One thing I'm unclear about in the U.S.C. situation.
Was Tabassum planning to give a speech about Israel and Gaza? If so, I don't think I'd have an issue with USC's decision. Commencement is a celebration for a lot of students and families, and I think it's reasonable to decide that it's not the place for speeches about the most controversial issues of the day. Along the same lines, I believe Commencement isn't the place for someone to give a speech about the Confederate flag representing a people's regional heritage or the importance of defending Taiwan against China's aggression either.
On the other hand, if Tabassum was willing to speak about other topics and she is losing her ability to give a speech because of her political posts about Israel, I would fully agree that is outrageous and the Jewish pressure groups and the university are fully in the wrong. Just as they would be in wrong to remove someone as a Commencement speaker because they had expressed pro-Confederate flag or anti-Communist China political views at some point either.
" . . . that’s a story about the heckler’s veto being wielded by self-styled progressives, and the fact that at this late date these people still haven’t figured out that this is a simply catastrophic tool for them wield is simply mild-blowing to me."
I think the basic problem is that progressive tactics emphasize "solidarity" over changing minds. Solidarity emphasizes heightening ties within a group and offering increased social rewards to those on the fringe of the group so they will join and expand the group, but at the cost of repelling everyone beyond that fringe. The incremental additions at the fringe--which will be substantial during periods of high stress (George Floyd; Gaza War), although not necessarily enduring--mask the counterproductive result of driving others further away and hamstringing the liberal Left. Perpetually heightened commitment, participatory political theater, and the serotonin boosts of endless moral-victory laps are effective blinders. (It seems to me I've seen this play before, starting from the Free Speech Movement in 1963 through the submersion of the antiwar movement in the Watergate extravaganza of 1973-74; about a decade in that pre-social media age.)
The same dynamic works on the Right, but there the far end (alt-right) has more or less become able to operate through the mass movement of MAGA. Because of the relatively contained range of the progressive Left, the liberal Left has remained substantial and capable of growth from the center, although overtly subject to attack from association with progressives. The trade-off on the Right is that the alt-right influence has the enormous MAGA base to work through, but is coming close to eliminating the conservative Right, which may create a hard limit on the Right overall.
One thing I'm unclear about in the U.S.C. situation.
Was Tabassum planning to give a speech about Israel and Gaza? If so, I don't think I'd have an issue with USC's decision. Commencement is a celebration for a lot of students and families, and I think it's reasonable to decide that it's not the place for speeches about the most controversial issues of the day. Along the same lines, I believe Commencement isn't the place for someone to give a speech about the Confederate flag representing a people's regional heritage or the importance of defending Taiwan against China's aggression either.
On the other hand, if Tabassum was willing to speak about other topics and she is losing her ability to give a speech because of her political posts about Israel, I would fully agree that is outrageous and the Jewish pressure groups and the university are fully in the wrong. Just as they would be in wrong to remove someone as a Commencement speaker because they had expressed pro-Confederate flag or anti-Communist China political views at some point either.
" . . . that’s a story about the heckler’s veto being wielded by self-styled progressives, and the fact that at this late date these people still haven’t figured out that this is a simply catastrophic tool for them wield is simply mild-blowing to me."
I think the basic problem is that progressive tactics emphasize "solidarity" over changing minds. Solidarity emphasizes heightening ties within a group and offering increased social rewards to those on the fringe of the group so they will join and expand the group, but at the cost of repelling everyone beyond that fringe. The incremental additions at the fringe--which will be substantial during periods of high stress (George Floyd; Gaza War), although not necessarily enduring--mask the counterproductive result of driving others further away and hamstringing the liberal Left. Perpetually heightened commitment, participatory political theater, and the serotonin boosts of endless moral-victory laps are effective blinders. (It seems to me I've seen this play before, starting from the Free Speech Movement in 1963 through the submersion of the antiwar movement in the Watergate extravaganza of 1973-74; about a decade in that pre-social media age.)
The same dynamic works on the Right, but there the far end (alt-right) has more or less become able to operate through the mass movement of MAGA. Because of the relatively contained range of the progressive Left, the liberal Left has remained substantial and capable of growth from the center, although overtly subject to attack from association with progressives. The trade-off on the Right is that the alt-right influence has the enormous MAGA base to work through, but is coming close to eliminating the conservative Right, which may create a hard limit on the Right overall.
Since when is deliberately sending a false fire alarm not a crime?