There's a 30 Rock joke where Liz Lemon says, "'All I'm promising is 'a madcap musical romp. Dot-dot-dot, fun! Dot-dot-dot, good!' That was on the poster!'" and I think about it all the time.
That technique Stefanik used is a further advancement of the "Unwinnable Question" that Republicans have been weaponizing for years, most notably with the legal wild goose chase that ended with Bill Clinton getting impeached for a bj.
For those unfamiliar with the journalism trope of the "Unwinnable Question," it's classic context is in the guise of a "reporter" springing this question on a politician at the most inopportune moment: "When did you stop beating your spouse?"
If the politician immediately retorts "I've never…" the hack jumps in with "So you're still beating your spouse?" Of course, almost every other answer the politician gives has context - and therefore, can also be immediately weaponized against them. Even if a politician or other public figure stays mute when that kind of question is tossed at them, the asking of the question is often used to smear them.
Hence, why it's called the "Unwinnable Question."
The only kind of media folks who ask such questions are trash. It's an ambush technique designed to generate heat, but never light.
I can see why some might think something similar, especially if one is of a certain age. That said, there are chances to win at that question, especially if one has a decent mother.
The Unwinnable Question is designed to specifically make the target a loser, even if they don't answer, regardless of unknown externalities like whether those persons surrounding the target support them.
That's why it's called the Unwinnable Question. Once it's fired, the damage is done, whether or not the target addresses it or has a support system around them. It's insidious, the kind of thing only evil people use as a common weapon.
Insightful stuff as always, Parker. The weaponization of bad-faith omission or distortion of context seems an almost unavoidable outcome in our information-oversaturated, rapid-fire media environment. It doesn’t help at all that mainstream media, far from considering it part of their job to explicitly identify bad faith argumentation and actors, are actually more than happy to be lead around by the nose by these people. One would think that “not being a sucker” would be a matter of professional pride for media elite, but that sense seems all too dull for most.
"both sides need to figure out how to live in peace with neighbors they don’t necessarily like"
Sure, you can say that's simplistic, but it's also true that it's the only thing that has ever worked for conflicts like this throughout all of human history.
I love this article, and I agree with everything in principle.
But. The thing about the specific catch phrases--"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" and "Globalize the Intifada"--is that, every Jewish scholar I know (which, admittedly, is not all of them... but it's a lot) argues that, historically, these are statements made in the broader context of killing Jews and dismantling the state of Israel.
Another point I've seen about this is that of an analogy by way of "Blue Lives Matter": of course the people saying it deny it has anything to do with extrajudicial killing of nonwhite people, but it's still viewed as racist by pretty much everyone else, because the targets of the statement say that it's racist and I believe them.
There is a very, very long history of those two statements targeting Jews. So if Jews say the statements are rooted in antisemitism, I believe them.
Okay, sure. But the question isn't whether or not they're antisemitic, but whether or not they are genocidal 100% of the time. Obviously, they are not. Antisemitic speech is protected speech. Just as transphobic speech is protected speech. As I point out, elsewhere, schools regularly *pay* guys like Michael Knowles to come to campus and give talks where he openly says that trans people need to be "eradicated." That *is* genocidal, but nobody seems to have a problem with it, oddly. The college presidents had a duty to stand up for protected speech. To accept that those phrases (or any phrases) are, in every single utterance, genocidal would have put the schools on a path to shut down protected (if abhorrent) speech. The past decade of "campus speech" activism has been to push for even the most disgusting speech to be allowed.
Just as I don't think a student should be expelled for saying Blue Lives Matter (I will think they're an awful person, but don't think they should be expelled), I don't think they should be expelled for chanting something that may be viewed as antisemitic by some, either. That's not how free speech works or should work.
As Rosenberg writes in his piece, "Ignorance isn’t genocidal advocacy; it’s the default state of most students, which is why they go to school in the first place."
Ah, I see what you're saying; thanks for highlighting that distinction.
I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough of broader history--my suspicion is a lot of Jewish scholars might argue "antisemitic but not genocidal" is a distinction without a difference, but I have no basis of my own to make that argument--so I'll let it rest.
Thanks for taking the time to respond and clarify, I appreciate it. And as I said, I loved the piece (and, really, all your pieces, thanks for this work you do, it means a lot at least to this reader).
No problem. And thanks so much for reading! And for the kind words! And I agree. It's a complicated issue. One reason I wanted to highlight Rosenberg's piece is that its headline doesn't do the overall argument justice. None of this is really about Claudine Gay, Harvard, Israel, Hamas, or Gaza; I wanted to write this to encourage myself to be more self-aware on this and to avoid falling into that sort of motivated-reasoning type trap, even unwillingly.
"every Jewish scholar I know... argues that, historically, these are statements made in the broader context of killing Jews and dismantling the state of Israel."
Maybe this is the problem? The students shouting these slogans aren't Jewish scholars, they're not steeped in the history of antisemitism, they're students, and pretty clearly they don't intend to kill all Jews, no matter what one thinks of the things they shout.
I'm old enough to remember when the standard response to student protesters of all kinds was "Well, they're well-meaning but foolish, they don't understand these things, but what can you expect, they're just kids." Insulting, patronizing, yes, but it didn't require anyone to believe that a bunch of college students actually want to murder all Jews.
I've seen this transformation in all of our politics. Remember the Willie Horton ad? The claim was that Michael Dukakis was a naive fool, who didn't understand the dangerousness of convicts, and thought they could be rehabilitated with basket-weaving and weekend passes. Today, there's no way the Republicans would go with that line of attack. Instead, it would be "Michael Dukakis WANTED that White woman to be raped by that black convict." Today's Republican base would demand nothing less.
I've been suspicious of those few-words, ellipses-riddled movie blurbs since I was a kid, and I'm feeling so vindicated right now.
There's a 30 Rock joke where Liz Lemon says, "'All I'm promising is 'a madcap musical romp. Dot-dot-dot, fun! Dot-dot-dot, good!' That was on the poster!'" and I think about it all the time.
Good newsletter today, Parker.
That technique Stefanik used is a further advancement of the "Unwinnable Question" that Republicans have been weaponizing for years, most notably with the legal wild goose chase that ended with Bill Clinton getting impeached for a bj.
For those unfamiliar with the journalism trope of the "Unwinnable Question," it's classic context is in the guise of a "reporter" springing this question on a politician at the most inopportune moment: "When did you stop beating your spouse?"
If the politician immediately retorts "I've never…" the hack jumps in with "So you're still beating your spouse?" Of course, almost every other answer the politician gives has context - and therefore, can also be immediately weaponized against them. Even if a politician or other public figure stays mute when that kind of question is tossed at them, the asking of the question is often used to smear them.
Hence, why it's called the "Unwinnable Question."
The only kind of media folks who ask such questions are trash. It's an ambush technique designed to generate heat, but never light.
Absolutely, Shawn.
I’ve always thought of this as the “does your mother know you’re gay?” question.
I can see why some might think something similar, especially if one is of a certain age. That said, there are chances to win at that question, especially if one has a decent mother.
The Unwinnable Question is designed to specifically make the target a loser, even if they don't answer, regardless of unknown externalities like whether those persons surrounding the target support them.
That's why it's called the Unwinnable Question. Once it's fired, the damage is done, whether or not the target addresses it or has a support system around them. It's insidious, the kind of thing only evil people use as a common weapon.
Insightful stuff as always, Parker. The weaponization of bad-faith omission or distortion of context seems an almost unavoidable outcome in our information-oversaturated, rapid-fire media environment. It doesn’t help at all that mainstream media, far from considering it part of their job to explicitly identify bad faith argumentation and actors, are actually more than happy to be lead around by the nose by these people. One would think that “not being a sucker” would be a matter of professional pride for media elite, but that sense seems all too dull for most.
"both sides need to figure out how to live in peace with neighbors they don’t necessarily like"
Sure, you can say that's simplistic, but it's also true that it's the only thing that has ever worked for conflicts like this throughout all of human history.
I love this article, and I agree with everything in principle.
But. The thing about the specific catch phrases--"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" and "Globalize the Intifada"--is that, every Jewish scholar I know (which, admittedly, is not all of them... but it's a lot) argues that, historically, these are statements made in the broader context of killing Jews and dismantling the state of Israel.
Another point I've seen about this is that of an analogy by way of "Blue Lives Matter": of course the people saying it deny it has anything to do with extrajudicial killing of nonwhite people, but it's still viewed as racist by pretty much everyone else, because the targets of the statement say that it's racist and I believe them.
There is a very, very long history of those two statements targeting Jews. So if Jews say the statements are rooted in antisemitism, I believe them.
Okay, sure. But the question isn't whether or not they're antisemitic, but whether or not they are genocidal 100% of the time. Obviously, they are not. Antisemitic speech is protected speech. Just as transphobic speech is protected speech. As I point out, elsewhere, schools regularly *pay* guys like Michael Knowles to come to campus and give talks where he openly says that trans people need to be "eradicated." That *is* genocidal, but nobody seems to have a problem with it, oddly. The college presidents had a duty to stand up for protected speech. To accept that those phrases (or any phrases) are, in every single utterance, genocidal would have put the schools on a path to shut down protected (if abhorrent) speech. The past decade of "campus speech" activism has been to push for even the most disgusting speech to be allowed.
Just as I don't think a student should be expelled for saying Blue Lives Matter (I will think they're an awful person, but don't think they should be expelled), I don't think they should be expelled for chanting something that may be viewed as antisemitic by some, either. That's not how free speech works or should work.
As Rosenberg writes in his piece, "Ignorance isn’t genocidal advocacy; it’s the default state of most students, which is why they go to school in the first place."
Ah, I see what you're saying; thanks for highlighting that distinction.
I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough of broader history--my suspicion is a lot of Jewish scholars might argue "antisemitic but not genocidal" is a distinction without a difference, but I have no basis of my own to make that argument--so I'll let it rest.
Thanks for taking the time to respond and clarify, I appreciate it. And as I said, I loved the piece (and, really, all your pieces, thanks for this work you do, it means a lot at least to this reader).
No problem. And thanks so much for reading! And for the kind words! And I agree. It's a complicated issue. One reason I wanted to highlight Rosenberg's piece is that its headline doesn't do the overall argument justice. None of this is really about Claudine Gay, Harvard, Israel, Hamas, or Gaza; I wanted to write this to encourage myself to be more self-aware on this and to avoid falling into that sort of motivated-reasoning type trap, even unwillingly.
"every Jewish scholar I know... argues that, historically, these are statements made in the broader context of killing Jews and dismantling the state of Israel."
Maybe this is the problem? The students shouting these slogans aren't Jewish scholars, they're not steeped in the history of antisemitism, they're students, and pretty clearly they don't intend to kill all Jews, no matter what one thinks of the things they shout.
I'm old enough to remember when the standard response to student protesters of all kinds was "Well, they're well-meaning but foolish, they don't understand these things, but what can you expect, they're just kids." Insulting, patronizing, yes, but it didn't require anyone to believe that a bunch of college students actually want to murder all Jews.
I've seen this transformation in all of our politics. Remember the Willie Horton ad? The claim was that Michael Dukakis was a naive fool, who didn't understand the dangerousness of convicts, and thought they could be rehabilitated with basket-weaving and weekend passes. Today, there's no way the Republicans would go with that line of attack. Instead, it would be "Michael Dukakis WANTED that White woman to be raped by that black convict." Today's Republican base would demand nothing less.