Sulkowicz was initially praised by Jewish propagandists as follows:
9. Emma Sulkowicz sparked a national conversation about sexual assault on college campuses through her performance art piece, Carry That Weight.
This fits a general pattern of fraudulent accusations of hate crimes, which often take the form of rabbis who spray-paint swastikas on their own property and then pretend that anti-Jewish goyim are threatening local Jews.
See also the website that has developed the research of Laird Wilcox on fraudulent accusations:
However, as the criminal nature of Sulkowicz’s fraud has become increasingly embarrassing, the spin doctors are trying to reshape the narrative.
a hearing was finally held on Sulkowicz’s complaint.
That hearing figures prominently in Sulkowicz’s claim that she was wronged by the university during the disciplinary process; she has said that she was subjected to humiliating and needlessly graphic interrogation. Last September, she told New York magazine that panel members kept badgering her with questions about the exact position she was in during the rape: “At one point, I was like, ‘Should I just draw you a picture?’ So I drew a stick drawing.”
But Roberson, the supporter who sat at Nungesser’s side during the hearing and watched Sulkowicz’s testimony on closed-circuit television, strongly disputes the notion that there was anything inappropriate about her questioning. “The panel were asking sensible questions; they were equally asked of Paul, and had been asked of Paul through the entire process. I’d been sitting in on the initial meetings where his statements were noted down. The questions were extremely personal because they had to be. That was much more graphic than anything that happened in the hearing, and the questions were asked with the utmost sensitivity.”
Nungesser has his own gripes about the hearing. Among other things, he says he was never allowed to present the Facebook exchanges, which he regards as strongly exculpatory, to the panel: The hearing, he claims, had to focus exclusively on the facts of the alleged attack in an attempt to decide whose version of this event was more credible. Despite this, and despite a low “preponderance of the evidence” standard which requires adjudicators to find in favor of the complainant if they believe it is even slightly more likely than not than the assault occurred, Nungesser was cleared. In late November, the university upheld that decision, rejecting Sulkowicz’s appeal.
A hasbaRAT claimed:
Mattress girl is not Jewish. Judaism is matrilineal. She’s half Asian, her last name is Ashkenazi, therefore, her mother is not Jewish. Judging by her behavior, dress and demeanor, her mother did not convert, so she’s not Jewish.
Why is that claim wrong?
First, note the dangers of inconsistent definitions of who is Jewish and who is not. If Robert D. Putnam gets the social cachet of Jewish identity even though he converted and has no known Jewish genes, Mattress Girl definitely gets the social cachet of Jewish identity even if only half of her genes are Jewish.
(I wonder whether anyone ever converts to Judaism and then embarrasses the Jewish community. I should ask Luke Ford about that some time…)
Second, note that Mattress Girl may be acting in a mentally imbalanced, criminally insane manner due to her genes. If her Asian genes turn out to be the critical factor in her criminal personality, I’m sure the People’s Republic of China will be happy to research the problem. See also:
Third, note that a lot of criminals seem to have Jewish families that never get reported. For example, the Supreme Gentleman seems to have had a Jewish father – but it’s very hard to get that issue discussed in mainstream newspapers.
The few websites that are willing to address controversial issues of ancestry all too often jump to anti-Jewish conclusions and are willing to present any anti-Jewish claim as established fact, even if said claim is controversial. Example:
This blog argues that we must aspire to objectivity, even though it may turn out to be an impossible dream.
That means that we cannot allow ANY sentiments – pro-Jewish or anti-Jewish – to cloud our analyses of Jewish behavior.
If Jewish genes tend to produce Nobel Prizes and astounding feats of engineering (such as the atomic bomb) then anti-Jewish feelings must not impair our objective acknowledgement of Jewish genes and their role in success.
If Jewish genes have a role in producing criminally insane behavior, pro-Jewish sentiment should not be allowed to delete this finding from the discussion.
It may yet be proven that some criminals had no Jewish genes. It may yet be proven that Elliot Rodger, for example, was descended entirely from non-Jewish ancestors. But when a criminal really does turn out to be Jewish, rational thinkers should not cringe from this fact.
A typical example of exculpatory writing is as follows:
There are few excuses for the behavior of Jewish gangsters in the 1920s and 1930s. The best known Jewish gangsters – Meyer Lansky, Bugsy Siegel, Longy Zwillman, Moe Dalitz — were involved in the numbers rackets, illegal drug dealing, prostitution, gambling and loan sharking. They were not nice men. During the rise of American Nazism in the 1930s and when Israel was being founded between 1945 and 1948, however, they proved staunch defenders of the Jewish people.
The spin doctors quoted above say that there are FEW excuses. That is to say, there are SOME excuses, but they refuse to pin themselves down to a public list of excuses. Likewise, they mention the fact that Jewish gangsters defended the Jewish people as a good thing, but they do not explain whether all tribes will be allowed to lionize tribal gangsters who defend their tribes.
I have to wonder what such spin doctors would say about Emma Sulkowicz. Perhaps they might say, “She broke some laws, but she was a staunch defender of Jewish feminism.”
The notion of a criminal personality is hard to pin down. The theory that genes might determine criminal personality is – to the best of my knowledge – a highly speculative theory. But in order to develop such theories in a way that is amenable to scientific inquiry*, we must prevent the spin doctors from propagandizing endlessly.
* Of course, the Chinese will have to do the genetic science for us. Westerners have neither the intellectual courage nor the academic freedom to address such shocking controversies.