Four Unethical Dispatches From The 2016 Post Election Ethics Train Wreck: #3

Here is another troubling example of how some supporters of Hillary Clinton regard dissenting views from fellow citizens as proof of malign character…and then seek to hurt them.

III. An NYU Student and the New York Times

I’m a Muslim, But My Roommate Supports Trump,” writes NYU student Romaissaa Benzizoune in The New York Times. She begins,

When she outed herself to me as a Trump supporter, I realized I had finally found the “silent majority.” I looked at her, this suddenly strange girl who sleeps a few feet away from me, my college roommate. The silent majority has seen me put on my head scarf in the morning and take it off at night. The silent majority has touched my face, done my makeup, watches “Gilmore Girls” religiously. The silent majority occasionally enjoys sliced mango before bed.

We fought; I packed. This was Tuesday evening, so I headed to my friend’s dorm, where a small group of us, mainly black women, tried to find solace in one another as the country slowly fell to red. I tried and failed to speak, to write. I ignored my roommate’s lengthy texts.

Did she really expect me to respect her choice when her choice undermined my presence in this country, in this university, in my very own dorm room? Did she really expect me to shake her hand for supporting a candidate who would love to bar my relatives from this country, who has considered making people of my faith register in a specific database and carry special ID, Holocaust-style?

I’m not sure what she expected, but I’m certain the writer’s room mate assumed that her room mate wouldn’t write an article for the New York Times that did everything but mention her name, and intentionally made her a target of hate and harassment from fellow students, possibly faculty, and anti-Trump wackos who have been caught on video beating up Trump supporters. 

What a terrible friend Benzizoune is;  intolerant and cruel. The room mate isn’t the one who deserves criticism. She is the victim; she was betrayed by someone she thought she could trust, and whose friendship she thought was deeper than a political opinion. It is also irresponsible for the New York Times editors to allow the writer to finger her roommate on a famously liberal campus as someone to be reviled, after the room mate confided in her, wrongly thinking that her “friend” could be trusted not to use her candor against her. The writer’s name and school should not have been included in the article. Its purpose didn’t require that information, unless, of course, the objective was partly to punish Benzizoune’s “friend”  for daring to support a Republican.

Since the obvious threat to the room mate was obvious, I have to wonder what the Times’ thinking was to allow this. It seems as irresponsible and the Muslim student’s article was vindictive.

_________________

Pointer: Ann Althouse

99 Comments

Filed under Character, Government & Politics

99 responses to “Four Unethical Dispatches From The 2016 Post Election Ethics Train Wreck: #3

  1. Other Bill

    I can only surmise Romaissaa Benzizoune is a terrorist. To the extent Trump ever articulated any policies, I think he was concerned about Islamic terrorists coming into the country to murder people.And unlike our outgoing administration, wasn’t afraid to say so. Maybe she should be afraid.

    • Chris

      Oh, bullshit. Trump has said he would consider placing all Muslims on a national database. He has said he would not allow Muslims traveling abroad to come back into this country.

      To assume that only terrorists would be upset by this is monstrous.

  2. fattymoon

    Trump has a point about the NYT. Their letter just doesn’t square with the article you’ve mentioned. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-readers-from-the-publisher-and-executive-editor.html

  3. “Its purpose didn’t require that information, unless, of course, the objective was partly to punish Benzizoune for daring to support a Republican.

    Should this say:

    Its purpose didn’t require that information, unless, of course, the objective was partly to punish Benzizoune‘s roommate for daring to support a Republican.

    ?

  4. “I looked at her, this suddenly strange girl who sleeps a few feet away from me, my college roommate. The silent majority has seen me put on my head scarf in the morning and take it off at night. The silent majority has touched my face, done my makeup, watches “Gilmore Girls” religiously. The silent majority occasionally enjoys sliced mango before bed.”

    In other words, “I’m so partisanly hateful and bigoted that I am able to literally list everything I like about this person and everything that shows this person to be an ordinary human being and fellow citizen but still betray her like this…”

    • Chris

      “Partisanly hateful and bigoted?” The subject of the piece voted for a man who has suggested that her roommate be placed on a national database and not allowed to return to the country if she ever travels abroad, and the only reason for her writing the article is “partisan” hatred or bigotry? Are you serious?

      I agree with Jack that the writer should have remained anonymous, if not by her own choice than the NYT’s. But there’s nothing wrong with the article in and of itself outside of that.

      • Quite serious. Benzizoune’s gonna live and be in content community with her roommate, then throw a temper tantrum because her room mate voted for someone she disagrees with and presumes it HAS to be because of Benzizoune’s *assumption* that her room mate must have voted for Trump because she hates Muslims.

        You see, this is the root of precisely why a huge component nation is laughing at the Left right now. Not one of you is willing to accept the ability of Trump voters to have voted for him for a WIDE range of reasons. You all, to a T, continue to assume “racism, sexism, homophobia” is literally the ONLY reason Trump voters voted.

        That. Is. Bigotry.

        • Chris

          Nope. Bullshit.

          I never said or suggested that the roommate voted for Trump because she “hates Muslims.” As far as I’m aware, neither did the writer of the piece.

          What is clear is that to the roommate, anti-Muslim hatred was not a dealbreaker in who she decided to vote for president. I’m sure she had a wide range of reasons for voting for Trump. But when you vote for a president, you are helping elect that president, not just the parts of that president you like. Trump being in office places the rights of Muslims in jeopardy.

          Those motivated by outright bigotry are not a large enough group to have gotten Trump elected. The majority of his voters are people who saw his bigotry, shrugged their shoulders because it doesn’t affect them directly, and said “Eh, better than Hillary.” That’s how these things happen.

          • “anti-Muslim hatred”

            This hyperbole that the Left wing media has continued to fear-monger with pretty much underlies the source of your error, and once corrected, will undermine your entire set of assertions here. Several people in this specific post have discussed it ad nauseum.

            You, and the rest of the Left, really need to state an introspective step back.

          • So what you’re saying is that you (or the roommate) are (is) a single issue voter, and if we aren’t also single issue voters on the same issue, then it’s not unreasonable to throw online bitch fits about that one issue, and probable label us the bigot flavour of the month.

            … I’m just saying…. That doesn’t reflect well on you.

            • Chris

              In this case the single issue is “The president hates Muslims and doesn’t consider them real Americans.”

              • So… I’m right? Let’s put all our cards on the table here. We can disagree on the validity of your statement some other time, the fact of the matter is, you’re a single issue voter, and you’re gobsmacked that everyone else doesn’t share your values.

                • Chris

                  Humble, I’m not a single issue voter. Trump had many, many, many disqualifying factors, most of which Jack has cataloged here. His anti-Muslim bigotry was in itself a disqualifying factor. Don’t think of it as being a “single issue voter.” Think of it in terms of signature significance.

                  • “Humble, I’m not a single issue voter.”

                    You are if you consider social justice a single issue. You can slice and dice it into as many pieces as you want, but it still comes back to that.

                    “We need to win SCOTUS.” “Irrelevant: Social Justice.”
                    “We think Hillary is corrupt, bought and paid for.” “Irrelevant!: Social Justice”
                    “I don’t trust Hillary on Trade, Border Security, or Terrorism.” “Two words: Social. Justice.”
                    “We think Trump has a smaller chance of starting WWIII with Russia.” “IRRELEVANT!!!: SOCIAL JUSTICE.”
                    “I don’t really care about social justice….” “***EXPLOSIONS!!!***”

                    • Chris

                      What’s funny about your response is that literally all of those are social justice issues, and you don’t even know it.

                    • Also, “If everything is important, then nothing is.”

                    • And with that, Chris does prove he is a single issue voter, in the vein described by Humble.

                      Humble lists was any rational, objective person would consider topics spanning Defense, the Economy, Governance…

                      Chris’s reponse: Those are all Social Justice issues.

                      Convenient how that works. That’s some Ministry of Truth grade stuff right there.

                      Chris, I mean this seriously, you really need to take a step back, breathe, rest, be introspective.

                    • When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. But that doesn’t mean the banana is actually a nail.

  5. Steve-O-in-NJ

    Disgusting otherization of someone who thought she was her friend. This isn’t just saying she and her roommate have some profound political and philosophical differences, maybe even some insurmountable ones. This is essentially saying her roommate is dirty, and she considers herself violated (because of the headscarf removal) and fouled (because her roommate helped her with her makeup).

    Speaking bluntly, that is a rotten viewpoint, no different than the constable in Fiddler on the Roof telling Tevye he’s a nice guy, but too bad he’s a Jewish dog. This nation supposedly condemns discrimination and bigotry, but apparently discrimination and bigotry based on one’s political views is one of the still acceptable prejudices. If this woman had turned on her roommate because she found out she was Jewish, and viewed her in the same light as those who fight the PLO and Hizbollah, that wouldn’t be acceptable, and it shouldn’t be. If this woman had turned on her roommate because she came out as a lesbian, and to a devout Muslim that’s wrong, she’d be ROUNDLY condemned. If this woman were white and turned on her roommate because she had black ancestry that would be a no-brainer.

    But in this case because of a political difference, with no previous evidence of hatred or poor behavior, suddenly she’s evil and to be cast out. I said it before and I’ll say it again, if it were not for double standards the left would have no standards at all.

    • Chris

      Speaking bluntly, that is a rotten viewpoint, no different than the constable in Fiddler on the Roof telling Tevye he’s a nice guy, but too bad he’s a Jewish dog.

      It’s like you’re so close to seeing what’s wrong here, but for some reason there’s a massive blindspot preventing you from understanding.

      No, your analogy is wrong. It isn’t like that. It’s like the constable in Fiddler on the Roof telling Tevye he’s a nice guy, but too bad he’s a Jewish dog. THEN Tevye and all his fellow Jews warn the town about the dangers of the constable and how he will target Jews if he is re-elected as constable. And then Tevye’s roommate votes for the constable anyway, knowing that he’s an anti-Semite, and Tevye writes an article expressing his surprise and dismay.

      (This is not a perfect analogy, but it’s better than the one you came up with.)

      his nation supposedly condemns discrimination and bigotry, but apparently discrimination and bigotry based on one’s political views is one of the still acceptable prejudices. If this woman had turned on her roommate because she found out she was Jewish, and viewed her in the same light as those who fight the PLO and Hizbollah, that wouldn’t be acceptable, and it shouldn’t be.

      Jesus. The Muslim woman wrote about her experience with her roommate because her roommate voted for a religious bigot as president. Condemning someone’s bigotry is not, in itself, bigotry.

      • There is no evidence that he’s a religious bigot, Chris, none whatsoever. When someone recognizes a real, material problem with a religion and its followers, you know, with bodies as evidence, that not bigotry, or prejudice. Tell me, is it bigotry, for example, to say that Muslims subordinate women, and is prejudiced against them? Do you deny that? because I can’t find any evidence or authority that says otherwise. If Trump wanted to ban Muslims…which he has never really proposed…that would be one damn good reason, and bigotry has nothing to do with it. It’s a belief that is antithetical to US culture, and must remain so. What if there were religions that insisted on human sacrifice, or rape, or slavery? Still bigotry to say, “Prove you’ve reformed or stay out”? How about jihad?

        • Chris

          Well, I think I’m done here. If you can watch a man slander and defame members of one religion with bigoted lies and stereotypes for a whole year–lying about seeing “thousands of Muslims” celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey, saying that maybe Ghazala Khan “wasn’t allowed to speak,” calling for a halt on all Muslim immigration–and not see a religious bigot, then I don’t know what else to say.

          I haven’t been here much over the past week. I was impressed all year by your decision to put your hatred of Hillary Clinton–about 60% of which is justified–aside for the good of your country. But I found your last minute decision to choose to abstain from voting for either major candidate to be an act of ethical cowardice.

          It’s been fun. I learned a lot, and am a better, more well-rounded person for having participated on your blog. But I think it’s time to move on.

          • Well, Chris, I think you need a rest. Because your last sally, and I mean this sincerely, shows you have lost your grip. I don’t think you know what a religious bigot is, or what Donald Trump is, and you’ve stopped listening or thinking.

            He hasn’t slandered any religion—Islam is a problem as a culture, and it is a struggle to balance policy and principles. The attacks he’s made have been based on genuine concerns. You are defaulting to using bigotry as a way to shut down legitimate points, discourse and dissent. That’s lazy.

            You will be better off, intellectually and ethically, if you do not retreat into the increasingly hypocritical echo chamber on the Left.

            And I can honestly say, every passing day makes me more certain the voting for Clinton would have been a professional breach. Donald Trump, so far, has just said unethical things related to policy and government. Hillary Clinton has done unethical things. It is the current dementia of the Left that they really think it is worse to talk about pussy grabbing in a private conversation than to place the national security at risk for personal gain. They really do think that. I can’t endorse such a thing.. It’s like enabling the bubonic plague.

            I’m sorry for you. You really need to stick around.

            • Chris

              Jack, the black crime rate is a real problem. So if I propose that we ban all immigration by blacks, is that not bigoted? How far can I go in demeaning a group of people as long as there is some kind of root justification for it?

              I also find it interesting that you make no objection to Steve’s misuse of the word “bigotry.” So apparently it isn’t bigotry to propose unequal treatment of an entire religion, but it is bigotry to condemn that.

              • crella

                Trump said there should be a ban on Muslim immigration ” until we figure out what’s going on” in the wake of the San Bernadino killings…the woman of the couple had come into the country on a fiance visa; it was subsequently found that she had lied on her application about where she was from, and had pledged allegiance to ISIS on her Facebook page. Sure looks like her application wasn’t given enough of a check…the day afterTrump made this statement, the news services quoted him as saying ” there should be ban on Muslim immigration” with the latter half of the quote not included, purposely fanning the flames.

                Do you disagree that visa applications should perhaps be checked better?

                • Chris

                  Crella, every single report I have seen about Trump’s Muslim ban proposal included the “until we figure out what’s going on” disclaimer. No one I know thinks such a vague, meaningless disclaimer makes his statement any better or less bigoted; why on earth do you? Was Japanese internment less bigoted because it was temporary?

                  Yes, I do agree our visa applications should be checked better. There is a world of difference between that and a ban on Muslim immigration.

                  • Chris, what is your definition of bigotry? It is way too broad, and makes no sense. If there is good reason—not bias, but facts, to believe Group A is dangerous, acting on the facts is not bigotry. By definition, bigotry is bias against the group for membership in the group. That’s why your black analogy is flawed and inflammatory. Nobody sane believes that blackness is itself proof of negative character or trust. But if there was a militant all-black group called “The Furies Of Africa” who were dedicated by Charter to killing whites, would banning them be bigotry?

                    It is convenient—I’m not accusing you of doing this deliberately—to blur the distinction to attack people like Trump—but it is also wrong. FDR’s—you know,the Democratic Party icon?—decision to lock up Japanese-Americans was panicky and wrong, but it wasn’t racist or bigoted. The US was worthy about a “fifth column,” and that is a tactical worry, not bias. Some German-Americans were also detained for the same reasons. Did FDR think they were Japanese? Come on.

                    Again, I’m not defending Trump’s inarticulateness and tendency to deal with complex problems with blunt, dumb answers,and that’s part of the problem. But so is willfully calling what is not bigotry bigotry rather than a too-broad measure directed at a real problem: too many followers of the Muslim faith reject Western values, want to destroy our society, will if they get the chance, and we can’t tell who they are.

                    Again, Obama’s approach—deny the problem—is just as bad as Trump’s.

                    • Chris

                      FDR’s—you know,the Democratic Party icon?—decision to lock up Japanese-Americans was panicky and wrong, but it wasn’t racist or bigoted.

                      It was, and we are never going to agree on this.

                    • Why not? Work it through rationally. It just isn’t bigotry. You cannot say the German detentions weren’t bigotry if the Japanese weren’t. Not the point, not the motive, not the reason. Explain how it fits the definition. You can’t/

                    • Chris

                      ” You cannot say the German detentions weren’t bigotry if the Japanese weren’t.”

                      I did not say that. But I’m not as familiar with the circumstances of German internment as I am with Japanese internment. If Germans were interned simply for their ancestry, as the Japanese were, then yes, both were bigoted.

                      “By definition, bigotry is bias against the group for membership in the group.”

                      Calling for a ban on Muslim immigration is bias against the group for membership in the group. This is not hard. It does not matter that you can come up with justifications for why such bias may be justified. “But Muslims are more likely to be terrorists!” is no different–in any way, shape, or form–from “But blacks are more likely to be criminals!” Any government policy that specifically targets either group for unequal treatment is not only bigoted, it is unlawful.

                      “Again, Obama’s approach—deny the problem—is just as bad as Trump’s.”

                      That is not Obama’s approach.

                    • No, they were detained because there was a war on, because these were both wildly nationalistic countries on the march, and the government felt that in an abundance of caution, it couldn’t risk having a large population undermining the US war effort from within. If the nations were the French, Australians or Swiss, the same would happened to them. It wasn’t bias against Germans and Japanese. Surely, surely, the distinction doesn’t escape you.

                      Honestly, this logic is like a black robber caught red-handed claiming that he’s being discriminated against.

                    • Chris

                      It wasn’t bias against Germans and Japanese.

                      Yes, there’s nothing biased whatsoever about these images, and there is absolutely no connection between them and Americans’ willingness to allow them to be rounded up and herded into camps.

                      https://www.google.com/search?q=anti-japanese+propaganda+ww2&rlz=1C1RXDB_enUS602US602&espv=2&biw=853&bih=612&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiC5MjQ3avQAhVJj1QKHe2BCl8Q_AUIBigB

                      You can’t really believe this. Can you?

                    • Steve-O-in-NJ

                      Jack, you make some great points, but this is beginning to be pigeon chess, with Chris playing the part of the pigeon.

                    • Steve-O-in-NJ

                      We’re gonna have to slap the dirty little Jap
                      And Uncle Sam’s the guy who can do it
                      We’ll skin that streak of yellow from this sneaky little fellow
                      And he’ll think a cyclone’s struck him when we’re thru it
                      We’ll take the double crosser to the old woodshed
                      We’ll start on his bottom and we’ll go to his head
                      When we get done with him, he’ll wish that he was dead
                      We gotta slap the dirty little Jap
                      Uncle Sam’s a man who’s given a helpin’ hand
                      To many a foreign lands; don’t forget it!
                      But when somebody goes to trompin’ on his toes
                      They’d better guard their nose or they’ll regret it.

                      We’re gonna have to slap the dirty little Jap
                      And Uncle Sam’s the guy who can do it
                      The Japs and all their hooey will be changed into chop suey
                      And the rising sun will set when we get thru it
                      Their alibi for fighting is to save their face
                      For ancestors waiting in celestial space
                      We’ll kick their precious face down to the other place
                      We gotta slap the dirty little Jap

                      We’re gonna have to slap the dirty little Jap
                      And Uncle Sam’s the guy who can do it.
                      I wouldn’t fool ya mister: He can raise an awful blister,
                      And somebody’s pants will burn before we’re through it.
                      We’ll reach across the ocean and grab that yella Jap
                      And turn him upside down right on Democracy’s lap.
                      We’ll blister his axis and do it with a snap!
                      We gotta slap the dirty little Jap.
                      Uncle Sam is mild: As peaceful as a child,
                      But never get him riled or you will rue it!
                      So now they wanna fight! Well they’ve bit off quite a bite!
                      And Uncle Sam is gonna make ‘em chew it!

                      We’re gonna have to slap the dirty little Jap
                      And Uncle Sam’s the guy who can do it.
                      ‘Cause it really is a feature when he starts to be a teacher.
                      We can show you several pupils who’ve been through it.
                      Uncle Sam believes in the Golden Rule
                      But when he’s double crossed he’s gotta kick like a mule!
                      We’re warnin’ Hilters tool: Uncle Sam’s a fightin’ fool!
                      We’ve gotta slap the dirty little Jap.

                    • Chris

                      I’m very curious what you were attempting to prove by posting that, Steve. It seems to support my contention that anti-Japanese bigotry was rampant during WWII. How anyone can believe that can be separated from the policy of Japanese internment is beyond me–were it not for overt bigotry against the Japanese being tolerated at the time, internment simply wouldn’t have happened.

                      There seems to be this weird belief here that policies such as Japanese internment, or a ban on Muslim immigration, can be made totally objectively, without any kind of bias against the group in question. Where does this belief come from?

                  • crella

                    My point was (sorry, I’ve got the flu and am a bit punchy from the fever) was that Trump was talking about a temporary ban, when all news sources and memes state that he wants to an all Muslims from coming into the US, period, which wasn’t what he said, or is saying.

                    • fattymoon

                      Jack, speaking of chess…

                    • Chris

                      My point was (sorry, I’ve got the flu and am a bit punchy from the fever) was that Trump was talking about a temporary ban, when all news sources and memes state that he wants to an all Muslims from coming into the US, period, which wasn’t what he said, or is saying.

                      And my point–which I stated quite clearly–was that every news source I’ve seen did mention the fact that he said the ban was “temporary.” It just made no difference in most people’s minds, since there isn’t really a moral difference.

                      Which sources are you referring to that you believe did not report that?

              • I assumed, Chris, that this was on your mind, and why this topic evokes a response that is tilted by emotion. I’ll answer at length when I get back from my seminar…just saw this. Thanks.

                • Steve-O-in-NJ

                  Chris, you should consider yourself lucky. Most folks here who had the gall to call Jack an ethical coward because he, a man devoted to ethics, couldn’t reconcile that with casting a vote for a profoundly unethical, venal, and dishonest candidate, would be tossed out on their asses, and rightly so. That he has chosen not to do so was an act of great charity and an indication that he values your viewpoint. You should also consider yourself lucky that this isn’t a face-to-face discussion, because if you condescended to me face-to-face like you did with your statement ” It’s like you’re so close to seeing what’s wrong here, but for some reason there’s a massive blindspot preventing you from understanding,” I would have laid you out like a Sunday suit. There is no blind spot, I knew exactly what I was saying, and I don’t hold to your interpretation of these facts.

                  The problem with folks on the left, yourself included, is that you paint on too much moral gloss to make yourselves look better (“we’re more tolerant, we’re inclusive, and we CARE, dammit!”). Eventually too much gloss seeps into the structure and substitutes for the actual glue holding it up, and you start to think the gloss is the glue. It doesn’t matter how shiny the façade of the building is. If the supporting structure is no good, eventually the whole thing is going to come down.

                  At this point you are so full of yourself and your own values that you don’t discuss, you don’t debate, you accuse. You are so blinded by your contempt of those who don’t think like you that the idea that they could beat you in an election simply doesn’t compute. You’re like the Muslims in the west who got so full of their own success after Hattin and Constantinople that they couldn’t see the West ever beating them, so they underestimated them. Then came Diu, then came Malta, then came Lepanto, and they started the long, slow slide down into the Third World, where they still are now, and where folks like al Qaeda and ISIS try to convince them they can break out of by getting back to some kind of pure, fanatical state, because those who defeated them are just bad, wrong, evil, etc. The sad fact is some of them buy into it because there is no hope otherwise.

                  The definition of a bigot, at least from Merriam-Webster online is as follows:

                  “a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)”

                  Refusing to accept Islam at all would be bigotry. Having a problem with Islam because it is a belief system that refuses to move with the times and contains principles such as gender apartheid, the reduction to second-class citizens of non-adherents, slavery, being false with the enemy, and a permanent state of war between dar-al-Islam and dar al-harb (the world not under Islam) which justifies acts like San Bernardino, like Chattanooga, like 9/11, is not bigotry, it’s recognizing that these ideas are dangerous and problematic in the modern world. Yet, because Obama minimizes all of this for political gain, you not only refuse to accept this, you attack those who differ with you as bigots, haters, xenophobes, and so on.

                  That’s a big part of why your party lost this election, not just at the top, but pretty much down the line, a few legislative races aside, and is now weaker than it’s been in probably a century, with the White House, both chambers of Congress, 33 governorships, and who knows how many state legislatures all in the hands of the other side. Those of us who disagree with you are not your lessers, and you are not a member of a priestly caste whose job it is to make sure we toe the doctrinal line. We are not puppy dogs who will hang our heads when you, our masters, speak to us crossly. We are equals, although you’d like to break this nation into groups and designate only white men and conservatives as the bad groups. As equals we get tired after a while of your name-calling, your accusations, and sometimes outright taunting. So we did what your guy told us to do, we got together enough of us who were tired of this and we won an election, simple as that.

                  Now you want to tell us that very victory you taunted us to win was tainted after we won it, because our ideas are wrong, our principles are wrong, essentially because we aren’t you. Nothing less than a permanent state of you being in charge apparently will do, and we exist only to be converted, conquered, embarrassed, ridiculed and invalidated. That isn’t the belief system this country was founded on, it isn’t what the Constitution stands for, and some of us just won’t stand for it. If you have a problem with that, then that is your problem.

                  • Chris

                    “Refusing to accept Islam at all would be bigotry.”

                    Calling for a shutdown of Muslim immigration IS “refusing to accept Islam at all,” you idiot. You’re also ignoring how bigotry is spread through stereotypes and fear; lying about seeing “thousands of Muslims celebrating 9/11” in New Jersey, which factually did not happen and Trump did not see, because he wasn’t there and no such video footage exists, spreads bigotry. Saying Ghazala Khan “maybe wasn’t allowed to speak” is a bigoted stereotype. I’d say I’m sorry if this comes across as lecturing, but I’m not; this is obvious, and you should know it, and I shouldn’t have to explain it.

                    • Steve-O-in-NJ

                      Yes, it does come across as lecturing, and you’re not scoring any points by calling me an idiot. I’m actually an attorney practicing 20 years, not an idiot. I just don’t square with your blinkered view of the world. Too bad. And you can do better than that condescending arrogance at the end. You’re not my dad, and you’re not my professor, so knock it off. I think you were on to something with your reply last night, so why don’t you rearrange your man-bun, pick up your yoga mat, and get the hell out of here? Your last set of replies is nothing but barking, with no substance of value.

                    • Idiot is unfair here, Chris, though the statement is also wrong. IF there was a religious/ethnic group that unquestionable and undeniably taught that the West was evil and had to be destroyed by violent means, and indeed immigrants to European nations from this group indeed committed or attempted violent acts, let’s say all, no, let’s say 88.9% of them, would it be bigotry to propose considering a ban on all immigrants from that group?

      • “Condemning someone’s bigotry is not, in itself, bigotry.”

        That’s not what she did. She can assume Trump is a bigot all she wants, but that isn’t what she did.

        She threw a temper tantrum about her room mate, ascribing to her roommate bigotry WITH NO OTHER EVIDENCE than her own presumption that her room mate is incapable of have a wide range of reasons to vote for Trump. Then turning around and HATING her for it.

        That. Is. Bigotry.

  6. Glenn Logan

    Back in the day, coming from a small town in rural Kentucky, we would’ve called this person a “redneck.” Despite the frequent misapprehension about what this word means to city-slickers, to most of us in flyover country, it means “uneducated buffoon.”

    Despite her “book lernin'”, Benzizoune is clearly uneducated. She has never learned the correct way to behave in polite company, she is disloyal and cretinous to her friends, and she allows her political beliefs to shut her ethics alarms completely off. A person with even a moderately well-rounded educational and life experience does not do that.

    She’s a redneck. The New York Times is culpable also, but I’ve run out of language to describe their manifold failures. Fortunately, you haven’t, Jack.

    • Chris

      Despite her “book lernin’”, Benzizoune is clearly uneducated. She has never learned the correct way to behave in polite company, she is disloyal and cretinous to her friends, and she allows her political beliefs to shut her ethics alarms completely off. A person with even a moderately well-rounded educational and life experience does not do that.

      I have to wonder: Did people condemn Jews who broke off friendships with Hitler-supporting gentiles with the same vigor as this?

      • Eternal Optometrist

        What a horrible comment, to compare Trump to Hitler. That’s a slap in the face to Jews who suffered in the Holocaust. Just a nasty, nasty, bigoted comment.

        • Steve-O-in-NJ

          That comment was worse than nasty and bigoted. Anyone who compares Trump to Hitler is an idiot. Anyone who makes a comparison between this idiocy and the Kristallnacht days is an asshole. Guess which categories someone has just placed himself firmly in?

          • Chris

            Read this–and the comments by many Jewish citizens–and tell me the Hitler comparison is hysterical.

            http://amptoons.com/blog/?p=22466#comments

            • It’s hysterical. It is the progressives who have been declaring Jews monsters, especially on college campuses, for Israel defending themselves against Palestine. Trump is so far more supportive of Israel than Obama, and his abrogation of the irresponsible Iran treaty will be cheered there. There is no hint of antisemitism in Trump. Not a whiff. This is more fearmongering.

              • Chris

                It is the progressives who have been declaring Jews monsters, especially on college campuses, for Israel defending themselves against Palestine.

                *sigh* I knew you wouldn’t read it. This is addressed in the article.

                I also agree with you that Trump himself is not anti-Semitic, but look who he surrounds himself with. Look at Bannon. Look at how Trump’s supporters have treated Jewish journalists. Trump may not be anti-Semitic himself, but Jews are less safe as a result of Trump’s election.

                • I did read it. And then I read the Pildis piece that it linked to.

                  I’m not sure it says what you want it to say. I read it as: Donald Trump is encouraging Antisemitism, but I don’t see any help coming from the left because of Jewish erasure among progressives. I think, and I could be wrong, but I think the author admits in his own writing that the left doesn’t have any legitimacy on this issue…. It went all in and embraced the BDS movements. There’s a lot of fear in this writing, and I don’t know how much of it is well founded.

                  But on that note, You want to talk about a couple hundred wackadoos worldwide who made it on to Twitter as being indicative of a white nationalist movement in Trump supporters? How cute. Let me point you to the BDS movement…. Just like Newman tried to in that post. Here is a real life example of a collection of relatively large groups with an almost universal penetration of antisemitism… Just as likely to spray paint a swastika as anyone. And you couldn’t find it in yourself to care. I challenge you to find a single instance of you decrying the BDS movement, ever. But Trump is a Nazi! And suddenly all this liberal attention towards the issue?

                  I just don’t think you’re being honest here. I don’t think you give a rat’s ass about Jews. I think they’re an easy way for you to smear yet another Republican voice. And I want you to wrap your head around how shitty a position that is. This is why I can’t identify as a progressive despite acknowledging the plight of various groups. You use people. And when they no longer serve your needs, you discard them and forget about them until the next time you can use them.

                  • Chris

                    I challenge you to find a single instance of you decrying the BDS movement, ever. But Trump is a Nazi! And suddenly all this liberal attention towards the issue?

                    I’m sure I could find one if I searched for it. I remember decrying some leftist anti-Semites a lot on a tiny little conservative blog I used to go to, before I discovered this place, which is much more reasonable. But I’ve got nothing to prove; believe me or don’t.

                    It does make sense to me that there is more liberal attention to the issue of anti-Semitism now; I don’t think Obama, or any other Democratic president for that matter, has received as much unadulterated praise and enthusiasm from anti-Semitism as Trump has. But I agree that the issue has often been overlooked by leftists, AND I agree with you that this was a major point of the article I linked to. I don’t know why you assumed I missed that point.

                    I just don’t think you’re being honest here. I don’t think you give a rat’s ass about Jews. I think they’re an easy way for you to smear yet another Republican voice. And I want you to wrap your head around how shitty a position that is. This is why I can’t identify as a progressive despite acknowledging the plight of various groups. You use people. And when they no longer serve your needs, you discard them and forget about them until the next time you can use them.

                    And what you do is make huge assumptions about large swaths of people, then get mad when the same thing happens to you.

                  • Steve-O-in-NJ

                    That’s why the left likes Jews, but loathes Israel, same reason they like black ghetto dwellers, but call black people who’ve elevated and left that life “Uncle Tom” etc. The dirty little secret is they don’t really love charity, they love being able to control people. It’s very easy to come in and offer the struggling a handout, with the understanding that you will keep the handouts coming as long as they vote for you. If they start to move up to the point where they no longer need the handouts, then they don’t need you anymore, and there goes your power and control.

        • Chris

          Except that most of the comparisons I see are coming from Jewish journalists who have been targeted by actual anti-Semites who are thrilled with Trump’s win.

          I am not saying Trump will be as bad as Hitler. He won’t. My point was that when someone runs on a campaign of sheer, unbridled hatred and fear directed at you and your kind, you have no ethical responsibility to tolerate that someone, or to remain friends with people who voted for him.

          • “My point was that when someone runs on a campaign of sheer, unbridled hatred and fear directed at you and your kind, you have no ethical responsibility to tolerate that someone, or to remain friends with people who voted for him.”

            I wonder if Chris fully understands exactly what he said there…and I wonder if he realizes just how condemning such a statement is of how non-self-aware the Left truly is.

            • Steve-O-in-NJ

              He doesn’t, he also doesn’t care. Why should he? The left has frankly nothing left to lose at this point.

              • Slick Willy

                And after decades of being told that I am a racist, and have privilege, and should abandon all my family history, traditions, and ethics, all based on the color of my skin and not the content of my character, do you think I might not vote for the one who promises more of the same?

                The difference, dear Chris, is that most of those like me will remain friends with those who have honest positions different from mine. Liberals will not. Liberals will not debate (not fairly), I suspect, because logic and reason does not get them what they want: my total subjugation and surrender. We are tired of it.

                And, as I have said before, many like me have decided that they will use the Liberal tactics for the win, after being unfairly beaten by those tactics in the past. I think this is wrong, but understand the frustration.

      • That’s a ridiculous comparison, Chris, hateful, unfair and inflammatory. If you really believe that, you need to read up on both Trump and world history. If you don’t, then you are exhibiting exactly the kind of divisive and unhiged rhetoric that is causing civic unrest.

        Trump made broadly irresponsible suggestions to deal with a real problem. It was no more irresponsible than the current US policy of pretending that that no Muslims are terrrorists, which is Obama’s nice, kind, lazy, dangerous approach. I wish people would stop making me defend the guy.

        • crella

          Agreed…Trumps comments were irresponsible. I was shocked by how the press truncated his comments on more than one occasion to create as bad an impression as possible. The bias was so blatant as to be shocking.

  7. Chase Davidson

    Thankfully, the precedent set by the Rolling Stone case seems to make the NYT liable for anything that happens to her roommate as a result of this story. I think it’d be a slam-dunk case. What happened to journalists ‘punching up’?

    Thankfully, in Trump’s first 100 days, he will likely force the head editor of the NYT to march through Times Square naked while a crowd chants “Shame” at him.

  8. This is the problem with fear-mongering. We’ve used it to make the country go to war. When we use it in our political discourse, it makes us go to war with ourselves. If people are fearful, it’s because they were convinced that they needed to be afraid. When I tell people to give him a chance, it’s not to have unity, but to allay their fears. A lot gets said in the election process that is meant to be the loudest and make yourself the pinnacle of the process. Once the election rolls around, there is only one thing to do: hit reset and begin waiting for factual information to come in about the direction of the country and the impending new presidency.

    People are acting on their unfounded fears right now. I get it, words were said in the heat of the moment. That moment has passed. Those words were meant to inform our votes, not our future. Now let us judge actions.

    For the protests and such…if the general public sees you losing your shit irrationally, what are we supposed to think when you’ve got a legitimate qualm? What will you do to outshine the current displays to let us know that there’s something that displeases you? You’ve taken the streets because you didn’t get your way. If you take the streets again in 3 months, how do we know it’s not just a temper tantrum? This calibration of outrage will not be sustainable.

    • Other Bill

      I’m afraid this calibre of outrage will be sustainable indefinitely due to the media’s gleeful involvement in legitimizing it.

      • Other Bill

        But you know what? There’s a useful term for these protests that the media isn’t using as they did in the ’60s here and in France: “Student protests.” These are all just a bunch of kids who think they know everything and have a lot of time on their hands. They’re just playing. I suppose they’ll grow up. And they all can’t get jobs on university and college faculties. I hope.

    • Chris

      People are acting on their unfounded fears right now. I get it, words were said in the heat of the moment. That moment has passed. Those words were meant to inform our votes, not our future. Now let us judge actions.

      I’m lost. You’re saying that “in the heat of the moment” (which was actually a year-long campaign) Trump said we should ban all Muslim immigration, maybe put all American Muslims on a list, and refuse to allow re-entry for Muslims traveling abroad so that he could win votes from people who wanted these things done, and now that the election is over, we shouldn’t judge any of the people who voted for Trump for exactly these reasons.

      What?

      • Other Bill

        Chris. When Germany declared war on the U.S., did the U.S. continue admitting Germans during hostilities. A number of Islamic groups have essentially declared war on the U.S. Al Qaida, ISIS, CAIR (okay, just kidding) and any other number of groups, claiming they are conducting a holy war to obliterate non-believers. They have urged their followers (Muslims) to kill non-believers. Were North Vietnamese allowed into the U.S. during the Vietnam War? What’s your recommendation? Are any of us welcome in ISIS controlled territory? (Oh, I know, we’re better than that!) But if you were responsible for the security of our country, what would you do? Call Islam a religions of peace? Tell people they’re more likely to die from falling in a bathtub than in a massacre in a gay bar?

        • Chris

          Idiotic. Islam is not a nation. And numerous national security experts have pointed out that a Muslim ban would only strengthen ISIS. You are literally providing support for a plan so stupid even Trump himself has signaled that he has abandoned it.

          • Steve-O-in-NJ

            No, it’s not a nation, it’s a complete belief and life system (criminal law, banking practices, evidence, hospitality) that has some very dark aspects.

          • Other Bill

            Islam is not a nation. That’s true. Which makes the problem more difficult. The U.S. is involved in an unprecedented and asymetrical war with a lot of people who call themselves the true Islam spread over various continents. How do you combat that? Beats me. The alleged threat of “strengthening ISIS” is a total straw man. I suspect lots of people said people should be nice to Hitler and the NAZIs or else they’d be emboldened and strengthened. Dumb. It’s a popular Democrat talking point, but I think it’s dumb. You don’t defeat an enemy by being nice to them.

            • Chris

              Continuing to allow Muslim immigration isn’t “being nice to ISIS.” In MANY cases, it means taking in their victims or potential victims.

              ISIS’ central message is that there is no place for peaceful coexistence between Islam and the West. If you support a ban on Muslim immigration, you support that message.

              • Other Bill

                ISIS’ central message is that there is no place for peaceful coexistence between Islam and the West.

                No kidding. So you obliterate them and then the people they are driving out of their homelands can return/stay there and live peacefully with the rest of the modern world, which given computers and the internet and jet travel, is everywhere.

                You don’t tip toe around and say “They’re not Islamic!”

                • Other Bill

                  I’d also suggest anyone who is susceptible to being lured into ISIS is beyond being reached or influenced by anything the West might or might not do or represent. Anyone susceptible to being lured into ISIS is damaged beyond repair.

            • Steve-O-in-NJ

              It’s like the two Jews up against the wall menaced by the SS officer. One of them says “you may kill us, but you’ll never kill what we stand for!” Chris is the other one who says “Shhhhhhhh! You wanna make him mad?”

      • Yes – a presidential election is a very hot moment, but that’s all it is. When was the last time you expected that a presidential candidate do 100% of what they said? A vast majority of it is rhetoric and you have to see through that. It indicates direction of ideas, but not the actual future or anything that has officially come to pass at this point in time. A person can float an idea and later be told why that’s a stupid idea. What evidence do you have that his many discussions with the RNC and advisers since has not tempered his earlier statements?

        The election is over. The result is final. Take a beat. Wait for more information.

        • Chris

          A vast majority of it is rhetoric and you have to see through that. It indicates direction of ideas, but not the actual future or anything that has officially come to pass at this point in time.

          Sure. But can’t you see why Trump’s Muslim immigration ban statements point in a very troubling direction?

  9. Wayne

    I wonder if there is a law that the room mate could use to sue the Times and Benzizuone if any harm comes to the room mate. “Malicious intent” seems to be an issue here. I’m sure there are many conservative group that would find a great attorney to pursue this.

  10. Wayne

    How about the Tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress?

  11. I’ll have much to add later. But in this short break I want to note the record time this discussion was Godwinned by a knee jerk.

  12. zoebrain

    Meanwhile…

    ” A bill that Deuell co-sponsored pushing the Texas Department of Transportation to adopt a “complete streets policy” that would give greater emphasis to pedestrians and bicyclists was actually part of a sweeping United Nations plot.

    It was “an Agenda 21 issue that would’ve required bicycle paths on all of our highways in Texas,” Hall said.

    (No matter that the bill would have done no such thing.)”

    Of course he’s been elected. This is mainstream now.

    https://www.texasobserver.org/meet-bob-hall-tea-party-true-believer-headed-texas-senate/

    ” Senate Bill 92 would prohibit cities, counties and other political subdivisions from adopting or enforcing “a local law that creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in the laws of this state.”

    Because Texas state law doesn’t include sexual orientation or gender identity, cities and counties would be prohibited from enforcing LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinances.

    Three other states — Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee — have passed similar laws, but everything’s bigger in Texas: Hall’s bill would nullify LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination measures covering nearly 9 million residents, or roughly one-third of the state’s population, according to Equality Texas.”

    Obama’s administration was still building a case against the Arkansas and Tennessee laws, and a very narrow challenge on other grounds to NCs as part of that. Trump’s DOJ will be quite different.

    But we have bigger fish to fry.

  13. Wow. This discussion went sideways quickly.

    I read the article written by Romaissaa Benzizoune. I wondered why a writer, who describes herself as a “Muslim and an ardent feminist, a child of immigrants and a writer in English”, could lack self awareness, and turn so viciously on her roommate qua friend. So, I checked her out. It seems that she is young, either late teens or early twenties. She enjoys studying at cafes, listening to music, and writing. She also seems predisposed to jettisoning a friend over a presidential vote.

    She has written pieces such as “At the Beach in My Burkini” (New York Times, Sunday Review, AUG. 26, 2016), and “Run Rabbit Run: A Poem”, published on The Toast (here is the link: http://the-toast.net/2015/09/10/run-rabbit-run-a-poem)(I confess that I didn’t make it through but half of the poem. I am a Philistine – I hate poetry. Sorry. Well . . . not really.) She also wrote “Hijabi or Jihadi?”, published in Newsweek’s 6 Stories on Race, Family and a Dystopian World by High School Writers, (here is the link: http://www.newsweek.com/6-stories-race-family-and-dystopian-world-high-school-writers-463178).

    Ms.Benzizoune is young and extremely naive, possibly blinded by her passion for voting for the first woman president, along with her privilege of being in numerous protected categories so that everything she utters is taken either as truth incarnate or pointing to the truth incarnate. She seems to have accepted the Left’s position that anyone expressing an opposing viewpoint is not only incorrect, but wrong, evil and must be destroyed.

    if read carefully, her opinion piece exposes her utter intolerance for the “other”, just as she accuses Trump voters of doing the exact same thing. She is mystified that this same girl who touched her face, did her makeup, watched “Gilmore Girls” with her religiously, and sliced mango before bed (the horror?) is the same girl who voted for Trump. The roommate might have voted for Trump because she agreed with his tax plan (whatever that is) or his jobs plan or his healthcare reform plan). Or, she voted for Trump because she didn’t want to vote for Clinton. Unpardonable, I know, but . . .

    According to the author, “We fought; I packed. This was Tuesday evening, so I headed to my friend’s dorm, where a small group of us, mainly black women, tried to find solace in one another as the country slowly fell to red. I tried and failed to speak, to write. I ignored my roommate’s lengthy texts. Did she really expect me to respect her choice when her choice undermined my presence in this country, in this university, in my very own dorm room? Did she really expect me to shake her hand for supporting a candidate who would love to bar my relatives from this country, who has considered making people of my faith register in a specific database and carry special ID, Holocaust-style?” That is a powerful statement. Otherize the roommate and throw in the Holocaust for good measure. That’s pure rhetorical gold.

    The author clearly shows that she is petulant, immature, and seriously self-absorbed. We know nothing of the roommate’s character, other than that she seems like a nice young woman who accepted and embraced the author’s religion, culture, and lifestyle. Yet, we are to reject the roommate as a member of the Silent Majority, lurking in the shadows of our author’s dorm room, waiting for the time to turn her over to the Thought Police. \

    jvb

    • Steve-O-in-NJ

      I didn’t need to read more than a line or two before I knew the poem was garbage, speaking as an amateur poet myself. A poem is supposed to be a story told in meter or rhyme, and I’ve written about 20 of them. Some of mine might need a little annotation, but when you finished reading you’d know the story you read, you wouldn’t be nursing a headache and wondering what the hell that was you just read. It’s not meant to be a random spilling of words trying to be “deep.” She’s listed as seventeen, but must have turned eighteen since, or she wouldn’t be voting in this election.

      Of course she’s petulant and self-absorbed. She’s not even a full adult. She couldn’t even be served a drink in a bar (of course Muslims don’t drink). She lives in a world where her own problems and issues seem bigger than anything else, and it doesn’t help that she’s been taught to hate and fear the right as alternatively idiots and storm troopers. She’s all about passion before anything else. Passion and certitude make for a toxic mix. Frankly she isn’t ready for college, at least not college here. Maybe college in a Muslim country would suit her better.

  14. Chris

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-muslim-registry-immigrants-policy-kris-bobach-reinstate-wall-a7420296.html

    Tell me again how the Hitler comparisons are overblown and that Muslims are ethically required to remain friends with people who voted in a man who wants to put them all on a national registry.

    • Steve-O-in-NJ

      Tell me again how Trump plans to liquidate the Muslims the way Hitler executed the Final Solution. That’s what I thought. Tell me again how we’re ethically required to look the other way at folks who shoot up parties and gay clubs and fly airliners into buildings.

      • Chris

        Tell me again how Trump plans to liquidate the Muslims the way Hitler executed the Final Solution.

        Do you really think that’s how it started?

        Tell me again how we’re ethically required to look the other way at folks who shoot up parties and gay clubs and fly airliners into buildings.

        Since no one has ever suggested “looking the other way” at folks who do that, this response is a hallucination. You believe the Obama administration hasn’t gone after terrorists? Are you insane?

        • Steve-O-in-NJ

          That’s a non-sequitur. No one near Trump has indicated genocide is a goal. At best you’re making a slippery slope argument that once we take one step toward securing this nation we start inevitably down the path that leads to Auschwitz. Ridiculous.

          Hmmm, you don’t consider calling Fort Hood “workplace violence” or Orlando “gun violence” when both cases were clearly jihadism looking the other way? Who’s insane again?

          • Chris

            That’s a non-sequitur. No one near Trump has indicated genocide is a goal. At best you’re making a slippery slope argument that once we take one step toward securing this nation we start inevitably down the path that leads to Auschwitz. Ridiculous.

            Man, the way you soft-peddle egregious human rights abuses is really quite something. Putting all members of one religion is just “one step toward securing this nation?” No. It is literally a path that leads to things like Auschwitz.

            Not “inevitably.” Not if we refuse to listen to people like you who try and make it sound rational and fair, and who totally ignore history.

            Hmmm, you don’t consider calling Fort Hood “workplace violence”

            One example out of how many? I disagreed with that designation, but you implied the overall strategy of the Obama administration was to “look the other way” when it comes to terrorism, which is horse shit.

            or Orlando “gun violence”

            You don’t even know what you’re talking about. Obama called Orlando an “act of terrorism,” not just gun violence. Obama calling this terrorism is not Obama looking the other way on terrorism.

            https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/06/12/president-obama-tragic-shooting-orlando

    • “and that Muslims are ethically required to remain friends”

      Who’s *requiring* anyone to stay friends?

      Benzizoune didn’t *just* quit being friends. She threw a hissy, got huffy, and smeared the private citizen in such a manner that it’s too easy to maker her a public target.

      She didn’t just “quit being friends”.

      So please, keep the discussion in the proper context.

      • Chris

        She is the victim; she was betrayed by someone she thought she could trust, and whose friendship she thought was deeper than a political opinion.

        This would seem to imply that she had an ethical duty to keep the friendship.

        As I said, I don’t think the writer should have used her name, as that could make the roommate a target. I don’t agree that she “smeared” her by relating what happened between them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s