A year after the Orlando Pulse attacks, the New York Times publishes an editorial acknowledging the real victims. Not the 49 people killed by an Islamic Supremacist acting on Quranic ideology, but the Mohammedans whose feelings may have been hurt by people blaming an Islamic Supremacist acting on Quranic ideology for the attack. And also, Donald Trump was horrible for linking the attack to the Islamic Supremacy movement.
Despite the outpouring of support for L.G.B.T. and Latino people, the tragedy became an excuse to vilify Muslims before the 2016 presidential election.
The day of the shooting, before most of the victims were identified, Donald J. Trump, then a candidate, tweeted: “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism.” From that moment on, it was clear that the tragedy would not become a reason to champion noble or productive causes like gun reform. Instead, it would become Exhibit A in Mr. Trump’s justification for a ban on Muslims entering the country — despite the fact that the shooter was an American and Muslim refugees have not killed anyone in the United States.
The national coverage linking Islam to the massacre was inescapable.
Gee, I wonder why.
Strangely enough, the author never mentions that the mass-murderer’s father showed up at Hillary for President Rally, not long after.
He does include this Millennial Word Salad of a paragraph, though.
This is not to say that I support censorship. I agree that listening to a variety of ideas can be enriching. But critics of students who seek to limit misleading or hateful speech rarely consider that we have experience with the consequences. Students aren’t trying to block points of view we haven’t heard. We are speaking out to change social narratives that we can see have devastating effects. And precisely because college campuses are bastions of free speech, we feel comfortable enough here to push back.
I’m not sure what that means aside from “I don’t support censorship but actually I do.”