Basically, the argument is, “it was a different time, we didn’t think that bad men would use a legal loophole to destroy women’s rights” which is not only ignorant & short sighted, showcases a complete ignorance to why women’s rights were protected in law in the first place.
One of my takes is that all critical ideologies are just lower-IQ variants on Marxism.
The core idea of being "Woke" - or "red-pilled," if you just think about it - is that you are aware society is a hideous illusion, created to oppress you/your group. In old-school vulgar Marxism, of course, the group that creates and manages facially neutral systems like criminal justice, with the goal of oppressing you, is the rich - the upper bourgeois.
In CRT, which Andrews is critiquing here, the "rich man" is basically just removed from the model and replaced by the Bad White Man. The CJ system exists to lock up Blacks and browns - some add poor whites - and prevent a revolution (Alexander 2010). Successful revolution consists of robbing whites - or forcing them to inter-breed (Cleaver 1968) - not of killing rich people.
In radical feminism, the rich man is replaced by The MAN: facially fair institutions like marriage and the war draft exist to perpetuate MALE supremacy. Marriage, in particular, exists to guarantee average men access to daily sex and maid-labor. Revolution consists of draining money from men and giving it to "undeserving" women, along with "feminizing systems" (Firestone, various).
So on through Queer Theory, MAP Theory, Fat Studies, Colonial and Post-Colonial Studies, Peace Studies, etc. So, I mean, there's that.
Right into my veins!💉
Justice Thomas:
"Men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or girls, even if they believe that they are. Sex is an immutable 'biological' characteristic...it is binary."
"To use language to obscure reality—to show 'indifference regarding the truth'—is to lie to the public..."
The Democratic party that you and I both loved no longer exists
It is being co-opted by Marxists who call themselves Socialists because it sounds better
But also by Islamists who are hostile to liberalism
We are electing people who openly hate America
We have insecure elections, open borders, an extremely complex network of NGOs that launders money (oftentimes state funds) to feed this machine
Many in politics and the media are either unaware of what's happening or too cowardly to stand up
A full generation of "educated" kids who were indoctrinated to believe that all of this is good
Etc etc
No. The story was not overlooked or buried.
Israel immediately informed us the attack happened. There were numerous investigations. The Captain of the USS Liberty was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Israel apologized and paid reparations.
The truth is, it's just not a big story. It's a tragic story, and no doubt. But it isn't a big story.
34 Americans died on the USS Liberty in 1967.
11,363 Americans died in the jungles of Vietnam in 1967.
Friendly Fire is horrific, but not uncommon. There is very little reason for a sixty-year old friendly fire incident to be widely known about, much less widely discussed.
For example, that same year, 1967, a US Marine Corp jet attacked a US Army position on Hill 875 in Vietnam, killing 42 American soldiers.
59 years later, not many remember Hill 875, not because it wasn't horrific -- it killed more Americans than the attack on the USS Liberty -- but because it isn't useful as a talking point to implicate the US/Israel relationship.
As to the second part of your question, we aren't discussing the USS Liberty today because of new information. We are discussing the USS Liberty today because of old -- even ancient -- grudges.
Building a reading list for intellectual inoculation against ideological capture, moral panic, historical illiteracy, and civilisational self-hatred.
What have I missed?