When news broke that Evergreen State College was shut down by police because of a “direct threat,” obvious questions went unanswered. A direct threat of what? By whom? Why? Surely there would be answers coming soon enough. The media reports said nothing. A day later and they still say nothing.
Evergreen State College, which has been in the national spotlight after protests over race boiled over last week, closed Thursday after receiving a direct threat.
The school of about 4,500 students in Washington state posted this warning: “College closing immediately. In response to a direct threat to campus safety, the college is closing immediately for the day. All are asked to leave campus or return to residence halls for instructions.”
A spokeswoman for the school wrote in a text message Thursday afternoon that a threat had been called in to local law enforcement and that the president decided to close the school temporarily out of an abundance of caution.
That a threat of violence happened at Evergreen is not surprising. Not even a little bit. It’s become the latest flashpoint of social justice insanity, following progressive, but not progressive enough, bio prof Bret Weinstein’s complaint about shifting the “Day of Absence” to compelled segregation.
Reasonable people can debate whether or not social experiments like a Day of Absence are enlightening. Perhaps there’s a case to be made that a white-free day could be a useful way to highlight the lack of racial diversity, particularly at a proudly progressive school like Evergreen. Yet reasonable debate has made itself absent at Evergreen.
First, the students lost their shit on Weinstein, to the extent that the campus police, ordered to stand down by Evergreen’s president, George Bridges, informed him that they could not guarantee his safety. Then they lost it again on Bridges, who behaved like a pledge getting spanked on a video that the students then demanded he remove from the internet because it was stolen by white supremacists.
Then came the “direct threat” that closed the campus.
Trying hard to remain open minded about what this threat might be, I waited to hear more information. I searched to find some information. There was nothing. Which gave rise to a moment of speculation that reflects the bias of the times. Had the threat come from some alt-right nutjob, would it not have been shouted from every rooftop? Would there not be cries of hate speech and racism?
Yet, there was silence. The implication seemed obvious.
After asking a local news guy in Olympia, Jay Johnson at KIRO7, I finally got an answer as to what the “direct threat” was:
Shoot liberals with a large-caliber handgun, according to police.
The bias was wrong; this wasn’t an instance of media concealing threats of violence, if not actual violence, by SJWs while pounding away at the racist alt-right for their violence. Why the media has failed to report that the direct threat was to “shoot liberals” is unclear. It would seem that any threat of violence should be reported, regardless of which side makes it and what it reflects.
Then again, that the extremes of both sides are similarly willing to resort to threats and violence gives rise to the overarching question: how did we get to the point where both radical extremes find violence, or threats of violence, to be their weapon of choice? Both the alt-right and the SJWs have more in common with each other than they do with the majority of Americans, who reject violence as an answer to political disagreement.
Update: The Seattle Times has disclosed the threat to Evergreen State College:
“I’m on my way to Evergreen University (sic) now with a .44 Magnum,” the caller says in audio obtained by KIRO 7. “I’m going to execute as many people on the campus as I can get ahold of. You have that, what’s going on here, you communist scumbag town? I’m going to murder as many people on that campus as I can. Just keep your eyes open, scumbag.”
The dispatcher then asks the caller how long it will be before he arrives, but the call abruptly ends at that point.
That’s all there is for now.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think it has something to do with the assault on Richard Spencer (vile tool of a human being as he may be), and the introduction of “It’s okay to punch a Nazi in the face” in modern discourse.
As you’ve pointed out repeatedly, this was a bad move for the SJW crowd, as everyone they disagree with is either a nazi or “literally Hitler,” so political violence became the norm for them as “Punching nazis in the face is okay” became acceptable.
There’s only so much anyone will endure, even the alt-right, far-right, whatever you call the other wing, before they start punching back. It’s not in human nature to simply lie down and take a beating. People will defend themselves if given a chance. The problem is when “self-defense” becomes the default excuse for going straight to full assault.
Now we’re in a world where both extremes have met on common ground. Free and open exchange of ideas is not the answer. Punches, bike locks, and now guns are the means to silence those with dissenting viewpoints.
I wish I could say I was scared. You know me too well for that.
There’s a very narrow line that gets crossed where “there’s only so much anyone will endure.” Defending oneself against violence is different from accepting violence as a viable response because tu quoque. Even if one side has crossed the line, it doesn’t mean the other side can or should. When both have, both are wrong.
If the threat was to “shoot liberals” and they aren’t shouting it from the rooftops, there’s a good chance they’ve tracked it (as in so many other recent campus incidents) to an activist student.
Maybe it was for extra credit. Digging deeper reveals the extent to which faculty are not just enablers and defenders of these protests, but direct participants in them.
Trying not to go there unless or until there are facts to support the speculation. But then, it seems the most likely reason, which would make it just one more data point in this ugly mess.
There are far-left factions for whom “liberal” is just as much a curse word as it is to the right; they regard liberals of all sorts (whether “classical liberal” / libertarian or 20th-century American liberal or “neoliberal” , whatever the heck that is) as the enemies of radicals.
It irks me when conservatives and libertarians call progressives liberals.
I suppose there is no point denying it. The little twits finally irritated me to the point that I threatened to sing folk songs at them. Politically incorrect folk songs. I’m talking Suwanee River, Old Kentucky Home and Old Black Joe stuff here. That was it. I’ve never seen so many tadpole “progressives” take to their heels so fast. I almost feel guilty.
See? There’s another one. How dare Woody suggest that this land could “belong” to any white, cisgendered male? Goddamned rightist son of a whatever! (Except for his songs critical of Hitler, I’m sure he’d be accused by now of having been “literally Hitler”).
I knew it wouldn’t be lost on you.
Lehrer’s “Folk Song Army” would tie a nice bow on this thread, IMO…
Indeed. Courage.
If you use the percentage of high profile hate crimes that have turned out to be hate hoaxes, there may be a decent chance that this to is a hate hoax.
If I was in media, I would hate to popularize this threat, only to have it blow back against progressiveness.