Whoopi Goldberg is not an anti-Semite. It is stupid to think that she is. What Goldberg is guilty of is “presentism.” She is too wrapped up in judging history by present norms and has lost the honest and true context of the Holocaust. Goldberg claimed that the Jews were not a race and the Holocaust amounted to white on white violence. She doubled down on this in an interview with Stephen Colbert where she said the Nazis were lying about the Jews being a different race.
I agree that she should not be fired for saying something stupid. Or at least I would agree if someone had prevented all the conservative voices from being fired for things they said that some leftist didn't like. But, until they get the message that firing ANYONE for making a statement that offends someone is not a reason to be fired, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Whoopi Goldberg is a racist. If I, a white, married, male said "To me all black people look alike" or "To me, all Asians look alike" or "To me, all Native Americans look alike" or "To me, all Hispanics look alike," I would be a racist.
Whoopi effectively said "To me, all white people look alike". How is that not racist?
Very well said point of view and perspective Eric and a thinker . Yes the silencing of anyone that disagrees with one another opinion is undermining the constitution and a dangerous direction we are taking as a country on certain levels. The silencing of the people is direction country's have fallen to total governmental control. God help us 🙏
I agree with your premise that ideas and opinions should be allowed to be expressed- no matter how repugnant they may be. That's the whole idea of "Freedom of Speech" (yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, etc. being rightfully excepted.)
But for years the Left has been trying to ruin those who voice opinions with which they disagree. They yell "HATE SPEECH" and try to destroy their lives as surely as Sherman destroyed Atlanta.
Imagine if Mehan McCain had said something about Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda being "Black on Black violence."
The Left needs to be held to the same standard that they hold others. THEY need to lower the level of venomous discourse.
The First Amendment was first for a reason, and it was established NOT to protect popular opinions and statement but to protect precisely those with whom we disagree, sometimes vehemently. It was established to protect us from each other and from our own government, so that we could freely discuss dissenting views without fear. That protection allows and encourages people to speak up and their views to be heard. Cancel culture invalidates that protection through the fear of retribution and ostracization, blunting public discourse. Add in Big Tech censorship and you have a winning combination...for a dictatorship.
Well Tucker, how else can you impose the "Great Reset" on a populace which is given the right to dissent from the prevailing (in the minds of those doing the imposition) orthodoxy? And as far as "hate speech", much of which is only such in the fevered minds of the left, goes: The answer to such speech is..... more speech; reasoned, temperate, but yet forceful speech refuting that speech. Suppression of such speech has historically had the effect of attracting people to that speech and its proponents. After all, the Weimar republic probably thought that outlawing the National Socialists in the wake of the Beer Hall Putsch of 1925 would destroy Hitler's movement. It didn't work.
For good or ill, the most powerful idea is the one which is suppressed by the authorities of the day.
We used to believe that we could disagree with every single thing a person said and still defend their right to have a different opinion. When did that change? More importantly, "why" did that change?
BTW, this article is exactly why I subscribe...for a voice of reason in the clamor of insanity.
It changed, Merleliz, because the present American left is the lineal descendent of the 60s "New Left" which while it was unquestionably left, was not "new", based as it was on the thoughts of the 30s "Old Left", which was not just Marxist, but actually Stalinist in its approach to notions of dissent and public discourse. For them, dissent was, and is, something to be ridiculed, marginalized, and suppressed under the guise of "political education"
The late Saul Alinsky explained this perfectly in his 1971 "Rules For Radicals", which really didn't represent particularly new ideas, but which rehashed concepts successfully used by revolutionaries for many years. They were used in 1789 in France, again in 1917 by the Bolsheviks in Russia, and again in 1933 by Hitler's National Socialist, and a fourth time by Mao's Red Guards during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. In all four cases, the result was a society which descended into effective anarchy, which was replaced by a monstrous totalitarian government and the crushing of the people's essential liberties.
What we really have in America today is nothing new, but rather a sort of "back to the future" movement which, if not opposed and defeated in a nonviolent democratic manner, will lead to yet another totalitarian leviathan state. That is truly how high the stakes are in all this.
I completely agree with you about this issue with Whoopi Goldberg. I am profoundly weary of people being cancelled for saying anything. What Whoopi said was, as you so accurately point out, simple ignorance, shaped by warped thinking that is the popular way to think.
The racist agenda of CRT is not at all about truth, however, and the arguments about Whoopi are not about truth, either. Truth is unwelcome in most of the public conversations on the airwaves.
Even opinions ought to be rooted in truth. When I was on a high school debate team, we were taught to truth to substantiate our opinions in truth. We learned that people can have different opinions without fudging on facts. That very old story about blind men and elephants is a solid example of the problem when people show no respect for one another's perspectives. Our perspectives can all be quite different without the facts changing one iota, and discussions should not be about finding new ways to fudge truth in order to increase the credibility of an opinion. Most of all, discussions of different opinions ought never to be an excuse for demeaning the humanity of opponents. The Samurai teaching about the "honorable opponent" is another way of saying that in all our conflicts, we should respect the humanity of the opposition.
I am profoundly weary of the ferocious petulance of public discourse these days.
Whoopi is guilty of being ignorant and a big fat loud mouth. I can't relieve Joy let her get away with her stupidity. I agree that until the left starts cancelling itself it won't stop. All this navel gazing is a result of a society who thinks it has too little purpose. We can't survive on 'our feelings'.
I actually get the sense that cancel culture has peaked. The shame and pain that the perpetrators should experience on the way down will be replaced with clouds of denial.
Erick, my personal opinion is like yours. I am a huge Joe Rogan fan and it is stupid that folks are even hinting that he should be "cancelled". But Whoopi/Caryn Johnson I believe should be cancelled. Not for her "misunderstanding of history"....but for the reason that until the Left starts getting cancelled by more radical factions of their party and start realizing how destructive the practice is they will never stop. I had hope when Sarah Silverman got hammered. But, she folded like a cheap card table. I realize the right cancels also. But it is much more prevalent practice of the left. Read some of Glen Greenwald's recent posts on his substack site. He explains the hypocrisy of the left perfectly.
You are, again, suggesting the correct course. Someone, some side, must take the “risk” and offer forgiveness. In doing so, we are not either mitigating the offense or “sweeping it under the rug.” We will merely be demonstrating the correct way to live….
If you look for a reason, you'll find one. I saw a quote attributed to Charles Swindoll: "Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you react to it."
I agree that she should not be fired for saying something stupid. Or at least I would agree if someone had prevented all the conservative voices from being fired for things they said that some leftist didn't like. But, until they get the message that firing ANYONE for making a statement that offends someone is not a reason to be fired, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Whoopi Goldberg is a racist. If I, a white, married, male said "To me all black people look alike" or "To me, all Asians look alike" or "To me, all Native Americans look alike" or "To me, all Hispanics look alike," I would be a racist.
Whoopi effectively said "To me, all white people look alike". How is that not racist?
Very well said point of view and perspective Eric and a thinker . Yes the silencing of anyone that disagrees with one another opinion is undermining the constitution and a dangerous direction we are taking as a country on certain levels. The silencing of the people is direction country's have fallen to total governmental control. God help us 🙏
There you go using big words again. Had to look up "heterodox." Thought maybe they were the "straight" MDs....
I agree with your premise that ideas and opinions should be allowed to be expressed- no matter how repugnant they may be. That's the whole idea of "Freedom of Speech" (yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, etc. being rightfully excepted.)
But for years the Left has been trying to ruin those who voice opinions with which they disagree. They yell "HATE SPEECH" and try to destroy their lives as surely as Sherman destroyed Atlanta.
Imagine if Mehan McCain had said something about Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda being "Black on Black violence."
The Left needs to be held to the same standard that they hold others. THEY need to lower the level of venomous discourse.
Whoopi got off light with a mere suspension.
Another good perspective
The First Amendment was first for a reason, and it was established NOT to protect popular opinions and statement but to protect precisely those with whom we disagree, sometimes vehemently. It was established to protect us from each other and from our own government, so that we could freely discuss dissenting views without fear. That protection allows and encourages people to speak up and their views to be heard. Cancel culture invalidates that protection through the fear of retribution and ostracization, blunting public discourse. Add in Big Tech censorship and you have a winning combination...for a dictatorship.
Well Tucker, how else can you impose the "Great Reset" on a populace which is given the right to dissent from the prevailing (in the minds of those doing the imposition) orthodoxy? And as far as "hate speech", much of which is only such in the fevered minds of the left, goes: The answer to such speech is..... more speech; reasoned, temperate, but yet forceful speech refuting that speech. Suppression of such speech has historically had the effect of attracting people to that speech and its proponents. After all, the Weimar republic probably thought that outlawing the National Socialists in the wake of the Beer Hall Putsch of 1925 would destroy Hitler's movement. It didn't work.
For good or ill, the most powerful idea is the one which is suppressed by the authorities of the day.
There seems to be a new power founded by a segment of our society that they have the power and right to control others .. why i suppose that is….humm
Yelling fire in a crowded movie theater is a perfectly acceptable exercise of free speech...if, in fact, the theater happens to be on fire.
I didn't think I needed to state the obvious, but obviously I did.
It was meant as a joke...
We used to believe that we could disagree with every single thing a person said and still defend their right to have a different opinion. When did that change? More importantly, "why" did that change?
BTW, this article is exactly why I subscribe...for a voice of reason in the clamor of insanity.
It changed, Merleliz, because the present American left is the lineal descendent of the 60s "New Left" which while it was unquestionably left, was not "new", based as it was on the thoughts of the 30s "Old Left", which was not just Marxist, but actually Stalinist in its approach to notions of dissent and public discourse. For them, dissent was, and is, something to be ridiculed, marginalized, and suppressed under the guise of "political education"
The late Saul Alinsky explained this perfectly in his 1971 "Rules For Radicals", which really didn't represent particularly new ideas, but which rehashed concepts successfully used by revolutionaries for many years. They were used in 1789 in France, again in 1917 by the Bolsheviks in Russia, and again in 1933 by Hitler's National Socialist, and a fourth time by Mao's Red Guards during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. In all four cases, the result was a society which descended into effective anarchy, which was replaced by a monstrous totalitarian government and the crushing of the people's essential liberties.
What we really have in America today is nothing new, but rather a sort of "back to the future" movement which, if not opposed and defeated in a nonviolent democratic manner, will lead to yet another totalitarian leviathan state. That is truly how high the stakes are in all this.
I completely agree with you about this issue with Whoopi Goldberg. I am profoundly weary of people being cancelled for saying anything. What Whoopi said was, as you so accurately point out, simple ignorance, shaped by warped thinking that is the popular way to think.
The racist agenda of CRT is not at all about truth, however, and the arguments about Whoopi are not about truth, either. Truth is unwelcome in most of the public conversations on the airwaves.
Even opinions ought to be rooted in truth. When I was on a high school debate team, we were taught to truth to substantiate our opinions in truth. We learned that people can have different opinions without fudging on facts. That very old story about blind men and elephants is a solid example of the problem when people show no respect for one another's perspectives. Our perspectives can all be quite different without the facts changing one iota, and discussions should not be about finding new ways to fudge truth in order to increase the credibility of an opinion. Most of all, discussions of different opinions ought never to be an excuse for demeaning the humanity of opponents. The Samurai teaching about the "honorable opponent" is another way of saying that in all our conflicts, we should respect the humanity of the opposition.
I am profoundly weary of the ferocious petulance of public discourse these days.
Whoopi is guilty of being ignorant and a big fat loud mouth. I can't relieve Joy let her get away with her stupidity. I agree that until the left starts cancelling itself it won't stop. All this navel gazing is a result of a society who thinks it has too little purpose. We can't survive on 'our feelings'.
The Left can change the rules anytime with no complaints from the Right. Until then, they need to live under them.
I actually get the sense that cancel culture has peaked. The shame and pain that the perpetrators should experience on the way down will be replaced with clouds of denial.
Erick, my personal opinion is like yours. I am a huge Joe Rogan fan and it is stupid that folks are even hinting that he should be "cancelled". But Whoopi/Caryn Johnson I believe should be cancelled. Not for her "misunderstanding of history"....but for the reason that until the Left starts getting cancelled by more radical factions of their party and start realizing how destructive the practice is they will never stop. I had hope when Sarah Silverman got hammered. But, she folded like a cheap card table. I realize the right cancels also. But it is much more prevalent practice of the left. Read some of Glen Greenwald's recent posts on his substack site. He explains the hypocrisy of the left perfectly.
You are, again, suggesting the correct course. Someone, some side, must take the “risk” and offer forgiveness. In doing so, we are not either mitigating the offense or “sweeping it under the rug.” We will merely be demonstrating the correct way to live….
I'm so tired of everyone on both sides just looking for a reason to be offended.
If you look for a reason, you'll find one. I saw a quote attributed to Charles Swindoll: "Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you react to it."