Turns out the Falls Church school board guy from the Koch thinktank, Ilya Shapiro, really is toxic

[Anonymous]

Universities are now intolerant of diversity of opinion:

https://humanevents.com/2021/09/28/nearly-25-of-college-students-say-its-acceptable-to-use-violence-to-shut-down-controversial-speakers/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thread is a disgusting smear campaign. It is classic cancel-culture.

And as is typical of cancel culture: it is based on lies. Ilya is in no way a racist! Just because you disagree with his politics does not give you the right to lie about him or make baseless claims of racism.

I am reporting this thread. It should be deleted.

I am starting to think the definition of cancel culture is being held accountable for your words and actions.

If you don’t like the word “cancelled,” just substitute the identical-meaning “held accountable.”

It’s different because it’s spelled with different letters than cancelled.

No, it's Mao's Cultural Revolution.

Another hallmark of our former soviet friends is their insistence that anything they don't like is another brick on the road to communism and anything they do like is absolutely right and must never, ever be questioned--questions or dissent are wrong and bad! Indeed, they are cancel culture! How dare we ask Comrade Shapiro to defend or explain himself? Who do we peasants think we are? This is a Very Important man! Questions are communism!

(If you ignore the effect this kind of wrongthink (to use their very Soviet word) has upon free speech and politics, these people are hilarious. We all need to sell them a lot of mlm products.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thread is a disgusting smear campaign. It is classic cancel-culture.

And as is typical of cancel culture: it is based on lies. Ilya is in no way a racist! Just because you disagree with his politics does not give you the right to lie about him or make baseless claims of racism.

I am reporting this thread. It should be deleted.

I am starting to think the definition of cancel culture is being held accountable for your words and actions.

If you don’t like the word “cancelled,” just substitute the identical-meaning “held accountable.”

It’s different because it’s spelled with different letters than cancelled.

No, it's Mao's Cultural Revolution.

Another hallmark of our former soviet friends is their insistence that anything they don't like is another brick on the road to communism and anything they do like is absolutely right and must never, ever be questioned--questions or dissent are wrong and bad! Indeed, they are cancel culture! How dare we ask Comrade Shapiro to defend or explain himself? Who do we peasants think we are? This is a Very Important man! Questions are communism!

(If you ignore the effect this kind of wrongthink (to use their very Soviet word) has upon free speech and politics, these people are hilarious. We all need to sell them a lot of mlm products.)

Oh you’re right, you’re right.

Better to allow no apologies, no explanation, no forgiveness, and just summarily execute his career based on one tweet.

Mao-style.

A university is no place for diversity (diversity of political viewpoints that is).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now his twitter is all about respectful discourse. Really dude?

Universities no longer allow respectful discourse. Nor do they tolerate “wrongthink.”

What is respectful about "lesser black woman"?

Own it.

[Anonymous]

CANCELLED.

Own it.

(you can keep rejecting: “apologized”).

[Anonymous]

Racist POS.

Own it.

[Anonymous]

The political knife fight over Ilya Shapiro's tweet is a win for the conservatives.

The liberal objection to his tweet is that his use of the phrase “lesser black woman” can ONLY be read as having a racist meaning. That is disingenuous. When read in the context of the tweet, the phrase conveys that if Biden limits his candidates to black women and, therefore, does not pick Sri Srinivasan, who in Ilya’s view is “the objectively best pick,” that Biden is limited to choosing a lesser qualified black woman. The conservatives, on the other hand, are reading the phrase in context, but are ALSO noting, if it is taken out of context, that it could have the negative racist connotation insisted upon by the liberals. In short, the conservatives are taking the more nuanced view and will come off as more reasonable. So where does that leave us?

By insisting that the phrase can only have a racist meaning, that has fired up the liberal base (witness this thread). However, by doing so, it has also fired up a conservative defense (again, witness this thread). So far, that’s politically neutral – both bases fired up. Further, this outcome remains true whether Ilya loses his job or not.

What about a more tepid partisan? They must be rolling their eyes at the disingenuousness of the liberal position, which can only help the conservatives. Once folks complete the political analysis, I suspect this will exit the news cycle quickly.

[Anonymous]

Still waiting for Ilya to explain why he doesn't consider Amy Coney Barrett a less justice given she was picked because she was a woman and, under Ilya's metric, there were more qualified candidates.

It seems his prefers to target women who are racial/ethnic minorities. Sounds pretty racist to me!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The political knife fight over Ilya Shapiro's tweet is a win for the conservatives.

The liberal objection to his tweet is that his use of the phrase “lesser black woman” can ONLY be read as having a racist meaning. That is disingenuous. When read in the context of the tweet, the phrase conveys that if Biden limits his candidates to black women and, therefore, does not pick Sri Srinivasan, who in Ilya’s view is “the objectively best pick,” that Biden is limited to choosing a lesser qualified black woman. The conservatives, on the other hand, are reading the phrase in context, but are ALSO noting, if it is taken out of context, that it could have the negative racist connotation insisted upon by the liberals. In short, the conservatives are taking the more nuanced view and will come off as more reasonable. So where does that leave us?

By insisting that the phrase can only have a racist meaning, that has fired up the liberal base (witness this thread). However, by doing so, it has also fired up a conservative defense (again, witness this thread). So far, that’s politically neutral – both bases fired up. Further, this outcome remains true whether Ilya loses his job or not.

What about a more tepid partisan? They must be rolling their eyes at the disingenuousness of the liberal position, which can only help the conservatives. Once folks complete the political analysis, I suspect this will exit the news cycle quickly.

The vast majority of people have no clue who this guy is or have heard about this "controversy".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please. Stop whining. Yer man tanked his political career. I bet even Cato will dump him soon.

He tanked his reputation. His career will be fine. Georgetown won’t recind their offer, although I’m sure they hope he decides not to come. As long as he has got Koch money behind him, he will always find a home.

I'm not even sure that he tanked his reputation. The 'affirmative action for me but not for thee' conservatives have no problem with what he said. And I'm not sure there are that many people on the left who know him and think he's a brilliant guy.

Even if GTown did rescind his offer, he'd just become a right wing media star because he was 'cancelled' and probably be the president of Hillsdale this time next year.

He’s tanked his reputation in the legal profession at the very least, which is actually quite a big deal in those circles. You don’t see a lot of prominent legal scholars defending him and the obvious reason is that nobody wants to be professionally associated as supporting someone who has made what are now well known racist public statements about two Supreme Court judges. They would fear potential damage to their own careers. I imagine he’s getting a lot of private messages of support, but the only public supper he’s getting is from partisan media.

Similarly, Georgetown is in a tough spot now. They won’t rescind, but they screwed themselves reputationally with a significant group of people who the school would like to visit for lectures and place their graduates in clerkships with.

But otherwise, he’s set himself up for lifetime employment in right wing circles.

Actually, plenty of prominent legal scholars are defending him. https://www.thefire.org/faculty-letter-in-support-of-ilya-shapiro-january-31-2022/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The political knife fight over Ilya Shapiro's tweet is a win for the conservatives.

The liberal objection to his tweet is that his use of the phrase “lesser black woman” can ONLY be read as having a racist meaning. That is disingenuous. When read in the context of the tweet, the phrase conveys that if Biden limits his candidates to black women and, therefore, does not pick Sri Srinivasan, who in Ilya’s view is “the objectively best pick,” that Biden is limited to choosing a lesser qualified black woman. The conservatives, on the other hand, are reading the phrase in context, but are ALSO noting, if it is taken out of context, that it could have the negative racist connotation insisted upon by the liberals. In short, the conservatives are taking the more nuanced view and will come off as more reasonable. So where does that leave us?

By insisting that the phrase can only have a racist meaning, that has fired up the liberal base (witness this thread). However, by doing so, it has also fired up a conservative defense (again, witness this thread). So far, that’s politically neutral – both bases fired up. Further, this outcome remains true whether Ilya loses his job or not.

What about a more tepid partisan? They must be rolling their eyes at the disingenuousness of the liberal position, which can only help the conservatives. Once folks complete the political analysis, I suspect this will exit the news cycle quickly.

The vast majority of people have no clue who this guy is or have heard about this "controversy".

This reads as a tacit concession that the conservatives are winning the political battle on this. Your point is that the scope of the win may be limited if the vast majority aren't paying any attention. That may be all the more reason for this to exit the news cycle as quickly as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for Ilya to explain why he doesn't consider Amy Coney Barrett a less justice given she was picked because she was a woman and, under Ilya's metric, there were more qualified candidates.

It seems his prefers to target women who are racial/ethnic minorities. Sounds pretty racist to me!

There you go, hanging a little asterisk next to Amy's name, noting that she was picked, in part, because she was a woman. Didn't you just prove Ilya's point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for Ilya to explain why he doesn't consider Amy Coney Barrett a less justice given she was picked because she was a woman and, under Ilya's metric, there were more qualified candidates.

It seems his prefers to target women who are racial/ethnic minorities. Sounds pretty racist to me!

This is exactly correct and his criticism of Sotomayor absolutely nails the case closed that his “lesser black woman” phrase was an innocent mistake or something.

What’s the saying? Two is a line and three is a trend? Sotomayor, Barrett and “lesser black woman” is all the evidence needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for Ilya to explain why he doesn't consider Amy Coney Barrett a less justice given she was picked because she was a woman and, under Ilya's metric, there were more qualified candidates.

It seems his prefers to target women who are racial/ethnic minorities. Sounds pretty racist to me!

There you go, hanging a little asterisk next to Amy's name, noting that she was picked, in part, because she was a woman. Didn't you just prove Ilya's point?

It’s to point out Ilya Shapiro’s blatant hypocrisy and obvious racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for Ilya to explain why he doesn't consider Amy Coney Barrett a less justice given she was picked because she was a woman and, under Ilya's metric, there were more qualified candidates.

It seems his prefers to target women who are racial/ethnic minorities. Sounds pretty racist to me!

There you go, hanging a little asterisk next to Amy's name, noting that she was picked, in part, because she was a woman. Didn't you just prove Ilya's point?

If that was Ilya's point then he would be one hanging the little asterisk next to Amy's name, correct?