIALLY unacceptable. People should think less of you if you say that garbage.
What has happened is the Palestinian Cause has become a movement that systematically denies Jewish pain and suffering, based on its asserted theories that Jews as a group are an oppressor class because they have a state in Historic Palestine and deserve what they get.
And all who don't believe that-- including ESPECIALLY the folks who intensely dislike Israel yet don't believe that-- have to stand up to it and make it unacceptable to say in polite company.
The folks who shoot Jews on the beach should know they will get no support.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A lot of followers responded to my sex positive thread about the Internet and young women by asking "what about porn?".
It's a very good question. And I might as well say it-- I think the right wing and feminists have a point about porn as we stand in 2025.
To be clear, "as we stand in 2025" is crucial here. Part of the problem with critiques of pornography is there really was a "crying wolf" phenomenon. The religious right, after all, opposed Henry Miller novels and tried to ban the shipment of dildos under the Comstock Act.
And the religious right and feminists like Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin equivalenced girly magazines in the 1970's and 1980's with rape.
The critiques were really over the top.
But... the porn industry decided to spend the last 30 years proving their critics right.
I am going to once again say, this is BS, people are scaring you, a lot of commentators claim the legal system and the parties and the voters will allow things that are actually impossible, and repeating these claims is highly irresponsible.
Specifically on the "he'll run for Vice President" BS, no he won't. First, the Republican Party won't allow it, because they don't want to risk their presidential ticket ruled illegal by a court, resulting in the election of a Democrat.
i mentioned awhile ago how i think the second Trump term has completely refuted the unitary executive theory. Media regulation is a PERFECT example. You want antitrust regulations of media mergers, and the President CAN'T be allowed to run them.
I know people claim the Constitution requires the President have personal control of everything in the executive branch but the text of the Constitution says no such thing. ALL it says is the executive power vests in the President, which is entirely vague.
The unitary executive was never an interpretation of plain text where there was no choice. It was a claim that arose out of the post-Nixon right at a time when Republicans won a lot of presidential elections, that anything other than complete control would "hamstring" POTUS.
I think this has to be taken on directly. "Genocide scholars" have entirely discredited themselves over the past 2+ years over Israel and academics need to understand this because it is directly tied to why the public no longer trusts them.
There are very few people on the far left in society. But there has long been a concentration of such people in academia. There were lots of Marxist professors way back when William F. Buckley complained about Yale right after World War II. That isn't new.
But what has happened over time is that as the academic Left has become more and more activist, trying to leverage the concept of "academic expertise" to get bad Marxist ideas taken seriosly by a political system that mostly considers the far Left to be discredited.
I think both parties, given their druthers, will do culture war stuff rather than governance, and with today being No Kings day (and given President Trump's love of the culture war), I might tell a story that shows how deep the rot in our politics goes. It's bipartisan.
In 2024, the California legislature passed, and Gavin Newsom signed, this law that takes effect in 2026 and effectively bans any California high schools from having Native American mascots.
My point in pulling this up is not to debate the issue. My personal opinion on Indian mascots is squishy-- there's ways to do it that were obviously racist (the Washington Commanders' former name) and other ways to do it that aren't (the Florida State Seminoles).
Inspired by a recent @whignewtons podcast, I want to talk about a part of the "conversion therapy" case that I think legal conservatives have been way too dismissive of-- professional speech.
To tee this up, let's talk about my profession, lawyers. We write and talk for a living
There are all sorts of restrictions on the content of lawyers' speech. In a couple of areas, we get some First Amendment protection, though less than ordinary people get. In other areas, nobody even thinks the First Amendment applies to our speech.
So let's take the former categories, where lawyers get SOME First Amendment protection. We get some protection for our advertising, and we get some protection for our out of court statements on behalf of clients during pending cases.