Daily Archives: March 29, 2017

During an appearance onFox & Friends on Tuesday morning, Fox News host Bill OReilly made both a racist and sexistremark aboutRep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), referring to what he called her James Brown wig.

He added, If we have a picture of James, its the same wig, according to Media Matters.

After receiving backlash on social media over his comment, OReilly issued a statement apologizing for his words: As I have said many times, I respect Congresswoman Maxine Waters for being sincere in her beliefs. I said that again today on Fox & Friends calling her old school. Unfortunately, I also made a jest about her hair which was dumb. I apologize.

However, that didnt stop him from simultaneously announcing on Twitter that his Tuesday night segment of the OReilly Factorwould also focus on political correctness.

He wrote, Big political correctness segment on The Factor tonight. Have you had enough? Check us out, you wont be disappointed. BOR.

Big political correctness segment on The Factor tonight. Have you had enough? Check us out, you wont be disappointed. BOR

Bill OReilly (@oreillyfactor) March 28, 2017

Read more:

Bill O'Reilly wants to talk about 'political correctness' after his racist and sexist comments - Raw Story

The Hayride

CROUERE: Political Correctness Beats Common Sense In Maryland The Hayride On the morning of March 16, a 14-year old girl was allegedly raped by two illegal aliens in a high school bathroom in Rockville, Maryland. One of the alleged rapists, Henry Sanchez-Milian, is an adult, 18 years old, while the other suspect, Jose O ... and more »

Original post:

CROUERE: Political Correctness Beats Common Sense In Maryland - The Hayride

Maxim

Lena Dunham: 'P.C.' No Longer Means 'Political Correctness', It's ... Maxim Lena Dunham, the outspoken creator of HBO's Girls, issued another battle cry to her 5.3 million Twitter followers on Saturday. But she wasn't championing her ... Lena Dunham Says 'PC' No Longer Means Political Correctness ...Heat Street all 4 news articles »

See the article here:

Lena Dunham: 'P.C.' No Longer Means 'Political Correctness', It's ... - Maxim

For a while, we put up with it. We graciously tolerated as a an accepted fact of life the constant outrage of right-wing people decrying every minor step of social change as political correctness gone too far. But this nonsense has gone on too long. How much longer do we have to put up with conservatives being outraged every time they perceive any progressive response to an issue as outrage? Its time we took a stand: people saying political correctness has gone too far has gone too far.

The term political correctness originated among left-wingers in the 1970s as a way of describing people whose speech and actions in regard to their politics didnt necessarily match up, but it was quickly co-opted by the right as a pejorative way of referring to any perceived policing of language or behaviour that they viewed to be simply for show and not necessarily reflective of a persons actual values. This is now what they refer to as virtue signalling a way of dismissing anyones feelings on an issue as being performative, because they themselves cant fathom actually feeling those emotions.

Traditionally, political correctness was ascribed to either exaggerated or completely fabricated stories about schools banning Baa Baa Black Sheep because it was racist (the first story about this was actually due to Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep being more stimulating for kids to sing). Now, however, pretty much everything is thanks to political correctness, according to the outraged outragists who sit on their computers all day waiting for some outrage to be outraged at.

There's a lot of this going around

Over the weekend, a burger restaurant in Brisbane came into the news cycle because someone pointed out that having a restaurant called Master Toms and having a burger on your menu called the Uncle Tom is probably not a hugely great idea. Master Toms were unfamiliar with the racially charged history of the term, so they issued an apology and ran a fun competition for a replacement name. It even turns out that they already had plans to change the dinner menu in the coming weeks, so there would be no additional cost involved in updating the menus how lucky! The issue was settled quickly and politely, because were all grown adults who understand that a burger restaurant probably didnt mean to make a slavery-themed burger on purpose.

But, of course, this was too much for the political correctness has gone too far crowd. An amicable disagreement addressed with very little inconvenience? What an outrage! They whipped themselves up into a frenzy about how the left are fascist totalitarians hell-bent on forcing their strict worldview on small business owners by pointing out that the name of one of their burgers is a term that has been pretty racist for nearly 170 years. Arent these humourless outrage-police tired of being outraged by every outrage they see? Political correctness has gone too far has gone too far.

To these people, political correctness is an organised, sinister agenda. A concerted effort to ensure that freedom of expression, a diversity of views, and fun are all illegal and punishable by death by social media posts. The reality is, though, that theres nothing organised or unified about it. Whos organising it and enforcing it? Its not the government, who are right now trying to make it easier to say the n-word on TV. Its not the media, who represent a diversity of opinions that varies from It should be legal to microchip Muslims to It should be illegal to make fun of my dog for being vegan.

"LOOK AT HOW HAPPY HE IS WITHOUT FOOD THAT DOGS ACTUALLY EAT!"

You know what political correctness actually is? It is the sum of a bunch of peoples personal opinions. It is individual expression viewed at a long distance for it to be mistaken as collective action. When a bunch of people boycott Coopers because of their interesting decision to posit that homophobia and not-homophobia are equally valid opinions, its not because a shadowy cabal of opinion enforcers passed down a mandate, its because a whole group of individuals individually decided that drinking that beer or selling that beer didnt gel with their values.

If the right really values freedom of expression and the right for individuals to have beliefs and act accordingly to those beliefs, they need to acknowledge that political correctness isnt some intangible force trying to control their lives, its just that a whole lot of people made up their own minds that that shit you said is mad racist.

Forall the latest comedy articles, videos and updates at SBS Comedy like us onFacebookandTwitter

Follow Ben on Twitter

Read the original:

Saying "political correctness has gone too far" has gone too far - SBS (satire)

Former Supreme Court Judge Rex van Schalkwyk tackles South Africas insidious and debilitating political correctness around colonialism head on, taking us on a global history tour that exposes the shallow current dominant discourse for what it is errant nonsense. The more frightening prospect is that, in the midst of the official oppositions turmoil over Western Cape Premier Helen Zilles tweetabout colonialism having conferred benefits on this country, we are establishing a new (and twisted), norm for acceptable free speech. That van Schalkwyks voice is almost drowned out in the current media discourse shows just how far weve drifted into what is now almost mainstream thinking about what is acceptable and what is not when it comes to expressing your opinion publicly. Adapting to a new Constitutionally-protected and legislatively-equal society is both appropriate and pragmatic. However, what is now evolving is akin to the headmaster, teachers, prefects and classroom bullies colluding to brutally and mercilessly shame and/or silence anyone who differs from them, creating a dysfunctional and fearful behavioural ethic. Some commentators are even claiming (contrary to all of history) that if colonisation, or something similar, had not occurred, the indigenous peoples would have made all the scientific, engineering, medical and other discoveries without outside influence. Pure fantasy, says Van Schalkwyk, who then goes on to show us exactly why. Chris Bateman

By Rex van Schalkwyk*

There is something seriously wrong with a society in which it becomes impossible to express an honest opinion. Helen ZIlles tweet (never a good idea) contained, essentially, the truth but in the collective hullabaloo that followed, that fact has almost entirely been lost.

Whatever her critics may say, she never defended or praised colonialism in any of the opinions that she expressed; she was careful only to have said that colonialism was not all bad. Any disagreement upon this issue (apart from the political inappropriateness of the comment) means, by necessary implication, that colonialism was all bad. Factually, that is demonstrably false.

Apart from the oft-repeated examples of mechanised transport, roads, electricity, water-borne sewerage and the rest, the one colonial manifestation that cannot be escaped is the written, English language. Even an avowed anti-colonialist and sometime hater of all things English (excepting perhaps the game of cricket) like Robert Mugabe, speaks the language with the accent of an Eton graduate.

It is said by some of the Zille critics that all the apparent benefits of the colonial system were initiated for the benefit of the colonisers. Well, of course, that is true; people do things for their own benefit. It is the impulse that has driven creativity throughout the ages. The contention that there was no residual benefit for the victims of colonialism would seek to disprove the most significant force of development and change throughout history. Colonialism or, more accurately, invasions, constitute much of the history of the world, and it all started millennia before the Dutch settlers colonised the Cape of Good Hope.

Civilization may have started with the ancient culture of the Babylonians, located in the fertile valley of the Tigris and Euphrates; they were the first to have devolved a written language. This occurred even before the Aryans invaded Europe from the north and spread their influence as far south as North Africa and east into India. Fortunately for the Aryans, their adventures put their illiterate hordes into contact with the people of Babylon from whence came their literacy.

The ancient written word of Sanskrit, said by some etymologists to have been the first writing, was imported, according to some historians, from the expansionist impulses of the (by now) literate Aryans. The historical accounts vary but need not detain us. The point is simply that migrations, invasions and what has come latterly to be described as colonialism and/or imperialism has occurred throughout history and has invariably imparted, at least, some benefit.

The famed Library at Alexandria, about which many Africans express a glowing pride, was established in the wake of the invasion of North Africa, by Alexander the Great, a Macedonian. The eponymous name of that great institution was derived from the title of the invader.

The Romans introduced the territories that they invaded to a formidable array of skills including engineering, architecture, water reticulation, art and culture and even personal hygiene.

Much the same can be said in the case of South Africa, but if all else is ignored then the English language has conferred great benefits in communication, literacy, literature, culture, science and commerce.

Read also:Stop playing the ANCs game; get off Zille and do your job Wilf Nussey

It is true, of course, that if the Dutch colonisers had not arrived, and the English thereafter, as some anti-colonists would wish, that these and perhaps greater benefits may have been derived from some other source. It is uncertain however that any alternative would necessarily have been more benign. The Belgians would almost surely have been worse, if the invasion had occurred during the time of King Leopold.

If the Chinese naval marvel built by the redoubtable Admiral Zheng He in the 15th century AD had not been destroyed upon the command of the isolationist Emperor Hongxi, the peoples of Southern Africa might today be speaking Cantonese.

Some forms of colonialism were undoubtedly far worse than others. If the Dutch settlement at the Cape can be called a colonisation, it was certainly of the more benign kind. The Cape sea route was seen as nothing more than a half-way stop on the long voyage to India, where the real riches were to be found. By comparison the whole of unexplored Southern Africa was seen as no more than a backward and impoverished region with few attractions apart from the strategic one.

The real colonisation occurred when the British might took on the two Boer Republics in an imperial war of aggression. Even that tragic event produced a significant dividend in terms of commercial, banking and other related expertise that had previously been absent.

If an example is sought of pernicious exploitation it is found in the brutal abuse of the people of Vietnam, whose land was occupied, first by the Chinese, for 1000 years, then by the Mongols, then by the French and finally, by the Japanese. But that was not all. The Americans chose that beleaguered land to fight their war of containment against Communist expansion, with a brutality unrivalled in warfare until that time.

Some of the bedraggled survivors chose a refuge by way of a seaborne migration in what has come to be known as the phenomenon of the boat people. Those who survived the treacherous voyage, as well as the hostile immigration officials of California, set up their survivalist enterprises in what was sometimes an antagonistic environment. The offspring of these indomitable people are today out-performing their privileged American counterparts at the Ivy League Universities of their adoptive land. And Vietnam is now approaching a First World status similar to that of many of its Asian counterparts.

Collectively, their success lies in the fact that they have left the past behind.

Read also:Rian Malan on Zille tweet: SA wounds too raw for colonial truth. Brilliant.

The anti-colonist obsession that has overtaken our dialogue will do nothing to advance the cause of progress. Judging by the reaction of the anti Zille shills it will, however, have the effect of stilling the voice of dissention. What is then to become of the sacred right of the freedom of expression, if even thought processes are now to be controlled?

We have already reached the stage where the accusation of racialism is cast about so indiscriminately that it has become meaningless to any thoughtful observer. However it has had the effect that individuals have become so apprehensive of the prospect of this unjustified slur that they have begun to censor, not only their speech, but even their own thoughts. Indeed I had wondered about the wisdom of putting these ideas in writing.

In a collective quest to be politically correct, is South Africa in danger of becoming a nation of dissemblers? Is this perchance because the thought police have taken control?

Visit link:

Former judge takes on colonialism political correctness head-on - BizNews

Getting rid of 18C was a non-issue for the electorate. Even Barnaby Joyce could see that. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

Do Australians worry about political correctness?

Thats a question I get asked a lot and it makes me cringe, largely because I hate the term political correctness, an empty, boring, overstretched, ridiculous phrase.

That being said, Ive heard my fair share of complaining about political correctness in the discussion groups Ive conducted over the past 10 years but these complaints are most often triggered by issues such as smacking at schools or in the home and whether the local shopping centre has decided not to erect the dusty old nativity scene in the food court.

Even among Australians worried about political correctness, 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act just doesnt come up. This weeks Essential Report does show that 45% of Australians approve of the removal of 18C. Thats a pretty weak number if we consider the Herculean effort of the anti 18C forces in the government and the media to discredit it. Its more revealing that only 14% strongly approve of the changes.

If we look at public support for our racial discrimination laws are they too strict, too weak or about right? a similar percentage (16%) consider them to be too strict. A significant chunk of us, 40%, think they are just right. A quarter of us would like them to be strengthened. That hardly amounts to an overwhelming scream from the electorate that this is a big issue that needs to be addressed. Compare this to any of the polling on, for example, investing in renewables or education, where all the data points to an electorate who is strongly supportive and where the issues rank high on the list of priorities.

Getting rid of 18C was a non-issue for the electorate. Even Barnaby Joyce could see that. And yet the prime minister has spent precious time and energy and some of his formidable rhetorical flourish in the fight for its repeal. If there is an issue in this political culture relevant only to an elite living in a bubble of affluence and influence, then 18C is it. Only a few pollies and highly paid newspaper journos are cracking open the Krug (Moet is too vulgar) now that it is gone.

All of this has ramifications for how the electorate view Malcolm Turnbulls leadership. If the prime minister was struck by lightning today, what would be chiselled onto the marble wall of his sepulchre? Removed 18C from the Racial Discrimination Act? You can almost hear the shudder run up the prime ministerial spine.

When he became prime minister, the electorate were willing to overlook the fact he rose to the office via a coup (we are used to them by now, arent we?) because they believed he would do big things and focus on the big picture.

Malcolm coming in brings an opportunity for a new era of forward movement. Hopefully a long time of consistent leadership.

Weve had that whole slanging match and going to the lowest common denominator in our governments for a long time, everyone just trying to sling crap on the next person rather than having proper debate and having an effective government. It seems like with this latest leadership change Malcolms tried to step above that.

These are some of the comments made in focus groups I conducted in the weeks after he became pm. And yet hope turned to disappointment and may border on despair if our prime minister continues to act as if he is captive to those in the party who think Australia is suddenly a better place without 18C. There is evidence in the latest Essential Report poll that the prime minister still has the publics attention and support if he manages to think and act on a grander scale. Consider the strong support for the expansion of the Snowy Hydro scheme.

In fairness to Turnbull, its an unforgiving environment for a political leader. The electorate is short tempered. And of course we have always been tough on leaders that try to do big things. Our desire for straight-talking, visionary leaders focused on the hard task of reform works a little more in theory than in practice.

Those kinds of leaders are always more popular in hindsight than they are when they are actually governing. If we look at the Essential Report we see that given a list of vital political leadership attributes, what we are looking for most from our leaders is accountability. Do what you promise to do.

Turnbull promised a new area of better politics and a focus not on the minor issues of ginger groups within his caucus but on the top concerns of 99% of the electorate. He still has the publics attention and a sliver of their goodwill to go on, or else it will be 18C on the tombstone in perpetuity.

Excerpt from:

Even among Australians worried about political correctness, 18C is not a big issue - The Guardian