Dear Daily Cal

 

Dear Daily Californian,

For an editorial that attempts to stray from simple “dichotomies”, April 18th’s take on the Antifa (Antifascist) presence does little to impart any complexity into the recent riots in Berkeley. For all its early wholesome message that, “Kids, there’s no clear right and wrong here,” the Antifa are swiftly named the heroes for their brave efforts to “protect” minority communities.

Amusingly, the dissenting opinion shows more clarity than the former, that this fight after fight has not wavered anyone’s ideological commitments, and that polarization further perpetuates this violence because we continue to fail to understand the violence itself. I mean, what is there to understand when you self-righteously embolden yourself as the acolytes of free speech or the saviors of minorities against the encroaching threat of fascism? Alternatively, the majority opinion does little to affirm any skepticism in a movement named after “Antifascist” yet rather eager to brutalize dissenters with U-locks, and then attempts to argues that the presence of neo-Nazis and white nationalists within the protests should conclude any remaining speech advocacy amongst onlookers. Was it not the American Civil Liberties Union that asserted, after their defense of groups such as NAMBLA and Neo-Nazists, that thedefense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive”? Instead of this courageous slant against the violence, the Daily Cal editorial board doubles down, confident that the Antifa as a reactionary response to incendiary speech absolves it from its actions.

A more presumptuous conclusion is that not only should the Antifa be disassociated from its actions (not similar to when the Editorial rightfully associated Yiannopoulos to a history of “incendiary, useless harassment”), but that the “net consequences of its actions were that neo-Nazis and white-supremacist groups with violent rhetoric were denied a platform to speak in the city of Berkeley”. While this seems all dandy at first glance, it somehow insinuates that the incident happily results in the safety of minority communities; though I have yet to see how the feats of violence in Berkeley will defend immigrants from ICE, stall the present consideration of police practices that eventually fall under racial profiling, or the transgender communities in any way? Furthermore, in an earlier article by the Daily Cal, Sakura Cannestra reports that according to a campuswide email, the “damage inflicted upon campus property” during the Milo protest was, by no means, a small fee and “was estimated to cost $100,000”; the payment for this security enforcement on the behalf of the Antifa was not simply the refusal to allow speech, however repulsive it may be. There are clear, material costs to the violent protests; costs that don’t take into consideration  the average students’ payments and loans, the average Californian taxpayer’s contributions, or the federal funds we are using. If Yiannopoulos is to be considered not a “productive member of society” nor belongs here with his rhetoric, by the standards of February’s editorial opinion, then how do we go about Antifa-ing the Antifa?

A movement that splashed eggs on bystanders, including yours truly? A movement so brave in its protection of the communities that an alleged member of the Stein and Sanders camp was not only hounded for being on the “wrong side” but had his keys stolen and/or shattered on the floor whilst others cackled? A movement that has become conflated with ideologies such as communism and anarchism, which is amusing given the extraordinary amount of WWII rhetoric that few followers tend to interject? In short, what does anyone expect to “protect” when these security forces are massively decentralized to a fault, have little to say for the casual violence that falls upon bystanders or neutral parties, and then plays the role of the “valiant hero” or “downtrodden victim”  when the protest concludes with substantial damage costs, not including our valued reputation?

And if there’s ever an oversimplification, these are the heroes of the Bay Area? And all of this because a now jobless provocateur amongst others decided to hurt a few people’s feelings or march for their cause? Because that’s what it is. Hurtful speech. I don’t know what’s worse; having faith in the machinations of a group so devoted to the art of violent protest that their name seems no longer level-headed with their mission, or that minorities such as myself are considered so sensitive to the provocations that we have endured for centuries that we simply cannot function nor advance without crippling our liberal democracy in the process.

Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll House – Favorite Plays

 Perhaps, my favorite would have to be Ibsen’s A Doll House, especially for its shocking ending (and not because I haven’t read the others…) Without spoilers, Ibsen was inspired by the belief that “a woman cannot be herself in modern society,” since it is “an exclusively male society, with laws made by men and with prosecutors and judges who assess feminine conduct from a masculine standpoint.” Ibsen himself used the most subtle details including the concept of mimetic and diegetic space, sartorial metaphors (think Sailor Moon transformations but more meaningful), and much more in his depiction of the relations between the wife and husband in a traditional Victorian household (thanks, AP English Literature). For any reader who enjoys a melodrama, especially one involving debts, secrecy, and Italian dancing, I highly recommend this play.

The best plays of Henrik Ibsen Henrik Ibsen (1828-1906) is undoubtedly the most famous Norwegian playwright who has ever lived. He wrote a number of classic plays in a variety of modes and genres, so in this post we’ve limited ourselves to five of Ibsen’s very best plays. Hedda Gabler. The role of Hedda Gabler […]

via The Best Henrik Ibsen Plays Everyone Should Read — Interesting Literature

Shelley Garland’s “Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?”: Umm, No…?

Response to Shelley Garland’s Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?

A new addition to the diverse cast of the Huffington Post blog, Shelley Garland describes herself as “an activist and a feminist”, now debuting with the only article to her name: Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?

Screenshot_408
End white women’s suffrage? (Link)

The article starts naturally by subscribing the faults of events clearly not beneficiary to her “progressive cause” to white men (what’s more “progressive” than a referendum of self-determination? I kid). Hilariously, Garland misplaces her confidence that the white men are alone in their support of the Republican candidate and now President Donald J. Trump, failing to consider that at least 25% of each racial demographic (with the exception of African Americans) were in favor of the candidate. Now, now, I am not discounting that of all the racial categories noted, the only majority in favor of Trump were white people and that this demographic makes up the majority of the United States, around 70% to 75% as of 2010 United States census. However, Garland seems to exempt women from the category. Wasn’t it the critique of the third-wave feminist movement that men often place women on a pedestal, where women can do no wrong as the guardians of moral standards? Interestingly, CNN exit polls not only shows that a sizeable portion of white women voted for Trump but also the majority of the white women – a sharp 52% – voted for the man now currently in the White House.

Outside the remarkably low creativity, the article is honestly nothing but an entertainment piece, fashioned by a follower of a boring brand of identitarianism. The rest of her work not follows that the white men in the United States should be dealt justice for the crimes of white South Africans in the South Africa, but that the course of justice is acceptable as if disfranchisement should beget disfranchisement in spite of our country’s now general consciousness of disfranchisement as a breach of universal human rights. Unsurprisingly, the author does nothing to credit liberalism with its celebration of ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, civil rights, etc. Instead, she champions a society where membership of a group is met with marginalization and/or bounties. An example of a society such as this would be Garland’s fantasy of a United States that decides to disfranchise its majority based on the crimes of their ancestors and/or people of similar race.

aHZSj3AaNM2z7w29jFTrMJrxHowever, in the end, Garland makes the supposition that her radical ideology is not only necessary albeit “unfair” but also implicates that the literal disfranchisement of the majority in favor of the minority is an acceptable choice. Whether this is through violent revolution or legislation is made vague, but the plan seems largely implausible, given the United States’ violent ties with “taxation without representation”. It was because of this, that I had trouble distinguishing whether the article was satirical or not, reducing an entire social movement to a page only championed by out-of-touch, likely privileged, and self-described “feminist” college students midst their completion of a Gender Studies MA degree.

Then, I read Garland’s bio.

tumblr_ogppinl6b31ux1dn3o1_500I certainly hope that Huffington Post, if they continue to employ the ramblings of left-wing authoritarians, does not quickly degenerate into a hotspot for Garlands of the Western world to tinker on to produce more unproductive, aggressive solutions to global inequalities. Regardless of whether Caucasian men are responsible for the atrocities worldwide, I thank the Lord that the United States is still a functioning constitutional republic in protection against these crazed ideologues.

Is there such thing as a good Trump voter? Yes.


Response to 
Jamelle Bouie’s article There’s No Such Thing as a Good Trump Voter

facepalm-1791146_1280The answer is simple: yes. You would think to yourself that from 62,829,832 votes in favor for Trump, according to International Business Times, that there must be hundreds, thousands, even millions of voters with a slight sense of moral character, simply leaning towards the other side of the political spectrum. Read More »