The Real timschochet

Yeah but MY lists are awesome and completely objective: Also unpublished….

I know plenty of Palestinians and I guarantee you it’s not true. But understand: even if you were correct about 99% of Palestinians, the 1% that disagrees would still make your statement a bigoted one.

I never said I was. The MAGA crowd has turned what used to be centrism into liberalism. I voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. My positions haven’t changed much. But now I’m grouped as a leftist because I reject the Trump idiocy.

I don’t like the answers the deans gave, but it wasn’t a simple question at all. For example: 1. is “Death to all Jews!” hate speech? Yes and it shouldn’t be allowed on a college campus, and anyone who says this should be expelled. 2. is “From the River to the Sea” hate speech? No. It’s a radical political position, but it does NOT mean genocide and it should be publicly allowed. I suppose that in our current intolerant climate regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which in the last few months has become so reminiscent of the Red Scare in the early 1950s, I would have been fired too.

This is a bigoted statement. There is no large group of peoples who uniformly want anything. It’s as idiotic as saying white people like mayonnaise. The majority of Palestinians want a greater Palestinian state in what is now Israel. But even that is not a universal attitude. And it doesn’t mean genocide.

Except that you’re misapplying it. Let me show you how: 1. Criticizing transgenederism doesn’t make you a homophobe, but if you spend a lot of your time obsessing about this issue like it’s one of the most important problems that our society faces, chances are you’re homophobic. 2. Criticizing Muslims doesn’t make you an Islamophobe, but when you group them together and propose restrictive laws or immigration restrictions based on the religion of Islam then chances are you’re an Islamophobe. 3. Criticizing historically disenfranchised groups doesn’t make you a racist, but when you start using skin color as a qualifier for negative behavior, chances are you are a racist. See the difference?

Yes I know. I generally support the establishment but this is unfortunate. However I don’t think there is any “plan”. It’s an emotional, almost instinctual reaction to what happened in October, built up over many many years. Theres no deliberate scheme. It’s also, IMO, part of the right’s larger yearning for both moral clarity and an almost Calvinistic desire to condemn anyone who doesn’t view things in the same black and white fashion.

I don’t know anything of the kind. I also believe that hate speech is not protected free speech outside of the privacy of one’s home. Nor is incitement to violence.

It just comes naturally I guess.

Your definition of cancel culture “when someone has done nothing wrong” is unlikely. Though there have been some notable instances when somebody is unjustly canceled, in most cases the canceling was well deserved.

“From the River to the Sea” is a controversial phrase which I disagree with because it means the end or destruction of the State of Israel to be replaced by a Palestinian state. But it does not mean the genocide of the Jewish people ala the Holocaust, and the fact that people are conflating the two meanings is lazy and leads to a lot of bad assumptions. It’s important to note, as context, that the largest part of the current Israeli government, the Likud party, (of which Netanyahu is a lifelong member) has a very similar chant as part of its charter: “from the river to the sea Israeli sovereignty”: in other words, a greater Israel over the whole of Palestine, which reasonable Palestinians can and do regard as calling for the genocide of the Palestinian people. Again this is a lazy assumption. But you can see the confusion.

Thank you. 1. I’ll have to look into the Nick Fuentes issue, don’t know anything about that. 2. So far as I know anyone who has been prosecuted for Jan 6 either committed an act of violence or at least broke into the Capitol Building illegally with the intent of disrupting the government at work (which is a felony.) There are no freedom of speech issues involved. 3. The FBI investigated parents and others who made threats of violence on school board members. That is the FBI’s proper role. 4. Big tech is a private concern so there are no freedom of speech issues at play. If the government attempted to censor big tech that is a different issue but I don’t think there is any evidence of this. 5. The anti—abortion protestors who get arrested are the ones who harass women and workers who enter abortion clinics. Again this is proper and there are no freedom of speech issues at play.

Im aware of the complaint. (FWIW I don’t regard Skokie as a “right wing cause”.) I don’t agree with everything the ACLU does but I’m glad they’re around and that’s why I support them. Can you offer a specific example of a right wing cause you believe the ACLU should have fought for but did not?

I met Jann Wenner’s son who is currently COO on a plane a few months back and I told him to his face these lists were always absurd. He laughed and said they were voted on by hundreds of music critics and that sometimes the choices seemed absurd to him too, but that they were designed to generate interest and discussion. Which I guess we’re doing so It’s working. He was a nice guy. Eric Clapton not in the top ten seems like the biggest miss to me.

There are many conservatives who agree with you that a Biden re-election would be ruinous. There are even more liberals who believe that a Trump victory would be ruinous. In truth neither opinion is valid. America is too great and too powerful a nation to be ruined by one or even a host of Presidents. We will survive. But I believe Trump would be a disaster (not ruinous) and that Biden’s done a fairly good job so I’m for Biden. And despite the recent polling I’m very confident of a Biden victory. To your second point: it’s extremely unlikely at this point that it will be any matchup other than Biiden vs Trump. Let’s say it’s around 95%.

Why do you believe that Derek Chauvin’s defense team failed to convince a single juror of this?

As usual you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Biden will defeat Trump. In the end it will be fairly decisive.

You’re exaggerating. I’m proud to give money to the ACLU,

As a general rule, modern day conservatives reject the argument that there is institutional racism against black people in this country, especially by the police. I believe it’s a denial of reality, and the saddest consequence of this denial is to blame the victim and glorify the villain, which happens again and again. Thats what we’re witnessing here, along with yet again a complete rejection of both the mainstream media and any facts that upset their preheld world view. It’s awful and pathetic, yet also entirely predictable. If there had been no film that demonized George Floyd, I have no doubt that someone like Jon would have done it anyhow, because he refuses to accept the idea that police treat black people far worse than they do any white person: I want to believe that most conservatives are reasonable and go where the facts take them. But this film serves as a good litmus test for that theory: If you accept the narrative of this crap, rather than the near universal reporting of what actually happened (including the evidence presented in a court of law which led to a unanimous conviction for Derek Chauvin) then you’re not thinking reasonably.

Nobody is ignoring it. The Democrats have offered solutions to this many times. Republicans don’t want solutions, they want a problem they can try to blame on Biden.

Right, there’s no confirmation to that story, which is now 19 hours old. As an Angels fan I continue to hold out hope. Stupid I know but until he signs…

Hey where you been foam? I missed your inane, pointless one line uninformed insults. OK I really didn’t but I’m trying to be nice now that you’re back.

And by the way, what you’re proposing here sure sounds a lot like the original Roe vs Wade decision.

Here’s the problem: the reality is that something like 99.9% of all late term abortions are for stories like this one, or hydrocephalus, etc. But several years ago the pro-life folks realized that if they could convince the public that late term abortions were being performed for convenience purposes, it would be a wedge in which they could turn a larger percentage of people against abortion period and make them look like the reasonable folks, versus liberals who could be painted as the extremists, To some degree this worked. But conservatives became wedded to this argument and they’re still making it. And this is the result.