Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
About Tomi, That Lawyer, and Mob Justice
The other day at the playground I overheard a few fathers chatting about the legalization of sports gambling. One asked, “What kind of impact do you think this Supreme Court decision will have on our society?” The other replied, “Our society is already crumbling, what’s the difference?” Everyone around laughed and took a big sigh. Because he was right.
Having never been alive during another time in human history, perhaps it’s difficult to judge, but it certainly feels as though basic decency and kindness are a thing of the past. One striking event in the last day reminded us of this:
https://twitter.com/aVeryRichBish/status/998688070017929216
The post, just one of many about the incident, which saw patrons at a brunch spot yelling at and throwing drinks on Fox News commentator Tomi Lahren, has over 14,000 likes on Twitter of this writing. Not all liberals are cheering, but a lot certainly are. One notable defender of Lahren is comedian Kathy Griffin, who wrote,
I couldn’t disagree more with @TomiLahren, but I don’t think it’s cool to resort to physical actions to make your point.
The first amendment is a beautiful thing – use it. https://t.co/Yx8obh0aH0
— Kathy Griffin (@kathygriffin) May 23, 2018
Griffin herself has been the victim of a frightening social media mob after she posed for a graphic photo shoot holding a lifelike image of President Trump’s head. Justifiably, the outrage was swift, but she later said she feared for her physical safety in the aftermath.
The incident reminded me of another frightening mob, this time taking aim at a racist New York lawyer, Aaron Schlossberg, who was filmed ranting about Spanish-speaking waiters at a restaurant. The online furor followed him into the real world. With a Mariachi band being hired to play outside of his apartment, he was hounded by the press, and his law firm was pummeled with one-star reviews online.
Why is this news? Someone says something despicable every minute of the day; the difference here is that cameras turned Lahren’s brunch and Schlossberg’s rant into a news story for people to rally around. Of course, nobody actually rallied in defense of Schlossberg, barring one notable exception, but this story is one of the incidents where pushback is most necessary.
The Atlantic’s Julia Ioffe was the one public figure who was apprehensive about how Schlossberg’s statements were being treated:
Aaron Schlossberg doesn’t seem like a very nice person, but does that merit harassing him in the street, kicking him out of his work space, having people trying to revoke his legal license? Imagine this happening to someone you agree with and see how you feel.
— Julia Ioffe (@juliaioffe) May 18, 2018
Ioffe has been the target of several mobs herself, found herself in the middle of another for her Schlossberg comments. She later felt pressured to reiterate her comments weren’t a defense of Schlossberg, but instead a correction against online mob justice:
Hi Twitter world, I hear you. I even agree with you and always have on this: racism is indefensible. I’m sorry that I came across as defending Aaron Schlossberg. That wasn’t my intent, because I do not and never have defended his actions. I apologize.
— Julia Ioffe (@juliaioffe) May 18, 2018
But Ioffe was right the first time: we cannot rely on a mob, whose activities online translate into offline ruin for its victims, to mete out justice. We should stand up to the mob because it has a way of indiscriminately choosing its next victims, and sometimes even gets the names and identities of its targets wrong in the frenzy.
In the case of Lahren, the President weighed in on defending her from those who assaulted her at brunch, and who are now cheering her treatment:
Everybody is with Tomi Lahren, a truly outstanding and respected young woman! @foxandfriends
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 23, 2018
This isn’t true. Lahren is a divisive and unkind individual, disliked both for her public persona as well as her behavior in private (I’ve heard from several of her former colleagues at The Blaze). She doesn’t have to be a good person, and neither does Schlossberg, in order to be deserving of defense from the online and offline mob.
It’s disturbing that from the President on down, our society has determined an individual’s worthiness in order to decide if they are deserving of being physically assaulted and harassed for things they’ve merely said. You don’t have to like Lahren or Schlossberg to decry the mob or its destructive power.
Published in Journalism
I agree, but I think a bigger factor is that the press promotes left-wing protest, but vilifies right-wing protest. It’s easier for the Left to do, and works better for them.
Bethany, you drive me a bit nuts sometimes. Why do you always buy into the Left-wing narrative about things like this?
A guy objects to people speaking Spanish in a restaurant. I didn’t see any “racist . . . rant,” just a guy who wanted employees to speak English. Are you saying that this makes him a racist? Are we not able to object to the problem of people speaking Spanish in ways and venues that make it difficult for us to communicate with each other?
Yes, the word matters. That’s my point. If we talk about it in terms of war we’re going to think about it in terms of war. If we think of it in terms of war, we’re going to conclude that violence is justified, and the level of violence will gradually increase. As you point out, this is a debate. The stakes are very high, and some people have resorted to violence and intimidation, but it’s still a debate and not a war. Let’s make sure that everybody knows that.
Politicians are burned in effigy all the time. I don’t think that is a call to violence. In fact, it’s the definition of free speech.
When someone says ” I will kill you”, even on the internet and whether serious or not, that is a threat of violence.
I personally don’t mind when I see a President burned in effigy, portrayed as a rodeo clown, or depicted with their head cut off.
They may all be stupid acts, but it does let me know I’m free.
Why should anyone care if someone is speaking Spanish, Italian, or Chinese? Why would it matter? Don’t like it that the employees are speaking Spanish, I think you could find a different restaurant in Manhattan. They may be backwards, but they have more than one I’m sure.
I would say that when the guy started assuming they were on welfare, that was just a tad racist.
That’s not it. The difference in behavior is a result of the difference in world view. A leftist thinks right-wing convictions stand between them and utopia, so conservatives must be either change or be driven out. A conservative thinks left-wing convictions are annoying and counterproductive, but freedom…, so we should avoid the bozos. Want proof? Consider why conservatives rarely boycott things.
Well, there was a post last week that got over 200 comments about Lahren and immigration. I had to look up when it was posted. It was the 13th and posted by Bethany as well. So if not for Bethany, I’d have forgotten about her.
Huh? Since when is a boycott anti-freedom? A boycott actually seems like a pretty good example of avoiding the bozos.
For that matter, I’d love to the see the left, instead of shutting down bakeries that won’t bake a rainbow-flavored gay wedding cake, just boycott them, instead.
How much of a debate do you really think you’re going to have, with people who want to force you to conform with their ever-changing whims, or just don’t want you to exist? It’s not a debate at all, and a poor word choice on my part. It’s “debate” in the sense that Hamas was debating with Israel last week.
So, to restate:
If the word war puts you off, then choose another term. The point is, this isn’t politics as usual (in case 2016 wasn’t enough of a clue). We’re not living in a time when our political fights are about one party against the other party, deciding how best to implement American ideals. The Left has rejected American ideals, in favor of speech codes, unlimited, centralized political power, a racial caste system, a disarmed populace, and so on. We’re not debating what kind of America to have. We’re deciding whether America should continue to exist.
I didn’t say a bad word about boycotts, and I’m betting you didn’t consider why conservatives don’t do it. Please consider the point being made rather than focusing on a single word or phrase.
A single word? Like “war”? Or “debate”?
You said that conservatives value freedom, and prefer to avoid bozos. So why did you bring up boycotts? To contradict your own point?
Also not sure I’m on board with the premise. What makes you think conservatives don’t boycott?
That is exactly true. The guys on Howie Carr were calling her “The Blob” because she grows when you fight her. LOL
Amen.
None. Why do you think we have to convince them? There are hardly any of “them.” There’s a tiny fringe on the left that engage in violence and intimidation. There’s a slightly larger group that roots for them, but won’t engage due to fear, laziness, or both. And there’s the rest of the left that has some sympathy for stated social-justice goals. They aren’t on-board with the violence and intimidation, but to the extent they think it’s happening to their enemies they’re willing to look the other way. It’s that last group we need to convince that we’re not enemies. If we can do that they’ll no longer accept the violence.
But maybe that’s all a ridiculous pipe-dream. What do you have in mind?
I said this on another thread. Mark Penn is all worked up about the Democrats going after Trump because “he wants to get back to discussing policy”. The left isn’t interested in policy, because Government Is How We Steal From Each Other. Graft, redistribution, and largess. Goofy social engineering. Every single thing they do is electioneering in the service of stealing.
It’s just like talking to the gun grabbers, or observing what they actually do. It’s not about policy, it’s all about electioneering. Sometimes it’s about virtue signaling in the service of electioneering. Grabbing power first, and after that nothing else matters.
You may have a point. I assume they don’t because I don’t hear much about it. Sometimes I catch wind of somebody trying to spin one up, but it rarely seems to take hold and it never seems to affect a change. It’s possible conservatives are equally predisposed to boycotts as liberals, but we just suck at it.
I was addressing Misthiocracy’s theory in that comment. Nothing more. Those words don’t appear anywhere in that comment.
Obviously, I was talking about other comments, in which you were very interested in my word choice.
I am still curious about whether you find boycotts to be consistent or inconsistent with a belief in freedom.
I don’t know if it matters how many there really are when the ones winning elections seem to be coming from the crazy “minority”. And those that are more reasonable still lose to the congress critters that resemble the crazy “minority”.
If most voters favored Dems like Webb, why isn’t he minority leader?
And didn’t Feinstein just lose a primary to a hard leftist?
Boycotts are completely consistent with freedom. Boycotts were my example of a difference in behavior between liberals and conservatives that has nothing to do with the factors Misthiocracy proposed. Having a job and a family doesn’t hamper one’s ability to boycott. It was not offered as evidence that conservatives are freedom-loving, but it does suggest that conservative are inclined to just avoid the bozos.
Boycotts and organized, public events, meant to send a message and intimidate the targets into doing something they are probably otherwise disinclined to do. I think of them as distinct from individuals deciding to take their business elsewhere. Boycotts aren’t avoiding the bozos. Boycotts are attacking the bozos. Boycotts are legitimate, legal, and fair. When done occasionally in an effort to address improper or immoral behavior, they can be a good thing. When used frequently as the left does, as a weapon to intimidate people with whom they disagree politically, it’s one of the tactics that escalates the hostility.
I’m not sure who you’re referring to as a “tiny fringe.” If you’re just thinking of antifa, and water-throwing brunch ladies, I suppose you’re correct. I was thinking more along the lines of the municipal officials, judges, and SJW mobs that force businesses to either cater to transgender/homosexual agenda items, or close down. To the entertainment industry figures that enforce doctrinal purity on all but a few non-conformists. To the university staff that abide by, or even enforce, the whims of the tiny fringe on their campuses. To the teachers and teachers’ unions that carry that same mindset into public K-12 schools. To the journalists that dutifully downplay left-wing violence, and uncritically make much of any charge of like violence from the right. Then, there are the various efforts by governments, at various levels, to force Catholics out of the adoption business, or require that foster parents subscribe to a certain view of sex or sexuality, or firearms. More examples may occur to you.
I agree that there are still fellow-travelers that could be brought ’round by earnest debate. That doesn’t mean there’s not a war on, though.
I don’t know what to think about all this, but I really hate the idea of boycotts.
I have to admit that Cultural Marxism and theft by government is what the left wants and they will do anything to that end.
Me too. I have no problem with personal boycotts, each person choosing not to support businesses which don’t align with their values, as they see fit, but the idea of organizing to shame others into boycotting and drive someone out of business, or hurt financially, is abhorrent, even if I don’t like the target. I think it’s the humiliation-aspect that troubles me, and it goes two-way in a boycott: humiliate the customers and humiliate the business owner.
I don’t necessarily object to a boycott if people are protesting an actual company policy. The ones I find hateful are when a company is targeted because they employ (or are owned by) someone who has the wrong views, and those views have nothing to do with their job at the company.
For instance, let’s say there’s a tire store and they advertise that for each set of tires sold they are donating $50 to Planned Parenthood. OK, I’m not going to that store. But I don’t really care where the owner or manager of the business stands on controversial issues unless they are intentionally bringing their activism into the business. When a company promotes a political issue, they’re going to lose some people and I won’t feel sorry for them. If they are trying to mind their own business, they shouldn’t be hassled because an employee in his off-duty life has expressed an unsavory opinion.
I generally don’t like being around people speaking different languages. I don’t know what they’re saying. They may not know what I’m saying. Communication becomes difficult. You get the sense of being a stranger in your own country.
Look, my grandparents were the children of Italian immigrants. My grandparents occasionally spoke Italian to each other, even when the entire family was around. We grandkids knew darned well why they were doing it — because they were saying something that they didn’t want us to understand. This is the sort of thing that makes multiple languages a potential problem.
I live in Tucson, and I don’t have a problem with people speaking Spanish in a bunch of venues. In a Mexican restaurant, for example, or a supermarket that caters to Hispanics. We have a few supermarkets that specialize in ethnic foods (mostly Mexican, and a few Asian). On the other hand, I wouldn’t like bilingual signs at a regular place like Walmart or a regular restaurant like Applebee’s.
There is substantial social science that immigration, and mixing of cultures, causes a breakdown in the sense of community among everybody. I think that the main work in this area is by Putnam, and he suppressed it for a few years because it was so politically incorrect (and did not match his own preferences).
We have millions of illegal immigrants causing serious social problems, and any discussion of the problems this creates is derided as racism by the pathological portion of the Left.
I have lived it. This is a nice, easy-to-read article by Kevin Williamson on how this stuff works in reality. Check out Dr. Joseph Selarno on “Mises and Nationalism,”too.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I think the problems are actually worse than punching it out and solving it that way.
This is more of a complete and total breaking of all ties of fellowship or possible coexistence. All levers of power must be thrown, and all means are justified.
Its like watching a crazy person screaming about how the spider king of waffles is going to vacuum up our rare earth metals through our cellular membrane with secret technology he bought from the jews and their alliance with the hellspawn of demon and alien overlords, while dousing the building with gasoline and carrying around a backpack of roman candles.
At some point this goes from worrying to dangerous.
It wouldn’t be so bad if there wasn’t a nontrivial number of other people (cough william kristol) that suddenly when “oh [redacted] you mean the spider king is back, and also started to run around with cans of gasoline.
Why do so many Americans have this strange distate for boycotts, and other peaceful, non-coercive acts of protest?
Boycotts take different forms, but the essence of it is simply declining to engage with the subject of the boycott. Thus defined, a boycott is a peaceful means of expressing disagreement with an organization, or a person; and a peaceful, non-coercive pressure tactic. In fact, it’s similar to the tactics used by Americans, in the early days of our struggle against the British government. The word boycott had yet to be coined, so we refer to them as non-importation or non-consumption agreements.
Similar arguments could be made for picketing, demonstrating, and other means of peaceful protest. They sure beat throwing water at people, or worse.
On a related note, this seems like a very big deal.
Maybe WW3, Chicago Way, scorched earth etc. tactics are prudent.