All before my time but if these organs were indeed a form of free expression they only succeeded in nourishing a left wing underground which survived the collapse of communism by hiding behind the wacky mural of post-modernism.
Only one question matters. Do we believe in the western order, our constitution and human rights or not? On all these issues the pro-Palestinian left answers no. It is now actively seeking the introduction of sharia law in western countries. We need leaders who see and understand this threat. This is not the time for debates among minority intellectuals.
No. I just think it has its limits. If you don’t see we are reaching them, you will be overtaken by events. This forum needs to know the challenges it faces.
Part of liberal democracy and liberal republics is the idea that the pro-Palestinian left is *allowed* to seek the introduction of Sharia law. If they get the votes to change the US Constitution to allow it, for example, then that's the system working, and they are doing nothing wrong. We don't need to stifle their debate. We need to enter the fray if it concerns us. Which seems to be what Mr. Barkan advocated in his piece above. You may believe the same, but it's hard to tell if you are advocating smothering speech of those trying to introduce Sharia law.
I'm not at all sure the far left and/or pro-Palestinian left (to the extent they're different) are there yet, but if they (or any political movement) are truly non-pluralistic themselves then there is certainly basis, at least in political philosophy, to bar their participation in a democracy.
This based on work done either directly or indirectly (I can't recall which) by Isaiah Berlin. The basic premise being, and of course this is drawn directly from Fascism's rise in the 1930's, that the price of participating in a pluralistic democracy is being pluralistically democratic yourselves. If it can be reasonably determined you are not (see under Nazism), then your fellow citizens are under no obligation to allow your political organization to remain and potentially subvert the state, even by the ballot.
It's ultimately infantilizing people. If people choose to vote to change their government, their constitution, you don't get to tell them they cannot. And because of that, you do not get to tell them that they are not allowed to talk about it. Either you have democratic government of the people, where the people can choose, or you do not. If people can choose, they must be allowed to talk about it.
You have reminded us of the boundaries of liberalism. In the 30s this took the form of pacifism, which basically said “Yes, please invade us”. Now, we have become hosts to forces which only entered our space in order to destroy it. This is about survival.
Theirs is not a contribution to debate. It is overtly revolutionary. When they stand for office within the liberal democratic framework they can have their say. Until then, the activists terrorizing Jews should be dealt with within the provisions of criminal law. Democrats in Europe stood by and watched with bleeding hearts in the 1930s. If you do not recognize an existential threat, you will be next.
Yeah, that bastion of free speech, 1930s Europe. If only they had more draconian laws against bad speech, so much could have been avoided. The whole problem there was that they weren't banning enough Nazi speech.
You intrigued me with this comment. I had a quick look myself and found only reputable journalists and excellent investigative reporting that shows this fiasco was, in fact, even worse and the opposite of what you imply. You can disagree (as I do) with the text but that does not mean it has been "debunked".
Would you care to post your sources? Here are a few of mine:
1. London hospital takes down artwork by Gaza schoolchildren after complaint
What has been debunked is the false framing that Ross reiterates here. Presenting the episode as one where bigots objected to the presence of mere student artwork from kids who happened to be Gazans. Whereas in actually what was objectionable was the political propaganda written by adults that accompanied it.
See here for the context that your sources dishonestly omit:
You give yourself away by calling me dishonest and distorting the part of my post where I asked for your sources. You are clearly not interested in an open polite debate. In case you don't understand what a FOI is, it is a Freedom of Information request. This is a legal instrument that requires a public body to answer a fact-based request from members of the public. The fact is that no patients or families of patients objected to the hospital about the display. It could not be clearer. In the light of you continuing to push a disinformation narrative it's kind of satisfying that you object to the outcome of a Freedom of Information request.
I did not call you dishonest, I said your sources were being dishonest. And they were, by omitting the full context. As for FOI requests, that is a feature of US law and this took place in the UK. Even if it wasn't in the UK, I doubt very much casual complaints would all have been documented. And even if there were none yet, the display is not appropriate for a hospital.
Did you just re-write your comment? Gas-lighting too now? This is no way to persuade anyone of your argument. And I hate to disappoint you but FOI features in UK law too. Again, I find it ironic that you're distorting what happened and now what was said in order to push a disinformation narrative in a piece about censorship.
It is fascinating that in an excellent piece about "how far removed we are from robust disagreement", irrelevant straw dolls are posted to be happily knocked over in the comments. Even disinformation has been posted. I guess it only serves to reinforce Ross Barkan's point.
I share your goal of uncensored verbal sparring. I advise people to maintain a sense of propriety and a sense of charity, but I don't think those should be policed.
Still, I differ on two points:
1. I don't think we will have really moved on from our censorious culture until we reckon with how our newfound love of free speech was occasioned by our refusal to condemn speech against Jews.
2. There may have been peaceful anti-Israel protests. There have certainly been violent ones, at least around the edges (and being punched around the edges hurts just as much as being punch in the center).
I think a lot stems from most people believing that theirs is the neutral position, and other views are the deviation. It therefore deligimatizes (in their eyes) their position to defend it because doing so implies that their view is not so naturally correct that it requires no defense.
All before my time but if these organs were indeed a form of free expression they only succeeded in nourishing a left wing underground which survived the collapse of communism by hiding behind the wacky mural of post-modernism.
Only one question matters. Do we believe in the western order, our constitution and human rights or not? On all these issues the pro-Palestinian left answers no. It is now actively seeking the introduction of sharia law in western countries. We need leaders who see and understand this threat. This is not the time for debates among minority intellectuals.
"This is not the time for debates..." Uh, I think you may have misunderstood what Persuasion is supposed to be about.
No. I just think it has its limits. If you don’t see we are reaching them, you will be overtaken by events. This forum needs to know the challenges it faces.
Part of liberal democracy and liberal republics is the idea that the pro-Palestinian left is *allowed* to seek the introduction of Sharia law. If they get the votes to change the US Constitution to allow it, for example, then that's the system working, and they are doing nothing wrong. We don't need to stifle their debate. We need to enter the fray if it concerns us. Which seems to be what Mr. Barkan advocated in his piece above. You may believe the same, but it's hard to tell if you are advocating smothering speech of those trying to introduce Sharia law.
I'm not at all sure the far left and/or pro-Palestinian left (to the extent they're different) are there yet, but if they (or any political movement) are truly non-pluralistic themselves then there is certainly basis, at least in political philosophy, to bar their participation in a democracy.
This based on work done either directly or indirectly (I can't recall which) by Isaiah Berlin. The basic premise being, and of course this is drawn directly from Fascism's rise in the 1930's, that the price of participating in a pluralistic democracy is being pluralistically democratic yourselves. If it can be reasonably determined you are not (see under Nazism), then your fellow citizens are under no obligation to allow your political organization to remain and potentially subvert the state, even by the ballot.
It's ultimately infantilizing people. If people choose to vote to change their government, their constitution, you don't get to tell them they cannot. And because of that, you do not get to tell them that they are not allowed to talk about it. Either you have democratic government of the people, where the people can choose, or you do not. If people can choose, they must be allowed to talk about it.
You have reminded us of the boundaries of liberalism. In the 30s this took the form of pacifism, which basically said “Yes, please invade us”. Now, we have become hosts to forces which only entered our space in order to destroy it. This is about survival.
Theirs is not a contribution to debate. It is overtly revolutionary. When they stand for office within the liberal democratic framework they can have their say. Until then, the activists terrorizing Jews should be dealt with within the provisions of criminal law. Democrats in Europe stood by and watched with bleeding hearts in the 1930s. If you do not recognize an existential threat, you will be next.
Yeah, that bastion of free speech, 1930s Europe. If only they had more draconian laws against bad speech, so much could have been avoided. The whole problem there was that they weren't banning enough Nazi speech.
The London hospital thing has been debunked
It wasn't just kids artwork, it was political propaganda--text written by adults --that has no place in a hospital setting.
You intrigued me with this comment. I had a quick look myself and found only reputable journalists and excellent investigative reporting that shows this fiasco was, in fact, even worse and the opposite of what you imply. You can disagree (as I do) with the text but that does not mean it has been "debunked".
Would you care to post your sources? Here are a few of mine:
1. London hospital takes down artwork by Gaza schoolchildren after complaint
(https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/27/artwork-gaza-schoolchildren-removed-chelsea-and-westminster-hospital)
2. FOI reveals hospital that took down Gaza kids’ art had received zero patient complaints
(https://skwawkbox.org/2023/06/15/foi-reveals-hospital-that-took-down-gaza-kids-art-had-received-zero-patient-complaints/)
3. The hospital that censored Gazan children’s art – it’s worse than we thought!
(https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/the-hospital-that-censored-gazan-childrens-art-its-worse-than-we-thought/)
What has been debunked is the false framing that Ross reiterates here. Presenting the episode as one where bigots objected to the presence of mere student artwork from kids who happened to be Gazans. Whereas in actually what was objectionable was the political propaganda written by adults that accompanied it.
See here for the context that your sources dishonestly omit:
https://www.thejc.com/news/london-hospital-removes-gazan-artwork-after-patients-complain-hugytl6r
You give yourself away by calling me dishonest and distorting the part of my post where I asked for your sources. You are clearly not interested in an open polite debate. In case you don't understand what a FOI is, it is a Freedom of Information request. This is a legal instrument that requires a public body to answer a fact-based request from members of the public. The fact is that no patients or families of patients objected to the hospital about the display. It could not be clearer. In the light of you continuing to push a disinformation narrative it's kind of satisfying that you object to the outcome of a Freedom of Information request.
I did not call you dishonest, I said your sources were being dishonest. And they were, by omitting the full context. As for FOI requests, that is a feature of US law and this took place in the UK. Even if it wasn't in the UK, I doubt very much casual complaints would all have been documented. And even if there were none yet, the display is not appropriate for a hospital.
Did you just re-write your comment? Gas-lighting too now? This is no way to persuade anyone of your argument. And I hate to disappoint you but FOI features in UK law too. Again, I find it ironic that you're distorting what happened and now what was said in order to push a disinformation narrative in a piece about censorship.
I have been civil to you in the face of your name calling, and have not distorted anything.
It is fascinating that in an excellent piece about "how far removed we are from robust disagreement", irrelevant straw dolls are posted to be happily knocked over in the comments. Even disinformation has been posted. I guess it only serves to reinforce Ross Barkan's point.
I share your goal of uncensored verbal sparring. I advise people to maintain a sense of propriety and a sense of charity, but I don't think those should be policed.
Still, I differ on two points:
1. I don't think we will have really moved on from our censorious culture until we reckon with how our newfound love of free speech was occasioned by our refusal to condemn speech against Jews.
2. There may have been peaceful anti-Israel protests. There have certainly been violent ones, at least around the edges (and being punched around the edges hurts just as much as being punch in the center).
I think a lot stems from most people believing that theirs is the neutral position, and other views are the deviation. It therefore deligimatizes (in their eyes) their position to defend it because doing so implies that their view is not so naturally correct that it requires no defense.