When actor Seth Rogen, an atheist of Jewish heritage, announced that he no longer supports Israel -- "I was fed a huge amount of lies about Israel my entire life" -- he was criticized for his apostasy. (Being an atheist does not constitute Jewish heresy, but breaking with Israel does.)
Then, during a call with Jewish Agency chairman Isaac Herzog, Rogen learned that “many Israelis and Jews around the world were personally hurt by his statement, which implies the denial of Israel’s right to exist." Herzog says Rogen apologized, explaining that his comments were meant to be humorous.
But Rogen has "distanced himself from a statement from the Jewish Agency that claimed [he] had 'apologized,'" the Times of Israel reports. That must mean he wasn't just trying to be funny.
I stand with Rogen. His comments about Israel were spot on. I too was told lies about Israel growing up ("a land without a people for a people without a land") -- but I hasten to add that the people close to me did not know they were lies. I'd bet Rogen would say the same thing.
I am also happy to hear that he did not apologize for his comments. Why should he? The State of Israel came into being through the systematic dispossession and oppression of the Palestinians. Many Jews know this and criticize Israel for it. Not only that: many Jews would have been uncomfortable with the idea of an exclusivist Jewish state even if Palestine really had been a land without a people. (Rogen expressed the same view.) Reform Judaism was explicitly founded in the 19th century in opposition to the ideas of Jewish exile, diaspora, and separatism.
But what I most want to focus on here is Herzog's statement that Rogen had "personally hurt" Jews and Israelis. I assume he meant that Rogen had hurt their feelings. My question is: if someone's feelings are hurt by condemnations of injustice, why should anyone care? Are some people's feelings more important than other people's very right to live free and dignified lives? I don't think so. Some feelings ought to be -- need to be -- hurt.
This preoccupation with not hurting feelings is at the root of the ominous cancel culture and the burgeoning informal PC constraints on free thought and free speech. If you look hard enough you will find that these unfortunate things originated in attempts to inhibit good-faith criticism of Israel and support for the Palestinians by stigmatizing the speakers as anti-Semites.
As long as we're talking about feelings, let's do a full accounting. Yes, I'm sure Rogen hurt some people's feelings. But I'm also confident his courage to speak also made Palestinians, anti-Zionist Jews, and other champions of justice feel more hopeful. Why don't their feelings count?
IMO the cancel culture issue is just the opposite. The vast majority of people complaining about it simply had their feelings hurt by someone talking back to them. The great bulk of "cancel culture" complains involve someone with a garbage opinion being talked to mean by their social inferiors on Twitter. And for everyone who actually lost a job over "un-PC" opinions as a result of being cancelled by the Left, there was probably at least one person whom a Harpers Letter signatory tried to get fired -- and possibly succeeded. Bret Stephens tried to get the guy who called him a bedbug fired, J.K. Rowling threatened to sue people for accurately characterizing her views.... If classical liberalism actually holds that the solution to bad speech is more speech, then the overwhelming majority of cancel culture is something J.S. Mill would approve of. And most of the people who signed that Harpers letter are attacking a strawman to conceal the fact that they want a safe space from people telling them their ideas are bad.
ReplyDeleteYeah, Carson, but "garbage opinion" is kind of subjective. I saw, for example, Roderick T. Long saying there is such thing such as "violence against women" in our society, despite the fact that women have lower chances of being victims of most crimes and the only way they can say otherwise is by lying (for example, that silliness of one-in-four women are victims of rape came from a literal rape apologist.) Should we cancel Long for having such a nonsensical belive? Not to mention, there is very little people trying to cancel abusers such as Amber Heard or rapists such as Amy Schumer.
ReplyDeleteThe point is, is, these people opinions are bad, but so are Roderick Long opinions, why Long doesn't get the end of the stick? (Seriously, Long, stop having this garbage opinion that violence against women is a thing or that women are oppressed in society.)
Lol, uses MRA as an insult. XD You surely using that freedom of speech that Mill gave you to convince others. XD Hey, tell me, if feminists are so pro equality why are they woman raping man as not real rape? - https://soundcloud.com/889-wers/male-rape - Wait, I forgot, you think trashing others is a real argument. Face, Carson, your time went away, just like Rothbard with his paleolibertarianism, you are now just pandering to a group trying to keep yourself relevant. XD
ReplyDeleteHey, Carson, why don't you go write another dumb article where you declare that housewifes are oppresed because they are doing unpaid labor so everyone who is not stupid can keep laughing at you. Face, dude, you don't wrote shit interesting makes seven years or something. XD
ReplyDeleteHey, Carson, you know who else wrote pro men rights? Robert Anton Wilson, the guy who kept your version of anarchism alive. The guy who you will never be able to reach. XD http://www.backlash.com/content/gender/1996/4-apr96/wilson04.html
ReplyDelete*You didn't write..., sorry for the typo, I wrote this with lots of coffee in my blood. XD
ReplyDelete"...why are they woman..." should be "...why they view...", I wish Blogger had an edit button.
ReplyDelete