[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

... Yes? It's a ####ing state law in Missouri. It was completely off mine until I watched that. I'm not even sure what google alert I could have had in place that would have alerted me to it.

31 states have similar laws on their books. And again, it's not like the chilling of anti-Israel speech is brand new, and it's probably far more pervasive and insidious than a lot of the "cancel culture" stuff that the right loves to get on their soapboxes about.

But regardless, is that the standard we're asking for here? If you stand up for a principle, you must then be ever vigilant for any news story that might engage that principle, at which point you must immediately publicly state, "hey, remember how I said I was for X? Well, that applies in this case too!" Completely ridiculous.

I don't think that's the standard, but if you make it your brand and go after every single example of it that comes from the left, while ignoring any examples from the right or center, you're disingenuous (e.g. Peterson and Rubin).

Hell, I'd bet you could even get a few people, Ben Shapiro for example, who praised the signatories of the Harpers letter to say something contradictory here. Then you'd at least have a reasonable target to aim your ire at.

Shapiro's hypocrisy has been on full display for years. There's nothing new there.

Do you seriously think if you asked Thomas Williams (the author of the Harpers letter), or any of its major signatories - say, Pinker, Rushdie, or Haidt - if they think these principles apply in the case of labeling criticisms of Israeli policy as anti-semitic, they'd say, "no, that's a different situation"? If so, you're out of your mind.

No, I don't think Margaret Atwood is pro anti-BDS policies. I don't think that every signatory of that letter is expected to speak on the topic. I think you're smart enough to know that that's not really the point of argument either and the argument isn't restricted to just signatories of the letter.

We have a blatant example of free speech suppression being enacted by the State, not the fabricated compelled speech nonsense that JP made is career on, nor some abstract idea of chilled speech caused by twitter trolls, and the people who are supposed to be the most diligent opponents of this stuff are nowhere to be found.

If you want to give the same people who will rail against every little obscure example of cancel culture on college campuses a free pass on this one, I can't stop you. I see it as more evidence that the Petersons, Rubins, Shapiros, etc. of the world are self-serving grifters and/or ideologues.