Attending yesterday's rally to Protest Trump's Reassignment of Jerusalem in downtown Philadelphia, I was gratified by how all the leaders explicitly called for one "state for all its people," without regard for religion or ethnicity, as the just solution in Palestine/Israel. I haven't heard this at previous demonstrations, and it's especially welcome because it counteracts both Islamist attempts to monopolize the Palestinian movement, and Zionist fear-mongering about same to monopolize Jewish opinion on the other side (as discussed by this Palestinian-American, for instance: https://postwarwatch.com/2012/11/26/the-one-state-solution/).
Ironically, much of the credit for this probably belongs to Benyamin Netanyahu's actions making a two-state program increasingly obviously unworkable, and especially to Donald Trump for so brazenly abandoning any pretense of US neutrality.
Even granting that a just two-state solution is conceivable in principle, I think it's always been the wrong outcome to advocate, because doing so implicitly undermines the ideal of pluralism. If people are capable of co-existing peacefully, after all, then they are capable of co-existing in a single country. Advocating two states suggests otherwise.
Saturday, December 09, 2017
Trump Helps Put the One-State Solution Back on the Table
Sunday, November 26, 2017
I'm pleased to report that, without having resorted to any unilateral edits that might have started a war, I appear to have induced someone better established in the Wikipedia community to remove misleading language in the article about The Red Pill that without warrant described rightist Mike Cernovich as a "men's rights supporter," based on a single article whose author mistakenly conflates antifeminism with men's rights activism.
Thursday, November 16, 2017
How *Not* to Cope with Politics and Stress
The Philadelphia Gay News's Kristina Furia wrote something truly shocking and benighted in her psychology column last week. I've submitted this letter to the paper:
Your editorial was quite correct in saying Donald Trump's election "was unanticipated by many on the left -- a fact that may speak, in part, to why Trump was victorious."
Which is why this statement by Kristina Furia is appallingly bad advice: "It's crucial that we try our best to avoid situations where political discussion with people of opposing views is likely." Has she learned nothing from last November?
I've been repeatedly bemused to hear people say they were "shocked" and "devastated" by what happened that day. I was mildly and momentarily surprised when I saw Trump take the lead -- the polls had given Clinton the advantage, but not a huge one. (Like presumably most people at the Mt. Airy watch party, I'd pushed the button for her, but reluctantly, trading my preference for Jill Stein with someone in California who voted for her in my place.)
Why the different reaction? Because, unlike Furia and many people I know, I make a conscious effort to expose myself to other ideological viewpoints, via both mass and social media. This means not only that I had a better sense of how many people in the country don't share my social and political attitudes but, equally important, an awareness that not everyone interprets Trump's statements and actions the same way.
For instance, many people think he was, in fact, simply engaging in "locker room banter" with Billy Bush, not describing anything he'd actually done to women, let alone against their will. Diana Davison even made a video detailing why she thought so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok1Gd0CQsiM
When one has an awareness of these different perspectives, an outcome like last November's is not only less surprising, but also less disturbing -- because it doesn't mean millions of people are OK with sexual assault, for instance.
For this reason, Furia's advice isn't just bad civically and democratically, but psychologically too. People following it are more likely to experience psychological trauma when someone they don't like is elected, because their skewed information diet gives them an overly dire sense of what other people's voting behavior signifies.
The grain of truth in her advice is that discussing politics the wrong way certainly can be bad for you. When people approach each other as antagonists who must be defeated, they are apt to end up reinforcing and intensifying their stereotypes of each other. But if, instead, you try to just listen and really understand the other person's point of view, you may well end up both more politically/sociologically knowledgeable and less scared -- even if you disagree with them just as much as before.
On a mass media level, Clay Johnson's book The Information Diet has some good tips on how to un-skew your information intake. A good place everyone can start is to regularly reset your search and social media platforms so they're not just feeding your own biases back to you (the "filter bubble"). If possible, use platforms that don't track you in the first place, like the search engine DuckDuckGo (better for your privacy too).
On a person-to-person level, I'd encourage everyone to look for opportunities for regular conversation with people who don't think alike, such as the Philadelphia Political Agnostics meetup group.
Thursday, October 19, 2017
On Islamophobia, a Miseducated Left Will Aid and Abet the Right
I'm concerned about some seriously wrong information that was imparted a few weeks ago during the webinar about combating Islamophobia. The webinar leader said one should never use the term "Islamist," and that this is just a "euphemism" employed by people who don't want to say "Muslim."I was so taken aback by this incredible statement that I didn't know what to say in the moment and, being conflict-averse and not too good at cutting in, said nothing at the time. But the fact is this statement was seriously miseducational and could jeopardize both our work in combating Islamophobia, and our ability to recruit people from the Muslim community.Roughly speaking, "Islamist" is to "Muslim" as, in this country, "Religious Right" is to "Christian." It's synonymous with Muslim supremacist, and calling it a euphemism for Muslim is just as wrong-headed as calling Religious Right a euphemism for Christian.In fact, many Muslims have been actively engaged in combating Islamism from what they consider an authentically Islamic standpoint, and would probably be quite insulted that a group such as ours is saying their religion is synonymous with it.Further, they correctly point out (in this statement, for instance: http://www.prlog.org/12645136-muslims-for-progressive-values-accuses-act-for-america-of-supporting-islamist-agenda.html) that by making this false equation, we are actually aiding and abetting the Islamophobes. Hate groups like Stop Islamization of America advance their agenda by telling people who don't know better that all Muslims support the Islamist agenda and that this is inherent in the religion. By saying essentially the same thing from the other side, we would be doing the alt-right's propaganda work for them.
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
The Daily Pennsylvanian Needs Some Education About Due Process
An article appearing in yesterday's Daily Pennsylvanian (to which I'll link once it's posted on line), titled "A look at Penn's sexual assault investigation policies," suggests that, at my alma mater, student journalists are now worse than administrators when it comes to understanding due process issues. I wrote them as follows:
The administrators' choice of words reflects at least a degree of respect for due process. Yours should too.You write, "Harley's office uses the word 'complainant' to describe people who reported the incident of sexual harassment or violence and 'respondent' to identify the person the complaint was against." Wrong. They use the word "complainant" to describe someone who alleges an incident of sexual harassment or violence. Your use of "report" and the definite article implies all complaints are of real incidents, disregarding the presumption of innocence. This wrong-headed usage is repeated throughout the article.Dear editor:I'm perturbed by your failure to follow the good example set by Penn administrators when it comes to the language used in writing about sexual assault investigations.
Friday, October 13, 2017
_The Pulse_ Gets It Wrong on #Gamergate
WHYY's The Pulse aired a show today about nerds, which is good. One of the segments relied on Brianna Wu for information about #Gamergate, which isn't. I submitted the following comment on their Facebook page:
Great that you've done an episode on nerds. But you shouldn't have relied on Brianna Wu for information on #Gamergate -- she's very much an interested party and has been a major part of the disinformation campaign about this movement, which feminist scholar Christina Hoff Sommers has described as "a consumer uprising" against unethical and authoritarian practices in video game journalism and criticism. (You can hear her discuss it at length here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e_jTwA_rg0) Contrary to the disinformation, Gamergaters are video gamers from all walks of life and of all genders, ethnicities, and political persuasions. They've received just as much harassment on line as opponents of #Gamergate, and quantitative studies have shown that tweets associated with the hashtag are no more likely to be abusive than tweets are overall. A particularly common form of abuse is anti-Gamergaters' "silencing" female, POC, and GBT Gamergaters by accusing them of not being who they say they are. A group of GGers targeted by this kind of abuse put together a video in response: "Giving Voice to the Voiceless: The #NotYourShield Project": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzwGIHUCtjUP.S. I had occasion to mention this piece in an interview appearing in the December 2017 issue of One Step Away, Philadelphia's street paper. I wrote, "I was proud of myself this year for achieving the degree of freedom from social anxiety sufficient to write a piece correcting misinformation about #Gamergate, even though many people I know might look askance at it."
Saturday, September 30, 2017
To Enable, or Not to Enable?
There was a rally today at the corner in Mt. Airy where I often sell One Step Away newspapers. P'nai Or Philadelphia gathered to promote anti-hunger efforts in the community. I stood with them for a while as they took turns speaking, singing, chanting, and reading certain lines about social justice from scripture.
As they started to head toward another destination, one of them asked if I could take some pictures of the procession before it was gone, adding that she couldn't as she lent me her camera phone. As I was in a good mood I obliged her.
Not long after she thanked me and joined the procession, I started to feel some resentment. When she'd said she couldn't take the pictures herself -- and I could see that her hands weren't full -- I'd inferred that this was for religious reasons. In retrospect I felt a little used and started thinking I should have insisted in getting the photo credit if I was taking the pictures.
Then I recalled a line of thought I'd had a few years ago after hearing someone on the radio recount how, as a boy, he'd been a paid "goy" for an elderly Jewish man in his neighborhood. I'd felt that if the man chose to believe something that inconvenienced him, he should experience its full consequence himself, rather than paying someone who didn't share his belief to relieve of him of it. It seemed hypocritical, and I imagined that if I were in that boy's position, I would decline the job.
So I started having the same feelings again in the wake of today's experience. If I accommodate someone in this way, am I enabling irrationality? Would I be doing that person a better turn if I said to her, "No, I want you to experience the inconvenience you've chosen for yourself, so I'll leave you to it"? That's the way I'm leaning right now.
Friday, August 25, 2017
KSU Earns FIRE’s Highest Free Speech Rating
510 Walnut Street | Suite 1250 | Philadelphia, PA 19106
Good Video on Stephan Molyneux and Defooing
Rick Ross on Cultism and the Trump Movement
In this recent interview, Cult Education Institute founder Rick Ross discusses cult-like aspects of the Trump movement:
Sunday, July 23, 2017
CREDO Too Credulous
Today I received an email from CREDO Mobile asking me to sign a petition titled "Betsy DeVos: Stand with survivors of sexual assault." I responded by contacting CREDO with this message:
You should remove this petition because it misrepresents both proposed policy changes and the facts on which those proposals are based.
Contrary to the accompanying text, no one at DEd is considering taking any rights away from those making complaints of sexual assault on college campuses. Rather, the proposed changes would simply restore Constitutional protections traditionally enjoyed by the accused which have been drastically eroded by the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter issued by President Obama's Education Department Office of Civil Rights. There have now been no fewer than 53 cases in which colleges and universities, acting under the pressure of the DCL out of fear of losing Title IX funds, have been ruled by courts to have violated accused students' due process rights (http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/cynthia-m-allen/article162774733.html). In the process, actual victims of sexual assault have also suffered, because these mishandled cases promote cynicism about all such accusations, including the true ones.
Part of the means by which such unconstitutional policies have been promoted has been bogus statistics, such as the "1 in 5" figure cited on the petition page (http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/ten-myths/). Leaving aside purely ethical questions, such fearmongering does college women a disservice by creating needless anxiety, and potentially even dissuading some from attending college.
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
New Civil Liberties Group Launched
Announcing FIRE Student Defenders
Sunday, July 16, 2017
I don't know what excuse Anya Kamenetz can possibly offer for relying on
a blatantly biased intermediary source like _Slate_ for this story. One
of the most egregious falsehoods is the claim that SAVE "lobbies
against domestic violence protections," for which no evidence whatever
is offered, nor even a source. And it tries to stir up outrage over
their pointing out that much DV is initiated by women -- a claim treated
as self-evidently malicious -- even though the US government itself is
the source on which the claim is based: http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Seven-Facts-Every-American-Should-Know-About-DV.pdf
http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/07/15/537023511/uproar-over-education-department-officials-approach-to-campus-sexual-assault
Thursday, July 13, 2017
Friday, July 07, 2017
I Reach Out and (Hopefully) Make a Difference
Eight days ago I went along with a door-to-door fundraiser for an organization with which I was considering employment. I found some of his conduct quite offensive and decided to communicate my concerns with the charity on whose behalf he was acting. I wrote them as follows:
Inappropriate conduct by fundraiserI received this reply today:
To whom it may concern:
Last Thursday I shadowed an employee of one of the contractors who go door-to-door to enroll support for your organization, [company's name deleted]. I decided not to take the job because of conduct on his part that I found disturbing and inappropriate.
More than once, when a prospect told him they didn't want to sign up at the door but would look Child Fund up online, this [company] employee, T---- J------ , responded by repeating to them that only one out of ten thousand people seeing the TV ads responds by sponsoring a child. Whether or not this is true (and I'm a bit skeptical since he seemed to state a higher figure to me between doorbells), how could it be relevant to the prospect in question? Since they just told him they were going to research your organization online, they are in an utterly different situation. Not responding to a TV ad you've passively watched is obviously different from breaking a promise you've just made to someone in person, face-to-face. And, since any reasonably intelligent person can see this, they can also see that he's 1) calling them a liar, 2) blatantly trying to blackmail them emotionally, and 3) by acting as if they won't notice 1) and 2), insulting their intelligence.
While it's possible that, in spite of all this, those individuals nonetheless went online and enrolled, Mr. J------'s obnoxious behavior surely left a bad taste in their mouths that made them less likely to do so. In fact, since he did this more than once, he may have cost Child Fund Inc. more enrollees than the two he actually signed up at the door during the period I shadowed him.
After we returned to the [company] office, I tried to convey this to him, saying if someone behaved this way toward me I would shut the door in their face. And I'm not someone lacking in social concern; one reason he thought me a promising potential employee is that I've often done door-to-door canvassing and other work for causes as a volunteer. But soft-hearted isn't the same as soft-headed.
Mr. J------ defended himself by saying he was the top performer at his office (Philadelphia). But how is his performance measured? Only by enrollments at the door. Those who decline to do so but say they'll look up Child Fund online aren't tracked, so there's no way of telling how many potential enrollees he's turned off. What I can tell you is that the two people he did enroll that afternoon didn't do so because of his obnoxious behavior. In both cases they were eager to enroll as soon as they heard who he was representing, since they'd heard of it from people close to them who were already enrolled. So, his offensive behavior accomplished nothing on behalf of Child Fund, but may well have cancelled out the enrollments he did get.
The other thing he said in his defense was that he was simply doing what [the company] had trained him to do. All that means is that it's not just T---- J------, but a whole organization of people who may be costing Child Fund many potential supporters.
While I decided not to be part of that organization, I felt it behooved me to inform you of this troubling situation. Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
[my name]
That was a very difficult email to read. From the bottom of my heart thank you so much for taking the time to compose and send us the account of your experience.
I have forwarded your full email to our department that handles the face to face vendors and they will ensure that this is addressed immediately.
We want you to know that the behavior you outlined is not acceptable behavior for our representatives and we deeply apologize to you for your unpleasant experience having to witness it. Unfortunately, it seems that we have missed out on the opportunity to have you represent us, but perhaps another opportunity will arise. For now, suffice it to say, that you have assisted enormously by sharing this information and I, personally, am grateful.
Thank you again for your support of our work and please let me know if there's anything we may assist you with.
All my best,
Victoria
For additional information regarding ChildFund International and our programs to help children in need around the world, please visit our website at http://www.ChildFund.org.
Wednesday, July 05, 2017
Quote of the Day
This poster can currently be seen in the office of PRO-ACT (Ambassadors for Recovery) in North Philadelphia: "This Printer Shall Be Called Bob Marley... Cause It Be Jammin"
Sunday, July 02, 2017
"Chicago Dyke March: Full of Shame!"
That's the title of publisher Mark Segal's opinion piece in the latest Philadelphia Gay News, concerning the expulsion from that event of a contingent carrying rainbow flags with a Star of David superimposed on them. The reasons Segal gives for condemning this action are pretty much word-for-word the same ones I would make, centering on the wrongness of politically stereotyping people on the basis of their ethnicity or religion.
Anti-Zionism isn't and shouldn't be an excuse for anti-Semitism -- and I say this as an anti-Zionist and a past volunteer with the International Solidarity Movement.
The fact it even needs to be said is a sad comment on the pathological evolution of much identity politics in recent times. The symptoms are manifest in the rationale for the expulsion given by one of the march organizers, that the flags "made people feel unsafe." It's funny how, as the number of incidents escalates in which this phrase is used, it's almost never the people who use it who seem to be the ones actually experiencing physical force or violence.
Thursday, June 29, 2017
New Master's Degree Program in Coercive Control Announced
This news from the International Cultic Studies Association:
Drs. Rod and Linda Dubrow-Marshall, long associated with ICSA, have developed a new master’s degree program in coercive control at the University of Salford in Manchester, United Kingdom. This is an important development for the cultic studies field.More information online: http://www.salford.ac.uk/pgt-courses/psychology-of-coercive-controlIf you or somebody you know is interested in this program, feel free to contact either of them:________________________________________________ICSA (International Cultic Studies Association)P.O. Box 2265Bonita Springs, FL 34133Phone: 1-239-514-3081fax: 1-305-393-8193Become a member of ICSA and gain access to an e-Library with over 23,000 items.
Surprise! CNN Producer Caught Admitting Corporate Media Aren't All About High-Minded Journalistic ideals
You read it here first: it turns out cable news coverage is "all about ratings," according to a CNN supervising producer secretly recorded by Project Veritas: www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/26/project-veritas-undercover-investigation-cnn-producer-admits-network-hyping-mostly-bullsht-trump-russia-scandal-for-ratings/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_content=links&utm_campaign=20170627
John Bonifield admits the scrutiny they're giving covering President Trump reflects what they think their audience wants to believe. Of course the same thing goes for every other media outlet -- and not just "mainstream" media as the PV narrator puts it, but non-mainstream sources too, including Breitbart which is publicizing this story.
And for those who've forgotten, during the campaign CBS's Les Moonves admitted to giving Trump tons of free advertising -- without which he may well have never become President -- for the exact same mercenary motive: http://www.weeklystandard.com/les-moonves-donald-trump-is-good-for-cbs/article/2001329. Note also Bonifield's remark about how they only spent a day and a half on the climate accords, then were told to go back to Russia. This is just more evidence that they're only interested in ratings, not "ideological" motives like keeping our planet habitable.
The corporate media's loyalty is only to their own bottom line, not any kind of political agenda.
Quote of the Day
Cassie, I want to thank you. You could have gone the easy route. You
could have gone back to being comfortable, blocking everything out. You
could have cut and edited the movie to try and make them look bad.
But you didn't. You sat down, you listened, and in the end, you even
examined and changed your entire world view based on all the new
information you had gathered.
I respect you very much.
Thursday, June 15, 2017
FIRE Seeks Sponsors for Its Student Interns
The following message came the other day from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Please help if you can.
Good morning,
I’m
excited to introduce you to Niklas Vakil. Nik joined
the FIRE team this week as part of our annual Internship Program. Along with eight other undergraduate students and three law school students, Nik will spend his summer learning about free speech, due process, religious liberty, free thought, and legal equality from FIRE staff and other First Amendment experts and free speech advocates.
Back
on campus, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Nik is the solicitor General for the Associated Students of Madison. In this role, Nik has represented fellow students in numerous cases in front of the Student Judiciary, including the defense of two student council members who, after voicing criticism of affirmative action policies and university sponsored “safe spaces,” were charged with malfeasance in office and subject to removal from their positions. In both of these cases, Nik won unanimous verdicts!
Nik
also serves on the Student Misconduct Panel on
campus. Participating in misconduct cases, Nik has gotten a close-up look into the troubling lack of pro- cedural protections for accused students. For example, at UW-Madison — and most other institutions of higher education nationwide — students’ cases are decided using the low “preponderance of the evidence” standard. (An unlawful mandate by the Department of Education that nearly all colleges and universities use this standard in adjudicating sexual misconduct cases is currently being challenged in court through a lawsuit sponsored by FIRE.)
These
experiences have ignited Nik’s passion for civil
liberties and brought him to intern at FIRE. By completing an internship at FIRE, Nik will get the hands-on training he needs to better address free speech and due process concerns on his campus. In total, it will cost $5,120 to host Nik all summer. This cost completely covers his stipend, books, materials, fees to attend our activism- focused summer conference, and more, like a tour of the National Constitution Center.
Would you consider sponsoring Nik?
You can sponsor Nik by making a donation to FIRE’s
Internship Program today. Our Internship Program lies at the heart of our efforts to empower student activists. It is one of our longest-standing and most successful programs, and in a time when so many of today’s college students are demanding “protective” speech codes, “safe spaces,” and trigger warnings, it is also one of our most important. Now more than ever, we need to make sure that students who care about free speech and due process rights are given the opportunity to gain the knowledge and tools needed to fight for them on campus. This summer, FIRE has 12 brilliant and dedicated students who want that opportunity. Our interns are committed to the free and robust exchange of ideas and have each chosen to spend the summer learning strategies to change the culture on campus.
Given
your help, Nik and his fellow interns can become
effective advocates for liberty back on campus. Your donation affords them the unique opportunity to gain the experience they need to translate their passion into action. It will also give them a lifelong appreciation for the First Amendment, which they will carry into careers in law, public policy, service, and education!
I hope you will think about this request and consider saying
yes! Thank you in advance for supporting this important program.
FIRE’s 2017 intern class
Kendall Burchard, University of Virginia School of Law Sam Foer, University of Rhode Island Michael Frazier, University of Kentucky Ethan Greist, Johns Hopkins University Jacob Hill, The College of William & Mary Katherine Hung, Harvard College Veronica Joyce, Pennsylvania State University Julia Kothmann, University of Virginia Isaac Smith, University of Cincinnati College of Law Niklas Vakil, University of Wisconsin-Madison Qi Xu, Swarthmore College Lyndsey Wajert, Boston University School of Law 
Sincerely,
Molly Nocheck Director of Campus Outreach, Internship Coordinator |
| Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) 510 Walnut Street | Suite 1250 | Philadelphia, PA 19106 |
Friday, June 09, 2017
Quote of the Day
The most common justification for studying women without studying men is that "history is men's studies." True? No.... To a boy, history is pressure to perform, not relief from that pressure. Feminism is relief from the pressure to be confined to only the traditional female role. To a boy, then, history is not the equivalent of women's studies; it is the opposite of women's studies.
--- Warren Farrell, The Myth of Male Power, Introduction
Posts
