Friday, August 18, 2017


Shoe makers slammed for sexism over names of girls’ shoes called Dolly Babe and boys’ range called Leader

SHOE shop Clarks has sparked a sexism row after it named a girls’ shoe range ‘Dolly Babe’ and a boys’ line ‘Leader’.

Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was among the critics, tweeting: “It is almost beyond belief that in 2017 a major company could think this is in any way acceptable. Shows what we are still up against.”

Following a backlash The Dolly Babe range, featuring a heart print detail, has been withdrawn from the website and the firm said it is removing the name from in-store products.

The Leader footwear, which carries a football image, remains on sale online in the boys’ school shoes section.

But replying to Ms Sturgeon, a Twitter user by the name of Tod said: “my daughter went though all phases from dolly babe to goth. It’s called choice & made no difference to her self esteem/worth.”

Clarks released a statement saying the Dolly Babe range is “an old and discontinued line, with only remaining stock being sold through our stores”.

SOURCE




No, the First Amendment Is Not Limited by 'Hate Speech'  

In the aftermath of Charlottesville’s antifa vs. alt-right riots, the mainstream media is, predictably, using the violence to feed the political narrative that all Donald Trump supporters are tacit defenders of white supremacy and racism. While the narrative is nothing new, it seems to have picked up steam due to the murder of a woman in the protest crowd by a sociopath from Ohio. Shamefully, the MSM exploited the murder to call into question the ACLU-defended First Amendment rights to freedom of speech — including ugly speech.

One of the Left’s favorite hobby horses is calling for the limiting of free speech it finds offensive, and leftists would love to have the power to silence speech they disagree with by labeling it “hate speech.” The trouble is the Constitution does not recognize this limit to Americans’ right to free speech. Still, that doesn’t stop leftists from claiming it does. A recent example emerges from an MSNBC interview of Patrisse Cullors, one of the founders of Black Lives Matter — which, one might argue, is a black supremacist group.

Cullors was asked to explain the distinction between the BLM protesters and the white supremacist protesters who were clashing in Charlottesville. Cullors responds by claiming that BLM’s message is about seeking equality while the white supremacists’ is “hate speech.” Not a surprising response, but she then flat-out lies, stating — without any pushback from the MSNBC host — that “hate speech” is not protected by the First Amendment. The truth is that “hate speech” is protected, because for the U.S. Constitution that caveat simply does not exist. Time and again the Supreme Court has ruled broadly in favor of Americans’ right to free speech. Just because one person or group may find certain speech to be offensive and reprehensible, they do not have the right to call for the government to silence someone else. This is the entire essence of the freedom of speech.

SOURCE



Thursday, August 17, 2017


Now they're covering up statues -- at Yale



If you were especially observant during your years on campus, you may have noticed a stone carving by the York Street entrance to Sterling Memorial Library that depict a hostile encounter: a Puritan pointing a musket at a Native American (top).

When the library decided to reopen the long-disused entrance as the front door of the new Center for Teaching and Learning, says head librarian Susan Gibbons, she and the university’s Committee on Art in Public Spaces decided the carving’s “presence at a major entrance to Sterling was not appropriate.”

The Puritan’s musket was covered over with a layer of stone (bottom) that Gibbons says can be removed in the future without damaging the original carving. 

SOURCE



Shutting down conservative voices is now advancing apace

Message from Vdare.com:

A few minutes ago, the VDARE Foundation was kicked off of Paypal without warning.

We were given no reasons, so are left to speculate why we've been suddenly purged. Best guess: the Charlottesville debacle -- in which VDARE.com played no part, either in planning, promoting or appearing -- is being used as an excuse for the authoritarian Communist Left to punish anyone who disagrees with their anti-American violence against patriotic people.

Luckily, we were prepared for this and the disruption will be minimal.

But this is only the beginning. Despite the increasingly hysterical news cycle, despite the scenes of brutality on the streets of so many major cities, despite the fever-pitch that it all seems to have reached, this is only the beginning.

It is impossible to predict on what level we will be attacked next.

More HERE 



Wednesday, August 16, 2017


The Climate Alarmists’ Gross Perversion of the Word Clean

Climate alarmists have gone to endless efforts to gain public acceptance of their doomsday premise that the world must greatly reduce its use of fossil fuels to avoid catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. They have fudged the surface temperature data, used meaningless climate models, argued that human emissions of carbon dioxide will warm the planet despite the strong evidence to the contrary, and so on, but their greatest perversion is of the English language.

They have branded CO2 as a pollutant and claimed that reducing it is necessary to make the world “clean.” All the alarmists from Gore to McKibben to Obama are guilty of this; in fact, the use of this terminology is so uniform that one suspects that they all have been coached to say it at every opportunity. Unfortunately, their efforts have even been supported by the Supreme Court, which decreed that CO2 is subject to regulation by the USEPA under the Clean Air Act despite no real support for this in the legislative history.

The Alarmists’ Biggest Propaganda Weapon

Since no one is opposed to something being clean, this is by far the alarmists’ biggest propaganda weapon. They have eagerly seized it and are running with it as hard as they can, despite its inapplicability in this case. They often combine it with the additional adjective “renewable” and refer to wind and solar-generated energy as “clean renewable” energy. CO2 emissions from using fossil fuels to generate energy, on the other hand, are characterized as “dirty” even though they are invisible, so cannot be perceived as clean or dirty by anyone.

But how can they get by with such a gross perversion of reality and the language? Plants must have adequate levels of CO2 in order to live, and have been shown to grow better with higher atmospheric levels; if they all die, Earth will become a truly dirty, lifeless landscape with endless piles of blowing sand and dirt and starving humans. Plants came close to mass starvation during the last ice age because of the low levels of CO2. CO2 is essential for plants and indirectly for animals.

Why Wind and Solar Are Actually Very Dirty

So the alarmists are actually arguing that life on Earth should be dirty and plants must be allowed to die in order to keep life-giving atmospheric CO2 levels down. The alarmists’ favored means for reducing CO2 emissions actually have many important dirty aspects such as bird and bat kills, rare earth mining, hideous wind and solar plants spread over huge areas, and difficult and slow removal of abandoned windmills and solar facilities after the subsidies are cut. This does not make CO2 reduction “clean”; it makes it anti-environmental, anti-poor people, and ultimately “dirty.”

SOURCE



A black man publicly eating a banana



Some things you couldn't make up.  Associating blacks with bananas has often been decried

Marshawn Lynch, a runningback for the Oakland Raiders, sat and ate a banana during the national anthem on Saturday before the Raiders’ first preseason football game against the Arizona Cardinals in Glendale, Arizona. Lynch did not play during the game, and the Raiders’ coach said Lynch’s actions were a “non-issue.”

Although Lynch said he has been doing this for 11 years, photos and videos show he stood on many occasions for the national anthem in recent years.

SOURCE

Tuesday, August 15, 2017



Woman who deliberately tried to inconvenience her workplace provokes anger

But the anger was crudely put so an apology was extracted.  Was the apology really needed?

A SHOCKINGLY sexist reply-all email sent by the boss of a Hollywood talent agency has gone viral after being posted on Facebook by the accidental recipient.

Rosette Laursen, who has since quit the agency, was working as an assistant when she asked for a day off to take part in “A Day Without A Woman”, an initiative on International Women’s Day on March 8 to demonstrate the value women bring to the modern workplace.

The reply, which was meant for two male co-workers only but accidentally went to the entire team, read: “Are you f***ing kidding me. At the end of pilot season. Someone should sew her vagina shut. I’m never hiring a girl ever again.

“No bonus for anyone that strikes or leaves early in pilot season. No one is striking in show business we are all against Trump. And women are considered diverse and being shoved in as writer and directors. Zach who is a Jewish male is being pushed out.

She then received the following apology: “I apologize for venting like a misogynistic fa***t. I was letting off steam I didn’t mean to hit reply all. I’m an a**hole. If you come back we can play Nazi death camp. You can beat me and put me in the oven. Or feed me cabbage and lock me in the shower. I am truly sorry.”

Ms Laursen said she “wasn’t a big fan of any of this”, and responded with “I quit"

Ms Laursen added that the “response ... shouldn’t have surprised me considering my past exchanges with him”, but described the email as the “final straw”. She added that her Christmas bonus that year was red lingerie that “made me look like a ham”, but pointed out that her boss “is gay so it could be weirder”.

SOURCE





DC Metro sued over refusal to run some ads

Washington, D.C.’s transit system is being sued over its refusal to feature ads for Milo Yiannopoulos, an abortion provider and PETA.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on Wednesday announced the lawsuit, which asks the court to order the agency to accept and run the ads in its trains and stations and in and on its buses.

Among the ads the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority refused to display was one from women’s healthcare collective Carafem that features a picture of a white pill along with the text “10-Week-After Pill” and “For abortion up to 10 weeks. $450. Fast. Private.”

The Metro also did not allow ads for PETA that featured a picture of a pig, along with the words “I’m ME, Not MEAT. See the Individual. Go Vegan.”

The transit authority did initially approve the ads for Milo Yiannopoulos’s book Dangerous but withdrew them after passengers complained. The lawyers have also filed a motion for Milo Worldwide LLC that seeks immediate relief from the court for what it said was the ongoing loss of revenue from book sales as a result of the ads being taken down.

Lee Rowland, senior staff attorney with the ACLU, said the plaintiffs in the case “perfectly illustrate the indivisibility of the First Amendment.”

“In its zeal to avoid hosting offensive and hateful speech, the government has eliminated speech that makes us think, including the text of the First Amendment itself. The ACLU could not more strongly disagree with the values that Milo Yiannopoulos espouses, but we can’t allow the government to pick and choose which viewpoints are acceptable,” he added.

SOURCE





Monday, August 14, 2017


NJ: Bernards Township Forbids Citizens From Criticizing Islam Or Muslims… Residents Are Furious

The speech restriction applies only to discussions during  council meetings but since it concerns a religion -- Islam -- is clearly bigoted.  Discussions of Muslim practice are surely highly relevant in discussing the building of a mosque.  The mosque has now been finally approved subject to a number of restrictions.  The court-ordered $3.25 million settlement is $1.5 million in damages and $1.75 million in legal expenses.

According to reports from World Net Daily, a New Jersey township that was sued by a group of Muslims for refusing to approve a massive mosque project is now returning to court because of a settlement agreement that restricts anyone from commenting on “Islam” or “Muslims.”

The Islamic Society of Basking Ridge won a decision in federal court after its mosque proposal was rejected based on traffic and other concerns. The Township agreed on a $3.5. million payment and a “public hearing to approve the settlement.”

Residents Christopher and Loretta Quick challenged the agreement, arguing it restricts speech and violates the Establishment Clause.

“The Quicks reside within 200 feet of the proposed mosque construction in a zoned residential area,” Thomas More explained. “Yet, the settlement agreement prohibits them from describing the many unique features of Islamic worship which will impact the design of the building, traffic density, water and sewage, traffic control problems, road construction, and parking arrangements.

“ISBR is setting a dangerous unconstitutional precedent by abusing a court process to chill and trample on the First Amendment rights of private citizens whose only involvement was to speak out against the mosque at public hearings,” Thompson said earlier this year.

SOURCE



Australian federal government warns public servants over social media attacks

This is fairly dubious from a free speech point of view but it is true that an employer is entitled to put conditions on the employment he offers.  Australia has no First Amendment but does have some other protections

The Turnbull government will today seek to impose restrictions on public servants criticising the Coalition on social media, warning that employees risk disciplinary action for "liking" anti-government posts or privately emailing negative mat­erial to a friend from home.

Documents obtained by The Australian show public servants would also be warned they could be in breach of the public service code of conduct if they do not ­remove "nasty comments" about the government posted by others on the ­employee’s Facebook page.

Under the new policy, liking or sharing anti-government material on a social media platform will generally be taken as an endorsement and as though the public servant had created the material.

Even if a public servant shares a post they do not agree with, and puts an angry face emoji with the post, the employee could still be in breach if their opposition to the post is not made sufficiently clear.

Declaring the code operates "in effect" to limit an individual’s right to freedom of expression, the ­government also warned public ­servants against posting criticism anonymously or under a pseudonym.

Australian Public Service Commissioner John Lloyd said last night that "objectionable material was not miraculously sanitised" by a public servant posting anonymously or using a pseudonym.

"That argument is similar to a burglar arguing that charges should be dismissed because he wore a balaclava," he said.

The Community and Public Sector Union last night accused the government of "overreach".

"It’s completely unreasonable for a worker to face disciplinary ­action over a private email or something as benign as ‘liking’ a social media post," union national secretary Nadine Flood said.

"Of course there needs to be limits but this policy goes too far. The notion that the mum of a gay son who happens to work in Centrelink can’t like a Facebook post on marriage equality without endangering her job is patently ­absurd.

The policy, which applies across the federal public sector from today, says a public servant could be in breach of the code through material contained in a private email sent to a friend.

In relation to posts made after hours, the government says a public servant’s capacity to affect the reputation of their agency and the public service "does not stop when you leave the office". "The comments you make after hours can make people question your ability to be impartial, ­respectful and professional when you are at work," the policy says. "APS employees are required by law to uphold the APS values at all times."

The policy says the common law recognises an individual right to freedom of expression. "This right is subject to limitations such as those imposed by the Public Service Act," it says. "In effect, the code of conduct operates to limit this right."

"Public servants should not make comments that could make members of the community doubt either the capacity of the government to deliver services properly or the personal commitment of that employee to their work."

SOURCE

Sunday, August 13, 2017



Army shoots down demands to scrub Confederate names from Fort Hamilton

U.S. Rep. Yvette Clarke has vowed to keep fighting after the Army shot down a proposal to rename two streets honoring Confederate generals at New York City’s Fort Hamilton.

General Lee Ave. and Stonewall Jackson Drive at the Brooklyn base, named after Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson, represent “an inextricable part of our military history,” the Army wrote in response to Ms. Clarke, who received the letter over the weekend, the New York Daily News reported.

Diane Randon, the Army’s acting assistant chief of staff for Installation Management, reportedly wrote that the streets were named in the spirit of reconciliation, and that any effort to rename them would be “controversial and divisive.”

Ms. Clarke said the monuments are “deeply offensive” to Brooklyn residents and that they should be left in the past where they belong.

“The department claims that the streets were named ‘in the spirit of reconciliation.’ But that ‘reconciliation’ was actually complicity by the North and the South to ignore the interests of African Americans and enforce white supremacy, effectively denying the result of the Civil War for generations,” the Democrat said in a statement Monday. “The department describes any possible renaming of these streets as potentially controversial. Nonsense."

“These monuments are deeply offensive to the hundreds of thousands of Brooklyn residents and members of the armed forces stationed at Fort Hamilton whose ancestors Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson fought to hold in slavery,” she continued. “For too many years, the United States has refused to reckon with that history. I commend the City of New Orleans for initiating this important and often difficult work. I will continue to petition the Department of the Army to contribute to that effort.

SOURCE




Fired Google engineer gives his first interview with an alt-right YouTube star, revealing that he wrote his infamous 'sexist' memo on a 12-hour flight after feeling 'isolated' in the company for his beliefs

The 28-year-old Google software engineer who was fired on Monday for writing a 'sexist' internal memo has given his first interview to an alt-right star.

James Damore appeared on right-winger Stefan Molyneaux's YouTube show on Tuesday, defending his diatribe that claimed women were not biologically cut out for the tech industry. Google CEO Sundar Pichai called the 10-page essay, which was leaked to the media on Sunday, 'not OK'.

Molyneaux, whose YouTube show has more than 650,000 subscribers, has railed against feminists and become and an advocate for 'men's rights'.

In the more than 45-minute interview, Damore revealed that he wrote the controversial memo during a 12-hour flight to China, when he was feeling 'isolated' by the company's 'liberal' culture.

In another interview, Damore said his firing 'hasn't fully hit' him yet. 'I really thought it was a problem Google itself had to fix,' he said. 'Hopefully they do.'

One thing that triggered him to write the letter was attending one of the company's diversity programs, which he found 'shameful'.

'I went to a diversity program at Google,' he told Molyneux. 'It was ... not recorded, totally secretive. I heard things that I definitely disagreed with in some of our programs. I had some discussions there. There was lots of just shaming and, "No you can't say that — that's sexist," and, "You can't do this."

'There's just so much hypocrisy in the things they are saying. I decided to create the document to clarify my thoughts,' he said. 

Damore said he isn't the only one at Google who doesn't subscribe to the company's left-leaning agenda. He says he wrote the memo to speak up for other Googlers who are 'not in this groupthink' and have felt 'isolated and alienated' by the company's culture.

Damore said that those with conservative views in Silicon Valley, ' feel like they have to stay in the closet' and 'mask' their true political opinions. He claims that some of the more conservative employees have been thinking about leaving the company because the left-wing bias has been 'getting so bad'.

Damore says the proof that his ideas are supported is in the heaps of positive feedback he's received from the essay.  

'I've gotten a ton of personal messages of support, which has been really nice. I got that at Google before all of this leaked. Lots of upper management was shaming me,' he said.

Damore revealed that he wrote the memo around a month ago and had shared it with 'multiple' Google employees who never had 'this explosive reaction.'

'All the responses were rational discussion,' he added, saying he had been stunned by the reaction in public to his arguments.

He stated that he had simply 'laid out my arguments, I specified exactly whats causing this I even outlined what the response may be, all this PC silencing - but they did exactly that.'

Damore claims those attacking him for his sexist comments 'feel self righteous' and that 'the ends justify the means.'

SOURCE


Friday, August 11, 2017



When Google silences dissent, it bodes poorly for the rest of us

Well, now we know what you’re not allowed to say if you work at Google. Next question: What are the rest of us allowed to say on the Internet?

When one of the planet’s most powerful information providers stifles dissent, I find myself wondering: How long before it’s our turn?

By now, we’ve all heard of James Damore, the Google employee whose notorious internal memo, “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” was leaked to the press last week.

Damore argued that fundamental biological differences go a long way toward explaining why Google has a lot more male engineers than females. For this reason, Damore argued, Google’s current policies for achieving gender equality are destined to fail, and he suggested a number of alternative strategies.

Whatever the merits of Damore’s argument, I’m struck by the fact that hundreds of the hypersmart, highly intelligent people who’ve made Google such a marvel can’t bear to be in the same building with somebody who thinks this way. These are the same people who write the code that’s supposed to generate accurate, unbiased Internet searches for billions of people. After the firing of Damore, how can we trust them to be honest brokers of information when they won’t tolerate dissent in their own ranks?

But in firing him, Google has decisively confirmed one of the key claims Damore made in his manifesto: “ . . . when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence.”

SOURCE





Gorka Explains Use of Term ‘Radical Islamic Terrorism’ to MSNBC: You Don’t Call Cancer the Flu

Dr. Sebastian Gorka, White House deputy advisor on national security, was questioned Tuesday on MSNBC about his insistence on the use of the term “radical Islamic terrorism.”

“I don’t understand how calling it by its name helps stop the attacks in Paris or in Belgium or in London,” MSNBC’s Ali Velshi said to Gorka.

"So If you, God forbid, caught cancer, and the hospital was forbidden from calling it cancer and said, 'you have the flu, go home and hydrate and some take aspirins,' would you actually have the right treatment?" Gorka asked.

"No, but there's still no cure for cancer," MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle replied.

"Have you not heard of chemo?" Gorka asked.

"I have heard of chemo, and cancer can still kill you, so it doesn't matter what you call it," Ruhle rejoined.

"Doesn't matter what you call it, really?” Gorka replied. “So if I call it the flu, and say go home and take some aspirin, what's going to happen?"

“There must be a better response to that, right?” Velshi said. “I asked you a very straightforward question.”

"I gave you a very simple answer," Gorka responded. "If you misdiagnose anything, whether it's a serious disease or international geopolitical threat, you will never solve it.”

“For the last eight years we had an administration that said oh it’s economic, oh these people are disenfranchised,” he added. “Look it’s not about economics, it’s not about being disenfranchised, it’s about people who have an ideology that is evil and has to be destroyed."

Velshi then asked about stopping "lone-wolf" attacks perpetrated by individuals rather than by groups like ISIS.

"There's no such thing as a lone wolf. You do know that?" Gorka responded. "That was a phrase invented by the last administration to make Americans stupid. There has never been — never been — a serious attack ... or a serious plot that was unconnected from ISIS or Al Qaeda, at least through the ideology and the TTPs — the tactics, the training, the techniques, and the procedures — that they supply through the internet. Never happened. It's bogus."

SOURCE

Thursday, August 10, 2017


Google Manipulates Search Results to Conceal Criticism of Islam and Jihad

The jihad against the freedom of speech is advancing rapidly, and most people don’t even know it’s happening.

Turkey’s state-run news outlet Anadolu Agency reports:

Google’s first page results for searches of terms such as “jihad”, “shariah” and “taqiyya” now return mostly reputable explanations of the Islamic concepts. Taqiyya, which describes the circumstances under which a Muslim can conceal their belief in the face of persecution, is the sole term to feature a questionable website on the first page of results. (emphasis added)
“Reputable” according to whom? “Questionable” according to whom?

Google has bowed to pressure from Muslims such as Texas imam Omar Suleiman, who led an initiative to compel Google to skew its results. Apparently Google hasn’t considered whether those who are demanding that search results be manipulated in a particular direction might have an ulterior motive. Could it be that those who are pressuring Google wish to conceal certain truths about Islam that they would prefer non-Muslims not know?

I discuss the Islamic supremacist initiative to compel the West to accept Sharia blasphemy laws under the guise of stamping out “hate speech” -- an initiative that is now galloping forward and achieving immense success -- in my new book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies). Google executives should read it, and should study Islam themselves in order to determine whether or not they have been misled by the Muslims who are pressuring them. But that’s not going to happen.

Google could have performed a bit more due diligence to determine if sources being tarred as “hate groups” actually deserve the label, if the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a reliable and objective arbiter for defining “hate groups,” and if the information that Google is suppressing is really inaccurate. Instead, Google seems to have swallowed uncritically everything Omar Suleiman and his allies have said.

Despite his success, Suleiman still isn’t satisfied:

One leading activist in favor of Google modifying its results told Anadolu Agency he noticed the updated search results and thanked the company for its efforts but said “much still needs to be done.” He claimed that Google has a responsibility to “combat ‘hate-filled Islamophobia’ similar to how they work to suppress extremist propaganda from groups like Daesh and al-Qaeda."
This should have made Google executives stop and think.

The Islamic State (Daesh) and al-Qaeda slaughter people gleefully and call openly for more mass murders. Yet there is no firm evidence that anyone has ever been killed by a “hate-filled Islamophobe.” And the claim that the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the SPLC make in this article -- that this supposed “Islamophobic” rhetoric has led to a rise in hate crimes against Muslims -- is supported by not a scintilla of evidence.

SOURCE







Protestors Dressed as Nazis Tried to Shut Down Ann Coulter During a Free Speech Panel

New York Times best-selling author, columnist, and speaker Ann Coulter was participating in a panel discussion titled "Censorship on Campus" at Politicon, an annual "non-partisan" convention that brings people of all stripes together to see their favorite pundits, politicians and more.

But before she could get in a word, two protestors dressed as Nazis started shouting her down in an effort to silence her.

It took some time for the disruptive individuals to be booted out of the room. It didn't appear that the event's organizers were prepared for this sort of thing to happen.

It didn't end there. Two more protestors against Coulter, not dressed like the first pair, were also escorted out of the room shortly after the first two individuals.

The Los Angeles affiliate for CBS News captured some of ruckus in this video:

Joining Coulter on the panel were Axios Vice President Evan Ryan, stand-up comic Gregg Proops, Townhall.com Political Editor Guy Benson and tech culture journalist Xeni Jardin.

Ann got in a joke at the costumed protestors' expense, as tweeted by an individual also watching the chat.

@AnnCoulter said she was happy the liberal protestors dressed as Nazis to protest her showed up in their "natural garb"!

SOURCE




Wednesday, August 09, 2017



Man criticized for praising overweight wife

ONE man’s very public tribute to his “curvy” wife ended up dividing opinion after he was slammed for “objectifying” her in the offending post. American entrepreneur Robbie Tripp took to Instagram to praise his wife, Sarah, in a post where he bigged up his own feminist credentials.

But many other feminists were less than impressed with the post, which featured a shot of Robbie and Sarah sharing a tender moment on a beach.

In his public tribute, Robbie wrote: “I love this woman and her curvy body. As a teenager, I was often teased by my friends for my attraction to girls on the thicker side. “As I became a man and started to educate myself on issues such as feminism and how the media marginalizes women by portraying a very narrow and very specific standard of beauty (thin, tall, lean), I realised how many men have bought into that lie. “For me, there is nothing sexier than this woman here: thick thighs, big booty, cute little side roll etc.”

At first, the post was widely circulated and praised as an example of touching body-positivity. But before long, the post had attracted criticism from people who claimed that there’s really nothing at all radical about a man loving his wife.

Journalist Julia Pugachevsky wrote on Twitter: “Strong contender for least fave type of male feminist is ‘man who thinks liking a curvy woman is revolutionary.’”

The critical comment, which has been retweeted over 26,000 times, sparked a fierce debate around feminism and what it means to be body positive.

SOURCE



Google employee fired over ‘anti-diversity’ memo

IF YOU don’t support affirmative action, you’re evil.

That’s the only logical conclusion one can reach, judging by the insane reaction to — and media coverage of — Google employee James Damore’s critique and discussion of the internet giant’s “diversity” policies.

After the memo went viral, Mr Damore was sacked for “perpetuating gender stereotypes”, he confirmed in an email to Bloomberg on Tuesday.

It’s worth reading the entire 10-page document, which was first published by Gizmodo and has been described by most outlets as an “anti-diversity screed” or “manifesto”. And it’s worth reading precisely for that reason — they lie even in their headlines.

“I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more,” Mr Damore writes. “However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices.”

Those include “programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race”, “a high priority queue and special treatment for ‘diversity’ candidates”, and “reconsidering any set of people if it’s not ‘diverse’ enough”.

SOURCE


Tuesday, August 08, 2017


Must not celebrate men

DUNKIRK may be winning at the box office, but it can’t catch a break with some critics.

The Christopher Nolan-directed film was accused last week of whitewashing and now a new review of the movie in Marie Claire called out the film for being too male-centric.

“Dunkirk felt like an excuse for men to celebrate maleness — which apparently they don’t get to do enough,” Marie Claire’s Mehera Bonner wrote in her review.

Bonner added that while she does not need all movies to feature “strong female leads,” Dunkirk “screams ‘men-only’” and Nolan should have made a movie about either women or “any other marginalised group.”

Bonner’s criticism was mocked online by various news outlets and Twitter users, who felt her critique missed the mark and ignored historical facts, with many pointing out that a film about World War II soldiers would inevitably feature a male cast.

SOURCE









Nasty Mother Edits Daughter's Disney Princess Book to Make It More 'Feminist'

Here’s what happened. According to PopSugar, Lindemann, who studies gender roles, became frustrated with her daughter’s incessant reading of her favorite book about Disney princesses, feeling that it promoted inappropriate gender stereotypes. According to Lindemann, the books are “basically teaching these little girls that their worth lies in looking nice and hooking up with the right guy.” So she took a pen and added some edits to her daughter’s book.

But, here’s the thing. None of the images (which have now been shared on multiple sites online) actually promote the ideals she says are so abhorrent. “A princess is kind,” reads a page depicting Snow White. It ought to be fairly uncontroversial to say that kindness is a positive attribute. But Lindemann’s addition, “ . . . of a badass,” implies that, rather than being kind, women must be somehow subversive in order to fit in to these new “feminist” gender roles. (Not to mention the fact that she’s adding profanity to her three-year-old’s picture book!)

“What is a princess? A princess is brave!” reads another page of the book. Um, brave sounds good, right? That doesn’t sound like the sort of passive, damsel in distress character that Lindemann and her compatriots would object to. And yet, in a speech bubble coming from Princess Jasmine’s mouth, Lindemann writes, “”My body, my choice!” What, for the love of all that is holy, has this to do with anything?! Unless, in the previous page, Aladdin was depicted as trying to impregnate Jasmine and then engaging in an earnest discussion about what to do with the unborn baby, this is a total non sequitur!

It goes on and on like this. Not one of the images depicted promotes the ideology of “looking nice and hooking up with the right guy” that Lindemann is trying to push back against. The closest one is “A princess likes to dress up,” but it doesn’t even specify what they like to dress up as, and Lindemann’s addition of “in her medical scrubs, when she goes to work as a neurosurgeon” doesn’t really add or detract from the message. Sure, a princess might like to be a neurosurgeon, or a fairy, or a unicorn, or the president. It’s a book aimed at three-year-olds.

The most ridiculous of these images, in my opinion, is of Princess Jasmine and Aladdin, flying on a magic carpet with their arms around each other. The page reads, “Jasmine flies through the sky.” Lindemann added, “She holds onto Aladdin because he is scared,” and she gave Aladdin a speech bubble that says, “Protect me, Jasmine!” This kind of makes me want to throw up a little.

SOURCE


Monday, August 07, 2017


The pitfalls of censorship

Trying to protect people from reality is a mug's game. People need to learn to ignore unpleasant speech

Francie Latour was picking out produce in a suburban Boston grocery store when a white man leaned toward her two young sons and, just loudly enough for the boys to hear, unleashed a profanity-laced racist epithet.

Reeling, Latour, who is black, turned to Facebook to vent, in a post that was explicit about the hateful words hurled at her 8- and 12-year-olds on a Sunday evening in July.

“I couldn’t tolerate just sitting with it and being silent,” Latour said in an interview. “I felt like I was going to jump out of my skin, like my kids’ innocence was stolen in the blink of an eye.”

But within 20 minutes, Facebook deleted her post, sending Latour a cursory message that her content had violated company standards. Only two friends had gotten the chance to voice their disbelief and outrage.

Experiences like Latour’s exemplify the challenges Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg confronts as he tries to rebrand his company as a safe space for community, expanding on its earlier goal of connecting friends and family.

But in making decisions about the limits of free speech, Facebook often fails the racial, religious and sexual minorities Zuckerberg says he wants to protect.

SOURCE



First Nations leader urges Canada to prosecute 'out of hand' hate speech

Mainly because of the way the government coddles and favors them, a lot of Canadians resent their aboriginal people.  Shutting up expressions of that resentment is much more likely to aggravate the resentment rather than reduce it

Amid growing online attacks on Canada’s indigenous peoples – laced with vitriol, stereotypes and even death threats – a prominent First Nations leader is urging the government to crack down on hate speech.

“It’s getting out of hand,” said Chief Bobby Cameron of the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations, which represents 74 First Nations in the province of Saskatchewan. “Our people deserve to feel accepted. They shouldn’t feel that their lives are in danger.”

During a meeting this week with Canada’s justice minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould, he pushed the government to consider strengthening the country’s hate speech laws. While prosecution of hate speech is not common in Canada, those found guilty face up to two years in prison.

“We’re calling for harsh and swift penalties, as well as prosecution,” he said. “These people, if they say, ‘So and so should die,’ or ‘I’m going to kill you,’ immediately they should be charged. Those that are spurring hatred and spurring death online deserve to go to jail.”

SOURCE


Sunday, August 06, 2017



Popular Sydney hair salon shocks thousands of followers when it posts photo of model with offensive Nazi tattoo

It's only a Nazi tattoo inferentially.  It means "my leader" -- which could refer to a lot of things.  It is however written in German using Gothic script and the words are exactly the way Nazis addressed Adolf Hitler so it does presumably refer to the Nazi era.  Just what it means in the given context is unknown, however.  Nazi iconography appears to have sexually arousing properties to some, for instance.  So it could be just a part of kinky sex.  The words themselves tell us nothing in the absence of a wider context so should not be taken too seriously



A popular Sydney salon has shocked thousands of their followers after posting an offensive Nazi tattoo online.

Strands of Colour Hair and Beauty posted a photo of a model's braided hair to social media but were unaware of the neo-Nazi meaning behind her tattoo.

The model had 'Mein Fuhrer' tattooed across the back of her neck which is used in reference to the Nazi party leader, Adolf Hitler, meaning 'leader' or 'guide'.

Dozens of people took to Facebook slamming the Campbelltown salon after they shared the photo on Thursday accusing the salon of being 'white supremacists'.

'There's no way you could've missed that 'mein fuhrer' tat (sic); utterly reprehensible,' one Facebook user commented.

Since posting the photo to Facebook and Instagram, the Sydney salon have deleted the photo and apologised for the offensive post.

'Strands of Colour sincerely apologises for any offence caused by the images posted on our social media,' the salon said.

'We posted photos of work we are proud of, not noticing the client's body art and these images have now been removed.

SOURCE






AP Style Update to Include Xenophobia, Homophobia, Islamophobia

Interesting that the AP appears to accept the dictionary definition of Islamophobia and homophobia as IRRATIONAL fears. I doubt that journalists will restrict their usage in that way, however.

Further, I would say that regarding homosexuality as an abomination does not usually denote fear of any sort, rational or irrational.  What is it that I should fear about one guy sticking his dick into some other guy's butt?  To me it's disgusting but I don't fear it.  And I don't know anybody who does fear it.  So I think that "homophobic" is almost always a misnomer. "Show me one!", I am tempted to say. 

If a single word is needed for people who disapprove of homosexuality, maybe "homocritic" could be used.  In the light of what the scriptures repeatedly say, a real Christian is obliged to be a homocritic (1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1: 8-10, Romans 1:27, Leviticus 20:13).

Islamophobia, on the other hand need not be irrational.  Muslim bombers and shooters strike at random and repeatedly at any place and at any time.  If you can't fear that, what can you fear? You certainly don't have to be mad to fear it.

And xenophobia is also poorly defined. As far as I can tell, it is perfectly natural for most people to prefer their own kind.  What is mad about that? 

The word "phobia" is a Greek word meaning fear and in clinical usage does indicate an irrational fear but it seems clear that you can dislike foreigners without fearing them.  And the old fear that a foreigner could take your job could be perfectly realistic in some cases. So that word is very often used quite inappropriately too.  If I were defining the word, I would say:  "A term from clinical psychology denoting an irrational fear or obsession which is commonly used inappropriately to denote a dislike of foreigners"



The Associated Press has updated its Stylebook, an official industry’s guideline for journalists, writers and editors, on Thursday to include the words homophobia, xenophobia and Islamophobia.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, then-candidate Hillary Clinton called then-candidate Donald Trump’s supporters a “basket of deplorables” because of their “homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic” views.

These words are defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the official dictionary for the American Psychological Association, as followed:

Xenophobia: fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign

Homophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

Islamophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Islam or people who practice Islam

AP has not released its own definition of these words, but stated that they are “acceptable in broad references or in quotations to the concept of fear or hatred in political or social contexts.”

The online Stylebook also specified that usage of these words must outline “observable actions” and not assert personal assumptions on the motives that led to such events.

SOURCE



Friday, August 04, 2017


Canadian Food Inspection Agency backtracks after saying wine from the West Bank isn't from Israel

OTTAWA — The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is backtracking after a decision that wines produced in the West Bank and other occupied areas should not be labelled as products of Israel.

The CFIA acknowledged its mistake after the Israeli government said in a statement to the National Post Thursday it opposed Canada’s “politicization” of a labelling issue.

“We did not fully consider the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement (CIFTA),” the statement reads. “These wines adhere to the Agreement and therefore we can confirm that the products in question can be sold as currently labelled.”

According to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO), the CFIA had notified wine-sellers last week it is unacceptable to declare Israel as the country of origin for wine products that aren’t produced within Israel’s formal borders.

Israeli officials in Canada appeared unhappy. “Israel supports free trade and objects to its politicization. We are currently in touch with the Canadian authorities and are discussing this matter,” said Itay Tavor, the head of public diplomacy at Israel’s embassy in Ottawa.

But a Canadian government official said Thursday they were told a younger employee at the agency “made a mistake.”

SOURCE




Must not display Star of David to a lesbian

The award-winning journalist who first revealed that three Jewish women were banned from the Dyke March in Chicago for carrying LGBT flags adorned with the Star of David last month, confirmed on Monday that she was removed from her position as reporter because of the event.

Gretchen Rachel Hammond wrote in a tweet directed at the Dyke March organizers, “You attacked, humiliated and robbed me of a job. No tears. I forgive you. Just hope you learn how destructive and pointless hatred is.”

When approached by the Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA) the same day, Hammond confirmed that she wrote the tweet. But the journalist said she could not elaborate further on events that followed the Dyke March controversy because of an agreement with her employer, the Windy City Times.

Hammond, who is Jewish, told JTA that she was subjected to dozens of abusive and threatening phone calls as a result of her reporting. One caller called her a “kike,” while others told her she should lose her job or accused her of having “betrayed” the LGBT community. “It was vicious. It wasn’t even a request for dialogue,” Hammond said.

In her initial report of the event, Gretchen Rachel Hammond quoted an organizer of the Dyke March as saying that the Jewish women were banned because their flags were “triggering,” “made people feel unsafe,” and that the march was “anti-Zionist” and “pro-Palestinian.”

On June 28, an organizer of the march told Hammond in an interview that she and her employer “failed in its journalistic mission.” The Windy City Times—whose masthead featured Hammond as a senior writer until two weeks ago—now employs her as a “senior account executive.”

Jewish organizations, as well as the three women ejected from the march, have accused the Dyke March organizers of anti-semitism. The Dyke March came under fire last week after using an anti-Semitic slur, tweeting that “Zio tears replenish my electrolytes.” White supremacists, including former KKK Grand Wizard and Holocaust denier David Duke, have used the term “Zio” to target Jews.

SOURCE

This is a stark demonstration of the sheer irrationality of many sexual deviants.  They should be celebrating Israel. Israel is the only place in the Middle East where they would be safe.  But their hatred of just about everybody overcomes rationality.  The deviants concerned should be banished to Gaza.  It would be an education they sorely need



Thursday, August 03, 2017


If you're a conservative, have you ever felt silenced by liberal popular opinion or colleagues?

Cooper Kensington answers that below.  Another example showing that Leftism morphs into tyranny if it can get away with it. The situation Cooper describes sounds very much the situation in the Communist China of Mao Tse Tung

I’m a liberal, and I have felt silenced by other liberals.

To be quite honest, many liberal circles have a raging problem with group think. If you are not 100% in line with the leftist narrative, or dare to express something that isn’t 100% in line with the leftist narrative of the day, you are often swiftly ostracized, and all of the liberal sycophants come out from beneath the woodwork to tell you how much of a terrible person you are and how you’re some sort of -ist or -phobe.

As a privileged cis, straight, white, male, I often have to tread very lightly as I am walking around massive target on my back in the eyes of many liberals and SJW’s. In many of their eyes, simply being cis/straight/white/male already puts you on probation and under watchful eye.

If you dare to disagree with any of the methods that BLM uses or any of the demands that they make, you’re a racist and suffering from “fragile whiteness”.

If you dare to disagree with anything that a feminist has to say, you are sexist and misogynist and suffering from “fragile masculinity”

If you think burqas and hijabs are a regressive practice and people shouldn’t celebrate wearing them, you’re Islamophobic.
If you forget to include a gender identity or sexual orientation that you’ve never even heard of before, you’re transphobic.

Pretty much, if you open your mouth and say anything that isn’t in line with the leftist narrative and rhetoric you’re automatically some sort of bigot.

Even here on Quora I can just sense a lot of the pretentiousness coming from a lot of the other liberal contributors, and wonder if I should even bother opening my mouth if what I have to say at all disagrees in any small bit with them.

But my biggest gripe however is this new thing that you’ve probably heard of known as “mansplaining”.

In it’s original meaning, it was meant to mean when a man explains something to a woman that she probably already knows, in a patronizing and condescending way. This of course is something that men shouldn’t do, and if I was a woman, I’d get pretty fed up with it myself.

However, in my experience, many modern feminists and liberal sycophants seem to be under the impression that merely having a penis and opening your mouth is now considered “mansplaining”.

It’s become a sort of an ad hominem attack at this point, where if you are a man and say something that a woman doesn’t like and doesn’t want to hear, she can simply accuse you of mansplaining to try and shut you up. And of course, many of her liberal sycophants will gladly oblige.

Explaining something in a condescending and patronizing way to a woman is mansplaining. Having an opinion or saying something that she disagrees with or doesn’t want to hear is not.

If you don’t believe me, go on Buzzfeed or any other “feminist” outlet. If you are a guy, and dare to disagree with a woman, or explain to someone how their position is wrong or parts of argument are based on false premises, it won’t be long before someone accuses you of mansplaining to try and shut you up.

A little while back, I’m sure many of you might remember that male birth control clinical trial that was cancelled because many of the participants were experiencing serious side effects.

We still don't have male birth control — but no, it's not because men are wimps

Of course, many “feminist” outlets (including Buzzfeed) all had a field day ragging on men for quitting the study because they were apparently too wussy to handle the side effects.

I had one “feminist” acquaintance (although often she’s actually just an angry misandrist) go on this long-winded rant about how all these men are wimps for quitting the study, and how she has put up with all these side effects from her own hormonal birth control, etc. etc.

I then explained that despite the bullshit, willfully dishonest, misleading headline from Buzzfeed, the study wasn’t ended because the men quit the study. Rather, despite that fact that 75% of the men in the study were okay with the side effects and wanted to continue the study, the people administering the study cancelled the study because the incidence of side effects was higher than what is typically seen with female hormonal birth control. I won’t deny that there is sexism in medicine, but shaming the participants in the study was not appropriate, as it was not their call to cancel the study.

Of course, this didn’t stop her from telling me to “stop mansplaining a woman’s issue.”

And here I’m thinking, how the fuck is a study about MALE birth control solely a “woman’s issue”?

But alas, I had a penis and I rained on her misandrist parade, so because she’s a “feminist” she can accuse me of “mansplaining” to try and shut me up.

In another instance, a group of friends and I were discussing the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election with some other people. This one self-described feminist in the group made the claim that “sexism is the only reason that Hillary lost the election.”

Another guy in the group went on to disagree, that yes, sexism was a factor, but was not the only one. There are an entire myriad of reasons as to why someone might not have voted for Hillary. Believe it or not, some people had genuine political differences, and vote based on political positions, not a candidates personal plumbing.

She then went on to claim that because she as a woman understood sexism better than him, she could claim with 100% certainty that sexism was the only reason that Hillary lost the election, and that as a man, any opinions he may have are irrelevant, so he might as well just shut up. And of course, many of her liberal sycophants were more than happy to back her up and tell the guy to just shut up and stop talking.

Yes, I am a privileged, cis, straight, white male.

But liberals and leftists need to realize that we exist - and that we indeed have a right to exist - and that all of our opinions aren’t automatically worthless and invalid just because of our straightness/whiteness/maleness.

It’s intellectually weak to just try and shut someone up because they have opinions that might differ slightly from your own.

SOURCE




Talking Campus Free Speech on Capitol Hill

A House hearing last week may not change the world, but it may be a start

On July 27, two House subcommittees held a joint hearing on “Challenges to Freedom of Speech on College Campuses.” Congressman James Raskin (D-MD) called it “the most fascinating hearing” he's attended during his his six months in office. It was fascinating, for what it brought out both about the alarming reality of American higher education today and about the determination of some people on the left to deny or obscure that reality.

That determination was on display from the outset. Val Demings (D-FL), a black woman and former police chief of Jacksonville, professed to recognize the problem on U.S. campuses and to be a strong defender of the First Amendment. But she was quick to insist that the real “clear and present danger” on campuses doesn't  involve the shutting down of “high-profile speakers like Ann Coulter” but “the increase in white supremacist hate groups.” She recounted a recent incident at American University in Washington, D.C., where somebody hung bananas on nooses from trees, apparently a racist response to the election of a female black student, Taylor Dumpson, as student-government president. Dumpson, who sat in the audience at the hearing, had also been the target of “cyberbullying” that Demings characterized as “unprotected hate speech.” The real problem on campuses, Deming concluded, is “criminal acts being wrapped in banners of free speech.”

The banana incident would come up again several times during the nearly three-hour-long hearing, even though this isolated event had nothing to do with the actual topic of the hearing.

At one point during the hearing, one of the Democratic members complained that the Republicans had picked four of the five persons giving testimony. This was surprising, because only one of those five, Ben Shapiro, is a self-identified Republican or conservative, and three of the others – Nadine Strossen, a law professor and former head of the ACLU; Michael Zimmerman, former provost at Evergreen State College in Oregon (setting of the current controversy surrounding Professor Bret Weinstein); and Frederick Lawrence, National Commissioner at the Anti-Defamation League – were largely in denial about the extent to which American colleges are dominated by authoritarian leftists. Yes, they all repeatedly, if sometimes vaguely, expressed support for free speech, rejected “safe spaces” and “free-speech zones,” and agreed that even “hate speech” should be permissible as long as it did not shade over into “hate crime.” But they also made troubling assertions.

Strossen, for example, testified that she, the ACLU, and the Southern Poverty Law Center are “all on the same page” when it comes to these matters. Well, if she's on the same page as the ACLU, which condemned the YouTube video mendaciously blamed by Obama and Hillary for the Benghazi killings, and the SPLC, which is a far-left smear machine masquerading as a human-rights organization (and which has named the David Horowitz Freedom Center as a hate group), game over. Asked by Jim Jordan (R-OH) if most efforts to shut down free speech have been aimed at conservatives, Strossen was at first only willing to admit that this was true of “most of the well-publicized” cases. When pressed, she admitted that, well, yes, most people on campuses are on the left, and the majority of victims are, indeed, non-leftists.

Zimmerman, for his part, denied that most American professors seek to propagandize for leftist views or punish conservative ones. “Very rarely,” he said, do professors force their own ideologies on students. Lawrence agreed. He also concurred with Demings on the supreme danger of “white supremacists,” who, he said, “are engaged in unprecedented outreach” on campuses. Examples were not forthcoming, except for repeated references to the banana incident. Congressman Mark Meadows (R-NC), to his credit, took on Lawrence's “kumbaya opening testimony,” noting that Lawrence had been president of Brandeis University when plans to award Ayaan Hirsi Ali an honorary degree were canceled. Meadows asked Lawrence if this had been a correct decision; Lawrence said yes, but insisted it had nothing to do with free speech. Hirsi Ali, he explained, had once said “that Islam should be crushed.” For Lawrence, apparently, that speech act had been so hateful that it went beyond mere speech.

Ben Shapiro proved a refreshing relief from these three participants' equivocation and logic-chopping. He got right to the point: at many colleges, speech rights are distributed in accordance with how many victim groups one belongs to. “Offensive” language that challenges left-wing victimology is viewed as equivalent to physical violence – thus justifying actual violence in response. When that violence does erupt, administrators “look the other way” because they share the perpetrators' ideology. Shapiro had an illuminating back-and-forth with Stacey Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands), a black woman who repeated at length the details of the banana incident – which had already been recounted exhaustively – and who began a sentence by saying: “Free speech is important, but....” (Later, Robin Kelly [D-IL], a former “diversity trainer” at Bradley University, echoed her almost verbatim: “I agree with free speech and all that, but....”) Citing “Critical Race Theory” – a nonsensical so-called discipline that seeks to give academic legitimacy to obsessive anti-white prejudice – Plaskett asked Shapiro about his “white privilege.” He forcefully shot her down, saying that charges of “white privilege” have no basis in reality and do not amount to “a rational political argument.” I quote Plaskett's response verbatim: “Well, I think it's a demonstrable evidence that through society's demographics that being white has societal privileges that being black does not.”

The fifth person testifying before the committee was comedian Adam Carolla, who was there because he and radio host Dennis Prager have made No Safe Spaces, a forthcoming film on free speech. Carolla (who noted that he himself never attended college) testified that about fifteen years ago he had appeared on “a hundred college campuses with nary a word of negativity, no safe spaces, and no stuffed animals being handed out”; recently, however, he was invited to speak at Cal State Northridge only to have the administration cancel it. What's happened? His answer: we've mistakenly decided that if we “put kids in a bubble,” they'll “come out stronger” at the other end. “These are 18- and 19-year-old kids that are at these college campuses,” he said. “They grew up dipped in Purell, playing soccer games where they never kept score...and we’re asking them to be mature.” He called for “the adults to start being the adults.” Just as it's necessary “to expose your children to germs and dirt and the environment to build up their immune system,” he argued, you need to expose them to challenging ideas, too.

Later, Carolla offered a wonderful riposte to Plaskett by describing his own “white privilege”:

I graduated North Hollywood High with a 1.7 GPA. I could not find a job. I walked to a fire station in North Hollywood. I was nineteen. I was living in the garage of my family home. My mom was on welfare and food stamps and I said, “Can I get a job as a fireman?” And they said, “No, because you're not black, Hispanic, or a woman. We'll see you in about seven years.” And I went to a construction site and dug ditches and picked up garbage for the next seven years. I got a letter in the mail, sent to my father's house, saying: “Your time has come to do the written exam for the L.A Fire Department. I took it, and I was standing in line and I had a young woman of color standing behind me in line, and I turned around and said to her, “Just out of curiosity, when did you sign up to become a fireman, or person, because I did it seven years ago?” She said, “Wednesday.” That is an example of my white privilege.

Carolla was by far the best thing about the hearing. He brought the whole thing down to earth. He made it real. He spoke glowingly about the role of mutual ribbing in friendships, and the importance of a healthy sense of humor – the opposite of snowflake-type self-seriousness and oversensitivity – to human interaction. He observed that the kind of real diversity he encountered in his own early career had shaped attitudes on his part that are lacking among many college students – precisely because (“diversity training” or not) they've had such limited exposure to people with different views and backgrounds. I don't know whom Carolla voted for in the presidential election, but he embodied the Trump base – hard-working whites who were born into the working class, who had to make their own breaks, and who are sick to death of being told they have privilege. Not least, Corolla made members of both parties laugh – and that laughter itself felt like a powerful retort to the humorless ideology at the root of the campus crisis.

I was impressed by several of the House members. Dave Brat (R-VA), an economist by training, spoke rather eloquently about the idea of the university and its betrayal by postmodernists who have cut off all connection with the entire philosophical tradition. Raskin fondly recalled that audience members at the Lincoln-Douglas debates heckled the candidates – but their heckling had been a good-natured, useful way of raising serious questions, and afterwards they had quietly listened to the candidates' answers. Was there any way, he asked, of restoring this “art of heckling”? I've never admired Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), a former ACLU honcho who has represented the District of Columbia in Congress since the Pleistocene Era, but I have to give her one thumbs-up for her insistence that no black student should ever try to shut down anyone's freedom of speech – after all, she noted, it was that very freedom that enabled Frederick Douglass to travel all over the U.S. speaking out against slavery even while it was still in existence. For heaven's sake, somebody even mentioned Friedrich Hayek.

At its best, the hearing provided an impressive display of at least some House members engaged in intelligent, informed exchange about an urgent social issue. Whether the hearing will make any difference is another question. The mainstream media ignored it, and there was little mention by the participating lawmakers of any substantive action that might be taken to rescue free speech at colleges – most of which, after all, receive federal funds. But a hearing is better than nothing. And who knows? It might just be a start.

SOURCE




Wednesday, August 02, 2017



Campus Free Speech Laws Ignite the Country

Over the weekend, North Carolina joined a handful of states with laws on the books regarding free speech on college campuses, banning so-called "free speech zones" and requiring campuses to sanction anyone who interferes with the free speech rights of others.

"Every year there seems to be one higher education policy issue that spreads rapidly throughout the states," says Thomas Harnisch, director of state relations and policy analysis at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. "This year it's campus free speech legislation."

The wave of campus free speech legislation comes on the heels of a grueling school year for the First Amendment on campuses across the country. Violent protests largely against conservative speakers highlight the recent struggle colleges and universities are having walking a line between preserving free speech and acting as a space that showcases a variety of ideas, while at the same time protecting students – particularly those in demographic groups who may feel marginalized or threatened by the ideas espoused by a group or speaker.

The Tar Heel State is at least the fifth state – Colorado, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia are the others – with such a law. And other states have legislative proposals in the pipeline, including California, Illinois, Michigan, Texas and Wisconsin.

SOURCE





Political thoughtpolice pose a far bigger threat than Twitter ‘trolls’

British politicians want new laws to protect members of parliament from online abuse. They claim we need a crackdown on internet ‘trolls’ in response to a ‘tidal wave’ of racism, sexism and homophobia aimed at MPs on social media.

Behind the right-on rhetoric, this looks like the latest attempt to protect public figures from being criticised by the public. Troll-hunting politicians effectively want to revive the repressive old laws against ‘seditious libel’, updated for the age of social media.

There is a long history of people ridiculing and abusing British politicians – and of the authorities trying to stamp out such insolence. The right to lampoon our rulers has been a big issue in the fight for democracy and free speech down the centuries.
That is why, while not endorsing malicious personal abuse, we should defend the freedom to tell MPs and government ministers what you think of them. However nasty some tweets might be, the political thoughtpolice pose a far bigger threat to democratic debate than any Twitter troll.

Trolls have become a big political issue since the General Election campaign, with all parties complaining about ‘unprecedented’ abuse of their candidates. In a House of Commons debate, Tory MP Simon Hart lamented how the ‘robust banter followed by a shake of the hand and a pint in the pub’ of the previous election campaign had this time turned into ‘death threats, criminal damage, sexism, racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism and general thuggishness’ online. Blimey.

For Labour, shadow home secretary Diane Abbott told MPs she had been inundated with ‘mindless abuse… characteristically racist and sexist’, and been variously called a ‘pathetic, useless, fat, black, piece of shit, ugly, fat, black bitch’.

In response, Conservative prime minister Theresa May ordered the Committee on Standards in Public Life to investigate whether new laws are needed. This week the Independent reported that, as the Committee starts its consultation, ‘online trolling laws’ are already ‘under consideration following abuse of MPs’.

SOURCE

Tuesday, August 01, 2017



A sneaky Leftist attack on a truth teller

Paul Joseph Watson has a website called Prison Planet. He posted a screenshot of a children's BBC show, depicting a cartoon family in Roman Britain.



Watson said: Thank God the BBC is portraying Roman Britain as ethnically diverse.  I mean, who cares about historical accuracy, right?

Well, before we had a moment to think about how to respond, Mike Stuchbery turned up in the comments. Mike is a historian and someone who clearly takes his profession - and Roman Britain - very seriously.

He Tweeted: Roman Britain was ethnically diverse, almost by design. To begin, occupying legions were drawn from other parts of the Empire. The Romans learned a lesson earlier with the Germans. Don't give the locals an 'in' to occupying military forces.

He took his time to explain that, actually, it seemed that Watson could be seen as the one pushing an agenda here since, yes, Roman Britain was a pretty ethnically diverse place.

SOURCE

Stuchbery is being deliberately devious.  It is true that the legions sent to Britannia were not Italian.  It seems likely that they were mostly in fact from neighboring Gaul (France).  But there were certainly men from all over the empire.

BUT:  The picture objected to is clearly of a black father -- a sub-Saharan African. And the Roman empire did NOT cover any part of sub-Saharan Africa!

Stuchbery quoted reports of NORTH Africans in Roman Britain but North africans were then and still mostly are:  WHITE.

And recent DNA studies have shown that even the ancient Egyptians were typical Mediterraneans -- like Lebanon, Greece, Italy etc.  They were not black. See here

But the report above appeared in Elle so I suppose we have to expect brainlessness from a fashion magazine. They certainly did no fact checking.  They just cheered that the conservative was apparently "proved" wrong.  They were riding a cloud of ignorance.

It is of course possible that there was somewhere in Roman Britain at some time one or two blacks but to represent blacks as typifying Roman Britain is absurd to the point of dishonesty.  Watson was perfectly right. His facebook page is https://www.facebook.com/PaulJosephWatson/




Senior Australians say political correctness is ruining society

ATTENTION, Gen Y: Baby Boomers have had it with your political correctness.

New Australian research suggests over 50s are fed up with being told what they can and can’t say, and believe young people are the worst offenders.

The survey of 1000 Australians over 50 saw nine in 10 agree political correctness is ruining society, and thought younger generations were too worried about offending people.

According to the CoreData research commissioned by Australian Seniors Insurance Agency, 86 per cent of seniors believed “having to be politically correct all the time” was ruining society, and 86.6 per cent said it was “inauthentic”.

Bathurst teacher Vicki Evans is not afraid to admit she loathes political correctness.

The 55-year-old says she’s constantly being told off by her three children, all in their 20s, for opinions they say she shouldn’t be allowed to express.

“The number of times I saw something and my kids say ‘oh Mum, you can’t say that,’” she says.

“They say you can’t make assumptions about things, but I think you can make observations.

“You can’t say anything that’s offensive and that could be deemed to label anyone. You have to be always aware of perceptions, apparently.”

Ms Evans says that her children’s sensitivities are clearly not a product of her parenting, but blames universities and television for encouraging political correctness.

“I do get really cross with the whole idea that children aren’t allowed to talk about anything religious in relation to Christmas or Easter because it might offend someone,” she said. “I think if we can’t discuss any of these things we run the risk of losing our cultural identity.”

SOURCE



Monday, July 31, 2017


British upper class kid apologies after his 'inappropriate' Ku Klux Klan fancy dress costume gets him BANNED from college social events

A Oxford University student who dressed up as a Ku Klux Klan member for a fancy dress party has been named.

Benedict Aldous, 19, was banned from all future social events after he turned up to last year's Christ Church College Bop wearing a pillowcase with slits for eyes.

Aldous, who was a reserve for this year's Oxford-Cambridge boat race, said the costume was a 'satirical response' to the college's '2016' party theme.

But he was instead forced to issue a college-wide apology.

Aldous told the Oxford Cherwell: 'I arrived at the bop dressed in a jumper and jeans with a sign reading 'Middle America' and wearing a pillowcase resembling KKK regalia.

'The costume was intended as a satirical response to the theme '2016'. It was meant as a comment on Donald Trump's possible connections to KKK members, after the US election.

'I did not intend to offend anyone and removed the costume within two minutes of arriving after realising the inappropriateness of it.'

The party happened in December 2016, but Aldous was only punished last month, and just recently named.

He attended Eton College and was a keen rower, taking part in the 2016 World Rowing Junior Championships in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The Christ Church dean, The Very Revd Professor Martyn Percy, said Aldous' behaviour was 'completely unacceptable'.

SOURCE




The British Tories’ trans proposals could make it a crime to tell the truth

Britain is going full Orwell. The Tory government is proposing to include in the Gender Recognition Bill the ‘right’ to alter the sex on one’s birth certificate. So if a 32-year-old man decides that he is in fact a woman, he could be able to go to the General Register Office and insist that the word ‘Boy’ be erased from his birth certificate and replaced with the word ‘Girl’, or ‘Female’. Even though he was not a girl when that certificate was drawn up. Even though the midwife who declared ‘It’s a boy!’ when he was born, and the birth registrar who later wrote the word ‘Boy’ or ‘Male’ on his birth certificate, were telling the truth. That truth, that publicly recorded truth, that national truth, would be replaced with a lie. We’ve entered Ministry of Truth territory. The memory hole is real.

The Tory government’s trans proposals should alarm anyone who believes in reason and freedom. Revealed in The Sunday Times, the plan is to shake up the legal ‘gender recognition’ process to make it easier for trans people to identify as the opposite sex. Or no sex. One suggestion is for non-binary people, those who feel neither male nor female, to have the right to go back in time and stamp ‘X’ in the gender box on their birth certificate – a fitting image for the destructive, past-rewriting process that would be unleashed by this shake-up. And virtually anyone could do this. The government wants to scrap the current requirement of a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria before you can switch gender and allow for ‘self-identification’. So any bloke could self-identify as a woman, apply for the legal right to be recognised as a woman, and – boom – he’s a woman. Sorry, she’s a woman.

It’s madness. And most people know it’s madness. Ask any normal, decent member of the public if Dave, 32, born a boy, still in possession of a penis, and a five o’clock shadow on a rough weekend, is a man or a woman, and I bet you they will say: ‘Man.’ Not because they are prejudiced or ‘transphobic’ – the latest phobia slur designed to pathologise dissent – but because they understand reality. And truth. And biology and experience.

They know that in order to be a woman, you first have to have been a girl. They know womanhood is not a pose one strikes in front of the mirror but is biological, relational, cultural and social. They know the man who wears a dress is a man who wears a dress. Which is cool, and his choice, and he must have the right to wear that dress. But he isn’t a woman.

SOURCE


Sunday, July 30, 2017



Silicon Valley Censorship

Google's latest project is an application called Perspective, which, as Wired reports, brings the tech company "a step closer to its goal of helping to foster troll-free discussion online, and filtering out the abusive comments that silence vulnerable voices." In other words, Google is teaching computers how to censor.

If Google's plans are not quite Orwellian enough for you, the practical results are rather more frightening. Released in February, Perspective's partners include the New York Times, the Guardian, Wikipedia and the Economist. Google, whose motto is "Do the Right Thing," is aiming its bowdlerism at public comment sections on newspaper websites, but the potential is far broader.

Perspective works by identifying the "toxicity level" of comments published online. Google states that Perspective will enable companies to "sort comments more effectively, or allow readers to more easily find relevant information." Perspective's demonstration website currently allows anyone to measure the "toxicity" of a word or phrase, according to its algorithm. What, then, constitutes a "toxic" comment?

The organization with which I work, the Middle East Forum, studies Islamism. We work to tackle the threat posed by both violent and non-violent Islamism, assisted by our Muslim allies. We believe that radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution.

Statements rated as "toxic" by Google's Perspectives software.
Perspective does not look fondly at our work -- see selections at left. No reasonable person could claim that saying "radical Islam is a problem" is hate speech. But the problem does not just extend to opinions. Even factual statements are deemed to have a high rate of "toxicity." Google considers the statement "ISIS is a terrorist group" to have an 87% chance of being "perceived as toxic." Or 92% "toxicity" for stating the publicly-declared objective of the terrorist group, Hamas.

Google is quick to remind us that we may disagree with the result. It explains that, "It's still early days and we will get a lot of things wrong." The Perspective website even offers a "Seem Wrong?" button to provide feedback.

These disclaimers, however, are very much beside the point. If it is ever "toxic" to deem ISIS a terrorist organization, then -- regardless of whether that figure is the result of human bias or an under-developed algorithm -- the potential for abuse, and for widespread censorship, will always exist.

SOURCE


Chinese Regulator Calls Homosexuality ‘Abnormal’ and Bans Gay Content From the Internet

So censorship is a good thing?  Leftists might reflect that it can bite you too

China released a new regulation Friday banning any display of “abnormal sexual behaviors” — including homosexuality — in online video and audio content.

The regulation, published by the China Netcasting Services Association (CNSA), lays out strict censorship rules for online content ranging from movies and documentaries to cartoons and educational videos, according to Reuters.

Under the new rules, content will be edited or even banned if it promotes “luxurious lifestyles,” shows “violent and criminal processes in detail,” demonstrates “obscenity” including masturbation or displays “abnormal sexual behaviors" such as homosexuality.

The new rules quickly sparked heated debates and oppositions on Chinese social media. Li Yinhe, China’s leading scholar and advocate of free sexuality, said in a Weibo post that under these regulations, “all audio-visual art will be revoked.”
“Trying to regulate and censor people’s desires is as absurd as trying to regulate and censor people’s appetites.”

SOURCE


Friday, July 28, 2017


Huggies removes gender-specific toilet training tips from its website after sarcastic mother labels it '1950s drivel'

The sarcastic lady is pushing sh*t uphill.  Even I am amazed at how regularly mothers dress their little girls in pink and boys in blue.  Sex differences reflect what works with kids.  I know a very feminine little girl who would reject being dressed in non-pink tops even before she could speak.  Little girls really do have distinct likes and dislikes -- even to liking pink.  The condemned advice below was simply realistic.  There is research evidence which  shows that preference for sex-specific toys is hardwired

Huggies New Zealand has removed toilet training advice from its website after a frustrated mother labelled it '1950s drivel' on Facebook.

The advice, which was accessible on the Huggies New Zealand website until Tuesday, was divided up into controversial gender-specific boxes.

Advice for girls included dressing them in 'helpful clothes' telling them stories about 'princess or heroines' and using their favourite toy 'as an example' on the potty.

'It's a good idea to start toilet training with a potty that your daughter knows she is responsible for - it helps if she chose it,' the advice read

'From a very young age, a girl's caregiving instinct kicks in. Emphasising that your daughter is responsible for looking after her potty can be great motivation.'

For boys, however, advice included using a 'sticker reward system' and 'superhero undies'.

'Boys are traditionally more competitive than girls. Create a chart with milestones that your son can reach the more times he uses his potty,' the advice read.

'Investing in a pair or two of undies that feature your son's favourite superhero or cartoon character can help. 'He might be more inclined to keep his hero clean and remember to use the potty when he needs.'

New Zealand mother Nicky Lynch addressed the advice in a Facebook post on the New Zealand Huggies page where she labelled it '1950s drivel'.

'I have a few areas I'm still struggling with. You say that little girls' "caregiving instincts" kick in at a very early age, and I should teach her to look after her potty as part of her "potty responsibilities",' she wrote.

'You also mentioned that little girls' desire to be clean kicks in earlier than for boys. I'm sorry to say I tried to explain her cleaning responsibilities to my little girl and she shouted something about poo poos, wee wees and farts and ran off butt-naked to make mud pies.

'I'm concerned that she may be confused about her gender identity and her future as a toilet cleaner could be at risk. How do I get her back on the straight and narrow?

'Anyway, if I dress him in regular clothes will he still grow up manly or will he get a bit of a complex that his "hero" isn't hero enough? He also doesn't seem to be as competitive as you suggest he should be. He even gave his sister a cuddle when she fell over in the mud the other day. Where am I going wrong?'

Nicky concluded her post by saying her husband said she 'shouldn't worry too much about your advice'.

SOURCE






Democrats Purging History

Long gone are the days when the Democrats could honestly claim to be a party housing a broad spectrum of mainstream political and social perspectives. The party's last few holdout moderate "Blue Dog" Democrats were weeded out during Barack Obama's two terms as the party increasingly embraced a hard-leftist ideology. This leftism has corrupted Democrats to the point where their own pride in party motivates the rejection of their own storied history.

The Louisiana Democrat Party recently announced that it will be changing the name of its annual party dinner from the "Jefferson-Jackson" dinner to the "True Blue Gala." Thomas Jefferson, the founder of the party, writer of the Declaration of Independence and third president of the U.S., is too controversial a figure to honor? Andrew Jackson, a war hero who helped end the British threat in the War of 1812 at the Battle of New Orleans and later became one of America's most influential presidents, must be purged from the Democrat lexicon?

Such is the psychosis that has infected today's Democrats. The problem for Democrats is that both Jefferson and Jackson were slave owners, an unforgivable sin in today's world of grievance politics. Lost to the modern leftist mind is any argument based on a rationally nuanced approach to understanding the values, attitudes and cultural practices from the past.

Democrats are content to engage in a condemn-and-purge crusade because people cry "offense." They have hitched themselves to the social justice warrior crowd, who seek only to condemn America's great history of achieving the freest society the world has ever known, albeit with terrible struggles along the way. These are Eeyore Democrats who only see the negatives of past history.

SOURCE


Thursday, July 27, 2017



Police Ask Ex-Muslims to Pull ‘Allah Is Gay’ Sign, But Allow ‘Jesus Is Gay’ to Stay

During London’s Pride parade last week, members of Britain’s Council of Ex-Muslims (CEMB) were asked by police to lower their banners that read “Allah is Gay,” while other signs saying “Jesus is Gay” attracted no such concern.

“Pride is full of placards saying ‘God is Gay,’ ‘Jesus had two fathers,’ as well as those mocking the church and priests and pope, yet CEMB members hold signs saying ‘Allah is Gay’ – as we did – and the police converge to attempt to remove them for causing ‘offence,’” a statement on the CEMB’s website says.

Fear and misunderstanding caused the controversy, CEMB says in its statement:

“The only reasons our signs are seen to be ‘provocative’ are because criticism of Islam is deemed to be impermissible, because there is the constant threat of violence by Islamists against ex-Muslims but also dissenting Muslims and others in order to silence and censor, and because criticism of Islam and Islamism is erroneously conflated with an attack on Muslims.”

SOURCE





Milk can be called inhumane, advertising chiefs tell farmers after vegan campaign

Vegan campaigners are free to brand British milk production as inhumane after a ruling by the advertising regulator.

Dairy farmers had argued that an advert stating “humane milk is a myth — don’t buy it” was inaccurate but the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) will clear it in a ruling to be published today.

The decision is a blow to the dairy industry, which is losing customers as people switch to vegetarian or vegan diets.

The Vegan Society says that there are more than 540,000 vegans in Britain, up from 150,000 a decade ago. Hard-hitting billboard campaigns warning against consuming milk, eggs and meat have become a common sight on high streets.

Go Vegan World, the campaign group that placed the anti-milk advert in national newspapers…

SOURCE

Wednesday, July 26, 2017



Critic of Islam prosecuted in Canada

A self-described “journalist & social commentator” known for posting angry video rants attacking Muslims and a range of other targets has been charged with committing a hate crime.

Kevin J. Johnston, a 45-year-old resident of Mississauga, Ont., posts videos on his website freedomreport.ca and to various social media platforms, and at one point had his accounts suspended by YouTube and Twitter.

Though he carried on fights with various public figures (and even ran for mayor of Mississauga in 2014) he focused much of his attention on schools, which he accused of “indoctrinating” students with Islamic ideology. In one video, he offered a bounty — first $1,000, later increased to $2,500 — to anyone who filmed a Muslim student in a Mississauga school “spewing hate speech during Friday prayers.”

In another, he said Liberal MP Iqra Khalid could get shot for introducing a motion condemning Islamophobia in the House of Commons, and said he’d be there to witness it with a “with a big, fat smile.”

On Monday, Peel Regional Police announced Johnston had been charged with one count of wilful promotion of hatred, a Criminal Code offence with a maximum penalty of two years in jail. The announcement said the charge “stems from a lengthy investigation into numerous incidents reported to police … and concerns information published on various social media sites.”

SOURCE