And they shot their own video to commemorate the occasion:
http://www.youtube.com/v/Z2Z_h-diAJI

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=9745
"Muslim Student Association Harasses Women and Jews at University of
Texas-San Antonio"

And they shot their own video to commemorate the occasion:
http://www.youtube.com/v/Z2Z_h-diAJI
http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=9745
“Muslim Student Association Harasses Women and Jews at University of
Texas-San Antonio”

And they shot their own video to commemorate the occasion:
http://www.youtube.com/v/Z2Z_h-diAJI

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=9745
“Muslim Student Association Harasses Women and Jews at University of
Texas-San Antonio”

Happily, they shot their own video to document the occasion.

I’m interested to hear what the diversity czars and the risk-averse
university bureaucrats have to say about this kind of identitarian
political activism — not because I’m particularly bothered by it (the
video shows the MSA for the repressive ideologues and wannabe zealous
thugs they are, and frankly, I find it refreshing to see such free
speech aired on a university campus for a change) — but rather because a
university-sanctioned group is performing such confrontational activism
on a university campus, where “hate” is purportedly disallowed.

This puts diversity advocates and university administrators in quite a
bind, I should think. Because to “tolerate” the political activism of
the MSA, the university must simultaneously allow for “hatred” against
women and Jews (the latter not really much of a problem, of course —
provided the wretched Zionists don’t threaten to sue). Unless, that is,
one is able to alter what constitutes “hate” by simultaneously altering
the feminist narrative to conclude that Muslim women who “Americanize”
are somehow traitors to their own cultural foundationalism, and so
shouldn’t be granted the protections of American women who are treated
as kitchen and laundry room chattel. Which argument, here, would
manifest itself as nothing much more than deafening silence from the
Women’s Studies Department.

Sadly, none of this anti-intellectual two-stepping is at all implausible
(or even unlikely) — particularly when one is forced by one’s
progressivism to navigate through the minefield that identity politics
and multiculturalism combine to create once protected groups are pitted
against one another.

Of course, simply by posting the video, Charles at LGF sets himself up
as a convenient (and potentially diversionary) scapegoat. He will be
accused of “hate” — for precisely the same reason that progressives can
rationalize their refusal to publish Danish Mohammed cartoons, or Opus
comic strips: the simple fact of airing criticism of Muslim ideologues
is itself an offense against today’s Orwellian idea of “tolerance,” even
in cases where the ideologues themselves produced the material being
criticized.

In this case, the contortions of university logic would likely go
something like this: the MSA is engaging in protected political speech,
and so can confront others students, film those confrontations, and
present it for consumption, even if the purpose is to recruit new
ideologues for further harrassment.

However, the moment control over the context is wrested away by someone
like Charles at LGF, Muslims are being unfairly targeted as objects of
hate, and the criticism implicit in the re-contexualized airing of the
video (on a site known for its criticism of Islamic fundamentalism)
marks it as a performance of that hate, and so — insofar as such an
airing can now be re-framed as “intolerant” — is no longer protected
speech.

Or, to put such contortions into their most surreal formulation
(inexorable, given the structure of progressive thinking): this video,
shot by the MSA, is, once it is shown by someone the MSA would consider
inauthentic, a hate crime against Muslims.

Which will not stand! — given that adepts of identity politics and
modern progressivism proclaim themselves “intolerant of intolerance.”

Up is down. Black is white. Balki is that other guy — the short nebishy
one with the curly hair.

In the service of pragmatism, the university might — if the proper
pressure is applied — voice its displeasure over the way the MSA is
conducting its activism, even as it simultaneously mouths predictable
claims to champion free speech.

But those who have been paying attention — or who aren’t committed to an
intentional double standard that they recognize, but that they cynically
ignore — know in their guts that had this show of political speech been,
say, an “affirmative action bake sale” put on by college Republicans, or
an anti-gay protest put on by the Campus Crusade for Christ, concerns
about free speech would be less than forthcoming.

And they shot their own video to commemorate the occasion:
http://www.youtube.com/v/Z2Z_h-diAJI

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=9745
“Muslim Student Association Harasses Women and Jews at University of
Texas-San Antonio”

And they shot their own video to commemorate the occasion:http://www.youtube.com/v/Z2Z_h-diAJI

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=9745
"Muslim Student Association Harasses Women and Jews at University of
Texas-San Antonio"

Happily, they shot their own video to document the occasion.

I'm interested to hear what the diversity czars and the risk-averse
university bureaucrats have to say about this kind of identitarian
political activism - not because I'm particularly bothered by it (the
video shows the MSA for the repressive ideologues and wannabe zealous
thugs they are, and frankly, I find it refreshing to see such free
speech aired on a university campus for a change) - but rather because a
university-sanctioned group is performing such confrontational activism
on a university campus, where "hate" is purportedly disallowed.

This puts diversity advocates and university administrators in quite a
bind, I should think. Because to "tolerate" the political activism of
the MSA, the university must simultaneously allow for "hatred" against
women and Jews (the latter not really much of a problem, of course -
provided the wretched Zionists don't threaten to sue). Unless, that is,
one is able to alter what constitutes "hate" by simultaneously altering
the feminist narrative to conclude that Muslim women who "Americanize"
are somehow traitors to their own cultural foundationalism, and so
shouldn't be granted the protections of American women who are treated
as kitchen and laundry room chattel. Which argument, here, would
manifest itself as nothing much more than deafening silence from the
Women's Studies Department.

Sadly, none of this anti-intellectual two-stepping is at all implausible
(or even unlikely) - particularly when one is forced by one's
progressivism to navigate through the minefield that identity politics
and multiculturalism combine to create once protected groups are pitted
against one another.

Of course, simply by posting the video, Charles at LGF sets himself up
as a convenient (and potentially diversionary) scapegoat. He will be
accused of "hate" - for precisely the same reason that progressives can
rationalize their refusal to publish Danish Mohammed cartoons, or Opus
comic strips: the simple fact of airing criticism of Muslim ideologues
is itself an offense against today's Orwellian idea of "tolerance," even
in cases where the ideologues themselves produced the material being
criticized.

In this case, the contortions of university logic would likely go
something like this: the MSA is engaging in protected political speech,
and so can confront others students, film those confrontations, and
present it for consumption, even if the purpose is to recruit new
ideologues for further harrassment.

However, the moment control over the context is wrested away by someone
like Charles at LGF, Muslims are being unfairly targeted as objects of
hate, and the criticism implicit in the re-contexualized airing of the
video (on a site known for its criticism of Islamic fundamentalism)
marks it as a performance of that hate, and so - insofar as such an
airing can now be re-framed as "intolerant" - is no longer protected
speech.

Or, to put such contortions into their most surreal formulation
(inexorable, given the structure of progressive thinking): this video,
shot by the MSA, is, once it is shown by someone the MSA would consider
inauthentic, a hate crime against Muslims.

Which will not stand! - given that adepts of identity politics and
modern progressivism proclaim themselves "intolerant of intolerance."

Up is down. Black is white. Balki is that other guy - the short nebishy
one with the curly hair.

In the service of pragmatism, the university might - if the proper
pressure is applied - voice its displeasure over the way the MSA is
conducting its activism, even as it simultaneously mouths predictable
claims to champion free speech.

But those who have been paying attention - or who aren't committed to an
intentional double standard that they recognize, but that they cynically
ignore - know in their guts that had this show of political speech been,
say, an "affirmative action bake sale" put on by college Republicans, or
an anti-gay protest put on by the Campus Crusade for Christ, concerns
about free speech would be less than forthcoming.

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"To abjure violence it is necessary to have no experience of it." -
George Orwell

And they shot their own video to commemorate the occasion:http://www.youtube.com/v/Z2Z_h-diAJI

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=9745
"Muslim Student Association Harasses Women and Jews at University of
Texas-San Antonio"