I oppose Musk's decision to suspend journalists, even if they were "doxxing" him, largely because I don't believe that any speech should be suspended unless it's actually illegal. But the social media sites have long said "abusive" speech can be banned, which has always been a fuzzy standard. So this is nothing new.
What's new is that the bans are hitting a group that previously thought they were immune -- because they work for the institutional media; because they are on the left; because they knew whom to call at Twitter to protect themselves, or to have other people banned. Now they are throwing tantrums.
I dropped in on a Twitter "space" last night where some of these banned (really, suspended) journalists were gathering to gripe about the situation. They, like, sound like college students, you know, and, yeah, like, they aren't happy about being punished. They didn't lift a finger during bans under previous ownership.
So while I think Twitter is a better place without such suspensions, and that Musk is taking a commercial risk that the company could become another small conservative platform if enough people leave, I have zero sympathy for the people who encouraged censorship just so their "side" could win an election.
If we're playing by their rules, what we should do is call their advertisers and ask whether they have stopped buying ads on publications that saw journalists suspended. That's how the NYT and CNN sought to destroy competitors under the old regime. It won't happen. But now they know a little about how it feels.
This week’s portion launches the great story of Abraham, who is told to leave everything of his life behind — except his immediate family — and to leave for “the Land that I shall show you.”
There’s something interesting in the fact that Abraham is told to leave his father’s house, as if breaking away from his father’s life — but his father, in fact, began the journey, moving from Ur to Haran (in last week’s portion). His father set a positive example — why should Abraham leave him?
Some obvious answers suggest themselves — adulthood, needing to make one’s own choices, his father not going far enough, etc.
But I think there is another answer. Abraham (known for the moment as Abram) needs to establish his own household. This is not just about making one’s own choice, but really about choosing one’s own starting point. It’s starting over.
Sometimes we start over in fundamental ways even if much that surrounds us remains the same. Sometimes the journey we have to ...
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
