Category Archives: Political Correctness

Words cant hurt you (unless you let them), snowflake. Grow up! Im a Trump deplorable.

So read the sign held aloft by seemingly kind middle-aged woman at a recent free speech rally held by various alt-right goofballs in Portland, OR. I asked the smiling woman if she felt there was any irony inherent in chastising a group of people for being hurt by mere words while at the same time mentioning something a failed presidential candidate said nine months ago. She did not.

And so goes the ongoing saga of political correctness. To most of the Left, it means considering whether or not your words and actions might needlessly hurt someone while adding nothing to the world. To the citizens on the Right, it is a hard-to-define all-encompassing term that triggers vitriolic eye rolls from coast-to-coastto Republican politicians its become one of the most valuable weapons in their rhetorical arsenals.

After the civil rights movement, authors like Allan Bloom (whose work was funded by the Koch family) began to speak out against what they saw as left-wing intellectual college professors seeking to change sacred academic traditions in order to brainwash the next generation into a life of horrid liberalism. These claims were erroneous at best. At worst, they were an attempt to preserve racist traditions that have nothing to do with academia. However, to a large segment of the population that was increasingly frightened and confused by the changing reality of their country and world, a seed of blame was planted that is still bearing GOP fruit today.

The biggest legacy of this political smokescreen wasnt changing syllabi on college campuses, it was the Rights ability to successfully forge an alliance between the white working class and Republican politicians with corporate interestsan alliance that very rarely benefits the voters. Citing political correctness, the Right was (and is) able to deflect blame for what the white working class saw as a changing Americas myriad ills. According to the Right, it wasnt lowering taxes, valuing corporations over people, cutting social and educational programs, or outsourcing jobs overseas to increase corporate profits that were changing the American landscapeit was the seemingly sudden concern for non-white and other marginalized Americans that was at the heart of the issue.

Political correctness was ultimately how the GOP drove a wedge between Democrats and the working class people they claimed to represent. They pushed forth the idea of shadowy liberal elites wanting to control the common mans thoughts and speech. Those looking for an explanation as to how the white working class can time and again vote against their own interests need to look no further than the rise of antipathy toward political correctness for their answer.

Being anti-PC has also given a paper thin veil underneath which racist views can be espoused freely while disguised as something else. Take, for instance, the resistance to the emergence of the term African-American as commonplace in the 1990swhat possible reason other than racism could there be for resisting such a change? The message is clear: know your place in this society and you dont ever try and change it (boy).

To illustrate the many fallacies of political correctness, Id like to highlight some of the many triggers that set the ever delicate snowflakes on the Right into an uproar whenever they are uttered. Perhaps, one fine day we can move forward to a more relevant and productive version of political discourse that is totally devoid of even a mention of political correctness, but Im not going to hold my breath.

Jesus H. Christ and the war being waged over his birthday

The neocon idea of a war on Christmas first began some years ago amongst Fox News types like John Gibson, who wrote an entire book on the subject in which he claimed that literally any sign of Christmas in public can now lead to complaints, litigation, angry protests, threats, and bruised feelings. Literally any sign? Apparently, Mr. Gibson has never been in an American city in the month of December, as nearly all have massive Christmas trees erected in public spaces and whose lighting is often a much-ballyhooed event. I guess Mr. Gibson has also never walked through basically any store in December and been forced to suffer through wave after wave of atrocious Christmas music. Just last week, Donald Trump proclaimed in a speech that Were going to start saying Merry Christmas in this country again, although I cannot for the life of me remember a time when wishing others a Merry Christmas was outlawed in America.

Its this sort of half-thoughtfull of sound and fury but signifying absolutely nothingthat the anti-PC movement is based around.

It appears simply acknowledging that non-Christian religions are practiced in our diverse society is enough to trigger highly pious individuals on the Right into nonsensical fits of anger and cries of persecution. However, a Christian who has never asked God for forgiveness and behaves as Mr. Trump does is apparently fine. Literally every single American president has identified as Christian. All of them. Somehow, I think JCs birthday is going to be OK.

Mocking safe spaces as you exist in one

As I stood on the vastly outnumbered alt-right side of the aforementioned free speech rally interviewing people (aka getting called a fake news fag), my attempts at conversation were punctuated with angry bursts of shouting at the hundreds of gathered antifa across the street. Come over here and say that, you pussies! shouted a man in an American flag shirt, clearly pleased with himself, towards the writhing black-clad mass across the street.

Confused, I engaged him.

Couldnt you go over there? Well yeah. Well then, whats stopping you Captain America? Go teach those pussies a lesson, my dude!

He did not. Suddenly, the gentleman appeared very peaceful. This fellow, like most far-Right warriors, was incredibly tough when surrounded on all sides and protected by 100+ members of law enforcement in riot gear. Law enforcement thats creating for them a space a space in which they can feel safe can you see where Im headed here?

As for symbolic safe spaces: if youre not a member of a marginalized community, you shouldnt be speaking on them. Straight white dudes like myself, for instancethe entirety of America is our safe space. The goal of idealized safe spaces is like the idealized goal of world peace: it will never 100% happen, but thats no reason to stop striving towards those honorable goals.

The utter and complete veneration of badges and those who wear them

Law enforcement has an incredibly difficult, often thankless, always underpaid job. Many of them go into the high-risk line of work with only the pure and hopeful intention of helping their communities. Many save lives and mentor young people. Others are scared weaklings lured by the intoxicating feeling of power over others who have no business driving a cab, much less a cop car. Some are horrific people, some are saints whose work should be highlighted and honored. Such is human naturethe light and the darkand to act as though law enforcement is infallible simply because they wear a badge is not only ignorant and irresponsible but detrimental to society as a whole.

Blue lives do indeed matterso much so that American law enforcement get to kill with almost total impunity. In most cases, all a police officer has to prove in order to be justified when using deadly force is that they feared for their livesno matter if that fear is illogical or based on something like racism. That is wrong. Full stop.

There is simply no way to reasonably debate the fact that law enforcement in this country requires sweeping reform, better vetting and needs to be held to a higher standard. (Hey, perhaps instead of building a wall, those billions could go to police forces?) Admitting this fact does not make you a cop hating piece of garbage, it makes you a mature adult.

Being triggered by feminism/scared of women

Housewives Matter! Down with feminism! read another sign at the Pro-Trump free speech rally. Confused, I pointed out to the man with the sign that feminism was about affording women the opportunity to be whatever they wantedhousewife includedand had zero to do with disparaging housewifery in general. The gentleman seemed to consider this for a moment, took note of my press pass and then responded incredibly wisely by calling me a fake news fag and smiling, apparently secure in the knowledge that he had forever established his intellectual superiority over me.

At a Republican debate last year, Megyn Kelly asked our soon-to-be Commander in Tweet about his treatment of the fairer sex, saying, Youve called women you dont like fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals. You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees

I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct, Trump said to applause from the Republican audience. Ive been challenged by so many people, I dont frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesnt have time either.

Horrific, appalling sexism aside, consider for a moment that Mr. Trump said the big problem facing the US is being politically correct and that this odd statement was greeted with applause, not confused murmurs. That there were women (mostly older and white) in the audience applauding such a statement says a great deal about the demonization of anything deemed PC.

To reiterate: feminism is about having the ability to choose to be an astronaut, bus driver, housewifewhatever a woman may pleasewithout limit. Traditionally, many, many doors have been closed to females in cultures all around the world and all throughout history. Feminism is an effort to change that and right the scales. Its actually pretty simple.

Antifas Mask Wearing

This goes for a lot of people on the Left too. You have not made a tremendous point when you tell a protester in black bloc garb that, if they were tough, theyd take off their masks. You sound like an ass. Why wont they take off their masks? They are committing crimes. Tear gas is terrible to breathe in. Thats why they are wearing masks. Do you also wonder why bank robbers wear masks?

Their movement, love it or loathe it, is about making change as a united groupnot dressing up like Captain America, or a fucking Spartan, and hoping to squeeze a modicum of selfish attention out of an otherwise pathetically unremarkable life. Criticize and debate their extreme tactics all day, but please stop polluting the world with your half-thoughts that you think are intellectual triumphs. People that ask Antifa why they are wearing masks are like strangers forcing their unsolicited opinions about the weather onto you: they are insufferable.

Freedom of the press / Saying fake news and elitist media

The 260-pound hateful apricot/manatee hybrid we have for a president says a lot of dangerous, stupid things, but his insistence that anyone who disagrees with him in the press is espousing fake news is amongst the most absurd and dangerous. Our government and society rest on a system wherein the differing branches of government check and balance each other and the press holds them all accountable and reports back to the public. A free press is a cornerstone of our democracy, and only someone with something to hide would impede this process to the level Donald Trumphas. Noted painter George W. Bush and his sidekickThe Penguin came close to the levels of journalistic impediment Trump has sunk toand they started a war for profit, for Gods sake.

When CNN retracted a story recently, Donald Trumpwho probably hadnt been that excited since the last Miss Tween New Jersey pageant (Really fabulous tweens. Great tweens, the best. Everyone says so. I met my next wife tonight.)gleefully exclaimed his vindication: here it was, proof of fake news! Except thats not at all what it was. As most logical adults could tell you, journalists are held to higher professional standards than, say, a racist real estate mogul. Journalists are under a gigantic microscope and are charged with delivering the truth, and/or their opinions on that truth. The smallest mistake or misquote can cost us dearly, as it did for both CNN and the journalists who resigned. No matter how intensely you vet your stories and comb over your thoughts, around half of America will take up a vehement dislike to you instantly. For example, Id say with confidence that most of the people reading this have never received very detailed and specific threats on their life as I have for simply doing my job. Id also be willing to wager that no one reading this has ever received a message on a dating app in which a woman threatened them with penis removal because of something they did at work (alas, the young woman in question and I did not find love). These are the kinds of charming things we journos get to live with in the age of the Internet.

CNN displayed the kind of honor that is the foundation of journalism when they retracted that story. Its what all honorable humans, journalists or no, do when faced with the revelation theyve made an errorthey dont double down on the mistake and shout (or tweet) redfaced about the supposed conspiratorial injustices facing them, or blame those who exposed the mistake. Thats what children, criminals, sociopaths, and, sadly, our president does. Case in point: the Central Park Five case. When the men in question were exonerated for the horrific crime after losing a great chunk of their lives to prison, did Donald Trump apologize for taking out a full page ad in the New York Timesexclaiming that New York State should bring back the death penalty? No, no he did not.

And as far as journalists being elitist, my God, what ignorance. The average salary for a member of the elitist media is around $40,000 (many of us make far less than that). For perspective, the average starting salary for a coal miner is $60k-70kare they also elites? Sean Hannitys salary for 2015 was $29 million. $29 million. Donald Trumps salary for that year was well we dont know because the man refuses to release his tax returns.

So by the Rights logic, I, a man who can give you detailed directions to the nearest plasma donation center, am an elitist, but a man tied with freaking Rihanna and just above Bon Jovion the Forbes highest paid celebrities list isnt; and neither is a man born into untold riches who uses a literal golden toilet for his micropenis is not. Got it.

Calling something a free speech rally doesnt make it a free speech rally

In their ongoing campaign to paint the Leftthose vocally resisting the Trump regimes fascist policies and whose demands for diversity are such a horrific blight upon American societyin a negative light, the Right has begun holding shit-starting rallies under the guise of free speech. Case in point: the rally Ive referenced in this piece. The alt-right flew a bunch of pathetic racist LARPer celebrities of theirs to Portland, OR (and this after all that talk of paid protesters on the Left) simply to disrupt the city and disturb its mostly liberal population. The Right refers to these gatherings as free speech rallies because they can then paint anyone who opposes what theyre as an enemy of free speech. Its reductive, nonsensical and childishand its one of the Rights favorite weapons in turning the fascism argument around on the Left.

A dog turd between two hamburger buns doesnt suddenly become a tasty 4th of July treatits still dog shit. Like most of what the alt-right does.

See the original post:

The Easily Triggered Right and the Untruths of Political Correctness - Paste Magazine

All terrorist threats must be dealt with, but should they all be dealt with in the same way? This dilemma gets to the heart of creating an effective Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) policy.

The Department of Homeland Security defines CVE as the proactive actions to counter efforts by extremists to recruit, radicalize, and mobilize followers to violence. Yet there was never complete clarity over its purpose.

Was CVE intended primarily as a soft-power complement to law enforcement, military and intelligence-gathering operations against violent Islamist groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda? Or is CVEs main focus on challenging all forms of radical ideologiesfrom Islamists to black separatists, eco-terrorists, white supremacists and the Far Right?

Many of Americas allies across Europe take a more inclusive approach. There is a logic to thisyou dont have to look hard to see there is a problem beyond ISIS-inspired terrorism. In the UK, for example, a far-right terrorist murdered the Labour MP, Jo Cox, last year, and Muslims were targeted in the attack near Finsbury Park Mosque this June. In 2011, mass murderer Anders Breivik struck in Norway, and five years later, Germany saw Ali David Sonboly, seemingly inspired by Breivik, carry out a mass shooting of his own.

In the wake of these kinds of attacks, there is an obvious compulsion to treat the threat from the Far Right as analogous to that of Islamist terrorism. Indeed, the pressure Prime Minister Theresa May and the police were under on this front after the Finsbury Park Mosque attack was palpable. To not do so, the argument goes, is essentially to ignore certain forms of hatred and validate the views of those who regard programs such as CVE as Islamophobic witch hunts.

There is no doubt that law-enforcement officials regularly have to deal with the threat posed by white supremacists. Unlike Islamists, however, such actors are not part of a global movement with a coherent aim and end goal in mind. White supremacism is, by and large, a bankrupt, unpopular and discredited ideology in a way that Islamism, unfortunately, is not. Just look at the support that still exists for the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East; while even the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office contends that certain brands of Islamism subscribe to democratic principles and liberal values. You could not imagine it saying anything similar about any kind of white-supremacist movement.

Governments are currently so keen to make sure CVE is done in a manner as politically correct as possible they only seem to feel comfortable addressing a dangerous ideology that exists within ethnic-minority communities by also focusing on another that exists within the ethnic majority. That is hardly intellectually satisfactory, regardless of the politics around it.

Those interested in crafting effective CVE policy must also consider where the governments role in such initiatives ends. Jamie Bartlett wrestles with these kinds of issues in his new book, Radicals Chasing Utopia.

Bartlett spent time among militant environmentalists, trans-humanists, psychedelic societies and anti-Islam groups. One chapter deals with Prevent (the UKs equivalent to CVE). He argues that radicalisation, in all sorts of unpredictable directions, is on the rise, yet posits a scenario in which public servants are told to watch out for the signs of psychedelic radicalisation and in which children are taught about the dangerous recruitment techniques of transhumanists. Even if Bartletts scenario plays out, some will be relaxed with this. Others will believe that government will be going too far in attempting to control which ideas are and are not acceptable.

More here:

Don't Let Political Correctness Obstruct the Fight Against Extremism ... - The National Interest Online

Kean University (Kean)

ELIZABETH An adjunct professor who was fired by Kean University on charges that she violated the states anti-discrimination policy is firing back, saying she is the victim of the schools extreme political correctness agenda.

The business law professor was fired last year after six years on the job as a result of numerous student complaints that she injected her personal and offensive opinions about gender, sexuality, religion and immigration into her lectures, which several students described as rants.

One student, for example, complained that the professor said Mexicans are stealing jobs. Another claimed she said that America should stick to Catholic/Christian principles.

The professor, however, denied the allegations, explaining that the students took her debate points out of context.

And then she filed her own discrimination complaints against her former students and the university.

This workplace dispute over the states anti-discrimination policy came to light as a result of the professors appeal to the Civil Service Commission, which only identified the professor by her initials C.B.

The decision comes amid controversy at another higher education institution in the state, whichfired an adjunct professor associated with Black Lives Matter after she made an appearance on Fox News Channels Tucker Carlson Tonight.

Essex County College president Anthony Munroe last month defended the termination of Lisa Durden, who went on the show to defended her groups all-black Memorial Day Celebration. Munroe said many students and parents complained after her segment aired.

Racism cannot be fought with more racism, he said in a public statement.

The political positions of these two college professors might be worlds apart, but both showhow college campuses are trying to strike a balance between free expression and limiting offensive speech.

In the appeal of her termination, the former Kean professor uses a favorite term of those who criticize campus speech policies: political correctness.

She said that her students students complaint are based on political correctness. She said Kean used the policy as a pretext to punish her for teaching critical thinking and promoting its extreme political correctness agenda.

She also said Kean is violating its own Policy Statement on Free Speech and Dissent, and that the investigation was based on disgruntled, biased students with no other evidence than baseless hate, lies and discrimination.

She then used the state policy to go after her accusers.

Her complaint said that they discriminated against her on the basis of marital status by referring to her as Ms. instead of her preferred Mrs.; that they discriminated against her on the basis of age when one student told administrators investigating her that she was old school; and that they discriminated against patriotic Americans because the students essentially say American citizens dont have the right to expect immigrants to abide by U.S. laws.

While the professors own discrimination complaints were dismissed by the school and state officials, she was handed a partial victory last month when the Civil Service Commission concluded that she is entitled to a hearing before an administrative law judge.

The appeal decision says the students complaints last year were investigated by the universitys Office of Affirmative Action Programs, which concluded that she had violated the policy.

The policy prohibits discrimination, harassment or use of derogatory or demeaning references based on race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, age, sex/gender, pregnancy, marital status, civil union status, domestic partnership status, familial status, religion, affectional or sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, atypical hereditary cellular or blood trait, genetic information, liability for service in the military, or disability.

According to the Civil Service Commissions decision, the university pointed out that the use of Ms. does not rise to the level of a policy violation because the term is used in a general manner and does not necessarily reflect marital status. And old school does not violate the policy because the term is associated with traditional practices, characteristics, mannerisms, etc.

The commission agreed, citing definitions of Ms. from the Oxford English and Merriam-Websters dictionaries to conclude that referral to her as Ms. would be a breach of etiquette, but not a violation of the State Policy.

But the commission did find that the students complaints about her lectures were not conclusive.

The professors appeal said she lectured out of the textbook and used debate points to encourage and develop students critical thinking, interdisciplinary thinking and debating skills.

She said all viewpoints were zealously debated and that she would play Devils advocate to challenge students to develop their arguments.

The case is now before the Office of Administrative Law.

Sergio Bichao is deputy digital editor at New Jersey 101.5. Send him news tips: Call 609-359-5348 or email sergio.bichao@townsquaremedia.com.

Also on New Jersey 101.5:

Subscribe to New Jersey 101.5 FM on

See the original post here:

Are you offended? Fired professor attacks Kean's 'extreme political correctness' - New Jersey 101.5 FM Radio

It happened slowly, like the proverbial frog in a water-filled pot that didnt know the heat was turned on until it was too late. Political correctness, the desire to be accepted and a wish not to offend anyone has led even staunch conservatives to become wishy-washy people pleasers.

Those on the liberal side have no compunctions about voicing their beliefs. To their credit, there is no doubt where liberals stand on any topic. Conservatives, on the other hand, have vacillated to the point that its difficult to ascertain the difference between them and their liberal counterparts.

Conservatives dont push back much nowadays. And Im not talking about conservative politicians, either, but rather everyday Americans, the run-of-the-mill conservative people who just want to go about their daily business without turmoil and strife. Conservatives are more likely to apologize for things they neednt apologize for rather than stand strong in their convictions. But giving in at every turn can only lead to a loss of whatever it is we might support. Heres an example.

I live in a rural area and, not too long ago, had no neighbors except for a working poultry farm. With no one to complain, I operated an active shooting range. Then people from urban settings began moving to the country and houses began popping up in otherwise wild settings.

Without exception, all of my new neighbors are anti-hunting and except for one lone soul, all dislike firearms. It didnt take me long to figure this out and consequently I pared down activity at my shooting range. This was a courtesy gesture on my part. Still, it pays to keep the shooting eye sharp and I occasionally do a bit of target practice, although far less than in the past.

And, of course, I am well within my legal rights to do so. My place sits far off the road with no one very close to me and only woodlands behind and on either side. So it came as a surprise when a neighbor called and asked me if I was OK. Puzzled, I asked why she would think otherwise. I heard a gunshot, she said. I told her that the gunshot was me shooting my muzzleloading rifle, which had remained loaded since last deer season. The easiest way to unload a muzzleloader is, of course, to fire it.

That call left me with an uneasy feeling, but the real reason for the call still eluded me. Than, about a week later, someone else a distance away fired several shots. Immediately, the phone rang. It was the same neighbor with the same disingenuous question: We heard a shot. Are you OK?

It was than that I comprehended the reason for the call. The neighbor wasnt concerned about my well-being, but rather, was registering her displeasure with hearing gunfire. This time I gave the reply that I should have given in the first place. Why shouldnt I be OK? Well, she replied, We thought it was a rifle shot.

So what if it was? I said.

I went on: Whoever shot, unless they are barred from owning a firearm, has every right to shoot their rifle. Under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, citizens are allowed to possess and use firearms. Furthermore, I dont want you calling me every time someone, including me, touches off a gun.

My neighbor doesnt like me any more, but at least she now knows where I stand on gun rights.

My experience typifies the political-correctness mindset. Using subterfuge (are you OK?), liberals achieve their goals in an innocent-sounding manner. But where does it end?

For instance, the city of Belfast has declared Oct. 9 is no longer Columbus Day, but rather, Indigenous Peoples Day. This may sound nice and fuzzy to some, but it is simply rubbish. No amount of political correctness will change the fact that on Oct. 12, 1492, Christopher Columbus made landfall in the New World. We conservatives have two choices. They are, either go along with the upside-down politically-correct nonsense, or continue celebrating Columbus Day as Columbus Day.

Even such mundane statements as posting a Trump sign or flying the American Flag brings conservatives under attack.

But it is Christians who fare the worst. Many people who profess Christ as their savior are unwilling to state their beliefs publicly. And that marks the beginning of the end of religious freedom.

So, my conservative friends, know that your beliefs and God-given rights are slowly being eroded. And worst of all, you are partially to blame because you allowed it to happen. Its not too late, of course, but from now on conservatives must get a backbone and stand up to political correctness. It is our only hope.

Tom Seymour is a freelance magazine and newspaper writer, book author, naturalist and forager. He lives in Waldo.

Continue reading here:

Conservatives must eschew political correctness - Republican Journal

Ive long been fascinated by political correctness and how it often has a life of its own; either ignoring facts or not bothering to find facts before going off half-cocked.

Political correctness has been around a long time. Some date it to a term used in a U.S. Supreme Court decision from 1793. It entered the everyday lexicon in the 1970s and really took off a few years later by turning Merry Christmas into a taboo for risk of offending those not of the Christian faith. Yet, Ive never had a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or even atheist person tell me they find a friendly greeting of Merry Christmas offensive.

There are countless other PC examples; some silly and humorous, some serious. Without doubt, it has helped shape our culture and policies over the past few decades. (An American president even got elected by endlessly trumpeting that he was the anti politically-correct candidate. So, its not all good news for those opposed to rampant political correctness.)

Last year, an Angus Reid poll found that more than three-quarters of Canadians agreed that political correctness has just gone too far, and yet almost as many people (70 per cent) admitted to biting their tongue at least some of the time to avoid offending others.

Which brings us to yet another example of political correctness: trying to change the name of Ryerson University, my alma mater.

Indigenous students, student union push Ryerson University to change its name, screams a headline in a recent edition of The Toronto Star.

Due to my ties to the university, I was more than a little interested in this story.

The downtown Toronto university is named for Egerton Ryerson, a pioneer of public education in Ontario who is widely believed to have helped shape residential school policy through his ideas on education for Indigenous children, states the Star article.

Widely believed now theres politically correct language if Ive ever seen it. Broad swaths and painting with the same brush are part of the PC toolkit.

The article, to be fair, does not shy away from reporting on the backlash from those opposed to the possible name change, but it also attacks the character of Ryerson on several fronts. For example, it prints this unattributed post: change the name of Ryerson University to a name that does not celebrate a man who supported and created the structures of colonial genocide.

Wow. Theyve moved Ryerson, a Methodist minister, into some sort of criminal and architect of genocide.

Fortunately, The Globe and Mail on the same day ran an opinion piece from Donald Smith, a retired history professor from the University of Calgary, which offers many details of Ryersons life that are either ignored or not known by the folks trying to rename the university.

As a Canadian historian of nearly half a centurys standing, I find the current controversy over Egerton Ryerson, the namesake of Ryerson University, totally baffling, Smith begins. I wonder how deeply his critics have probed into the past of the founder of the modern Ontario public-school system. Their portrayal of him as anti-Indigenous misrepresents the man completely.

Ryerson started the Credit Mission, a stones throw from my home in Port Credit, where he learned to speak Ojibway and worked alongside the Credit Mississaugas in the fields and ate and lived with them. They liked him so much they named him Chechalk, meaning Bird on the Wing.

He helped many Indigenous people with their education, even sponsoring some in universities of the day. One was so grateful that he named his son Egerton.

Smith goes on to say Ryerson supported the Credit Mississaugas fight for a title deed to their Credit River reserve and their efforts to build a strong economic base for their community.

He became lifelong friends with a Mississauga chief named Kahkewaquonaby (Sacred Waving Feathers), known as Peter Jones in English, who also became a Methodist minister. Nearing the end of Jones life, Ryerson had Jones and his wife stay with his family for a month in Toronto while seeking the best possible medical care. Before Jones died at age 54, he asked Ryerson to give the eulogy, which he did on July 1, 1856.

Ryerson gets tarred with the residential school brush for writing in 1847 a short report on Indian boarding schools where older male students could learn European-style agriculture, Smith writes, adding the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada unequivocally stated Ryerson was not the creator of the residential school system.

It seems in our politically-correct world its easy to paint Ryerson as anti-Indigenous. But the facts of history simply dont bear that out. As Smith laments, Back to you Ryerson Students Union, for further study. Perhaps theyll find another politically correct crusade truly worth fighting for.

(Brehl is a writer in Port Credit, Ont., and cane be reached at bob@abc2.ca, or @bbrehl on Twitter.)

Follow this link:

Comment: Political correctness has a life of its own - The Catholic Register

To the Editor:

I see the walk-through history stops are being completed and I have to wonder how what could and should have been a good project go so wrong.

When I read the books by Arthur Greer, Keith Lee, and other histories of Altamont, the roadside historical markers, the names in the cemeteries of that time, or look at the architecture, I see no Spanish names or influence.

I guess political correctness has destroyed this good idea.

Bill Donato

Altamont

Editors note: The text on the 26 lecterns for Altamonts museum in the streets is in both English and Spanish. James Gaughan, who was mayor of Altamont and spearheaded the project, explained earlier, the research I did showed the largest population in the area is Spanish speaking, second to English. He also said that more Guilderland students study Spanish as a second language than any other.

Read the rest here:

Political correctness destroyed a good idea - The Altamont Enterprise

Bill Leak cartoon on his opinion of Australian gay-marriage activists

Political correctness is the bane of all art. Enlisting the powers of mob psychology, its more potent and vicious than censors could ever hope to be. Traditional censorship creates a villain/victim condition, with the weakest (non-state) actor as the hero. Sympathy is reactively triggered against the Powers That Be, as the little guy struggles against some Goliath or other.

But political correctness turns all that on its ear. In PC World, the state poses as a weak and endangered victim. Miles of bureaucratic code are treated as divine and irreplaceable as scripture. Fanatics of various obsessions zealously guard against desecration by nonbelievers (such as global warming deniers). Its a true orthodoxy in every way.

Last March, the world lost a marvelous artist, political sage and cartoonist. His name was Bill Leak. We didnt hear much about him in the U.S. because he was an Aussie. He loved his country, and concerned himself with it the good, the bad, and the ludicrous. Recently he was very much overwhelmed by the latter.

From 1983 to 2017, Leak and his personal notions were not only tolerated, but widely and publicly shared. A famed and prize-winning artist, he was considered mainstream if slightly conservative. His last gig was with The Australian, where his cartoons with political and social commentary regularly lodged.

Leak first faced censure for having opinion, in a 2006 cartoon that portrayed the president of Indonesia as a dog mounting a Papuan native. It was a return shot after a Jakarta Daily cartoon depicted Australias Prime Minister and Foreign Minister as mating dingoes. Speech control units sanctioned Leak (only) as crude, offensive and potentially racist. Missing in this charade was reference to the original issue the ongoing genocide of Papuan natives by the Indonesian government. PC mouthpieces expressed no concern over this, but plenty over Leaks objection to it. They are very sick people.

Bill Leaks cartoon explaining his predicament with Australian speech police

But Leak didnt roll over and play dead as expected. Meanwhile, Australias anti-art forces gained power in the form of more government apparatchiks. His most recent (and possibly deadly) run-in with Australias thought-censors occurred in October 2016. Leak crossed PC orthodoxy yet again, and retribution was swift and terrible. He ventured a non-standard take on child neglect issues with Aboriginal groups there. Adding to his crimes was a cartoon comparing militant homosexuals to Nazis. Both groups had been declared Very Special Persons by the Australian government, entirely off limits to criticism or unflattering news.

Leak withstood his attackers on social media, mocking them as sanctimonious Tweety Birds having a tantrum. His employer, The Australian, responded: Bill Leaks confronting and insightful cartoons force people to examine the core issues in a way that sometimes reporting and analysis can fail to do.

But political correctness is opposed to reporting, analysis, insight and especially confrontation of core issues.

Something called the Human Rights Commission (HRC) had already tried and sentenced Leak in their minds, but was required to haul him before their tribunals for show. Tim Soutphommasane was sent to come up with an excuse to feed Leak to their lions. For this he stooped to advertising for whining citizens to complain of being offended (all under the Racial Discrimination Act). Soutphommasane called this part of the vigorous public debate of a healthy democracy. Certainly Leak and his attorneys were required to vigorously debate to avoid fines and jail time.

Jillian Triggs, who runs the speech-blocking movement (HRC), insisted Leak send her a justification for his cartoon. He refused, but continued to face the combined malicious stupidity of the Australian government. Mark Steyn wrote this up in his excellent eulogy/rant for Leak: You dont get into a debate with someone whose opening bid is You cant say that: Its not a dispute with someone who holds a different position, but with someone who denies your right to have a position at all.

Political operatives function as philosophers behind the theory of political correctness. Its an ideology made for the people but not by them. PC feigns individuality, while dictating mass obedience and enforced passivity. It draws supporters by appealing to their basest instincts of greed, fear, pride, sadism and manipulation of others.

While having no consistent code of ethics itself, political correctness dons a feigned moral superiority. This is a gift for nasty people who hate their neighbors. Charging them with the non-crimes that PC fabricates, they can easily take them down. Ratting on outsiders and infidels is what political correctness is all about delivered with sneers, and the smug self-righteousness to which we have become accustomed.

Attached at their hips are sycophants of the state, who also find oppression useful: Militant homosexuals or Muslim crusaders, Marxists, Earth worshipers, and various cults who cant withstand scrutiny or civil conversation. Political correctness covers for a multitude of sins.

Lovers of collectivism are easily sucked into political correctness, and they arent of much importance to anyone. But they take their workers parishioners, children and pupils with them into that not-so-good night. In spite of the hoopla, there is little liberty, equality or fraternity there.

Hollywood is blighted by bloodsucking political correctness, and their gifted artists are infected with the pox otherwise they are unemployed. Why would they do this? Half are likely true believers, willing to commit all to the leftist cause. The other half lives in dread of them or dont have the stomach for the bitter fight to regain their freedom.

A compilation of Bill Leaks cartoons on militant Islam

We are dealing with a new form of terrorism that strikes at the root of thought and faith. It paralyzes before a word or action takes place. It is pre-terrorism. Creative thought is harnessed to PC orthodoxy through shaming and shunning campaigns unlike anything weve seen before. Calling political correctness a new McCarthyism doesnt begin to do justice to a beast that the Senator could only have dreamt of. McCarthy battled Communism with only a few Congressmen, some FBI agents and a few friendly newspapers. This is far more entrenched and almost unopposed so far.

At 61 years of age, Leak died of an unexpected heart attack, five months into a grueling political-based inquisition. His chief tormentor and anti-speech activist, Gillian Triggs, was recently honored on her way out of her position in the HRC. Australia awarded her the 2017 Voltaire award for her courageous stand on peoples rights which is hilarious.

As Madam Defarge sat in her well-appointed office, issuing directives against the likes of Leak, he required 24/7 protection from ISIS, because he was saying something relevant. In what must be a grievous insult to Leaks family, Triggs claimed the rights to freedom of speech [and] ideas underpinning a democratic society were under threat from federal and state governments.

She should know.

Sources

Read the original post:

The deadly art of political correctness - WND.com

U.S. Sen. John Kennedy on Wednesday submitted an editorial to NOLA.com calling for NOPD to begin using stop-and-frisk tactics. Other than defending abortion rights and demonizing Israel there are few things that rile up leftists obsessed with political correctness more than talk of stop-and-frisk.

At first glance I can understand why some may have reservations about the tactic. Nothing riles me up more than these road blocks set up to catch drunk drivers. But there is a huge difference between roadblocks and stop-and-frisk.

Before cops can employ stop-and-frisk they must first have probable cause. With DUI checkpoints everyone is stopped without any justification. This comes just a little too close to a police state for my taste.

But what is similar between the two is they without dispute work. Stop-and-frisk is one of the strategies that helped bring about an 85% reduction in crime in New York City between 1994 and 2013.

Think of how many lives would be saved if New Orleans saw an 85% reduction in crime. To argue the policy is ineffective is just silly. The politically correct look foolish trying.

The PC cabal, of which Mayor Mitch Landrieu is a card-carrying member, argue against stop-and-frisk claiming it discriminates against blacks. They say it opens the door for racist white cops to harass blacks. But what they dont mention is within NOPD, the potential administrators of stop-and-frisk, blacks outnumber white cops almost two to one.

The New Orleans Police Department is one of the most diverse police forces in the country, and I dont believe every NOPD cop is a racist. The politicians should let the NOPD do its job. Sen. Kennedy writes in NOLA.com.

Mr. Kennedy also argues for the mayor and city council to hire more cops. When Mr. Landrieu was first elected NOPD was a third bigger than it is today. The mayors multi-year hiring freeze has devastated NOPDs ability to fight crime in New Orleans.

For three years now the mayor has been vowing to hire 150 new cops a year. He hasnt even come close. Kennedy says.

Mr. Landrieu has also gutted the DAs office by $600,000 to which Mr. Kennedy writes,

We should listen to District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro, who has warned that our city has crafted a criminal justice policy that has repeatedly placed politics above public safety. Maybe the DAs candor is why city leadership cut his budget $600,000 this year, eliminating more than 10 positions and withdrawing investigators from murder scenes. Talk about doubling down on stupid!

Sen.Kennedy is correct. Mayor Landrieu has doubled down on stupid political correctness and seems focused on anything and everything other making his city a safer place. Something employing stop-and-frisk is certain to do.

But in New Orleans with Mitch Landrieu in charge, political correctness is king, not public safety.

Dan Fagan is a former television news reporter, journalism professor, newspaper columnist, and radio talk show host. He grew up in New Orleans and currently lives there. He is a regular contributor for The Hayride. If you have a news tip for Mr. Fagan you [emailprotected] or 504-458-2542.

Continue reading here:

FAGAN: Mitch Landrieu's Political Correctness A Reason For Extreme NOLA Violence - The Hayride

WASHINGTON (Sinclair Broadcast Group)

A conservative journalist says that a guidebook used by many media organizations to make decisions on style and word choice is imparting a liberal bias in the mainstream press with its rules for reporting on issues like immigration and terrorism.

Rachel Alexander, a senior editor at The Stream, complained on Fox & Friends Tuesday that the 2017 Associated Press Stylebook caves to political correctness in new entries, compounding a rhetorical slant that she believes has been growing in recent years.

"The mainstream media claims that it's not biased, but it's got this bias built into its own words, she said. And we're seeing these words increasingly scrubbed from news articles and replaced by politically correct words instead."

One change for 2017 that concerned Alexander was the new guidance on describing migrants.

Migrants normally are people who move from place to place for temporary work or economic advantage, the Stylebook says. The term also may be used for those whose reason for leaving is not clear, or to cover people who may also be refugees or asylum-seekers, but other terms are strongly preferred: people struggling to enter Europe, Cubans seeking new lives in the United States.

Refugee and asylum-seeker are defined separately as terms to be used for people who are forced to leave their homeland to escape persecution.

Its frankly ridiculous and its sanitizing the English language, Alexander said of the books linguistic recommendations.

She expanded on her case against the Stylebook in a column for The Hill on Sunday.

More often than not, style writers have been more interested in censoring conservative words while promoting language that liberals tend to favor, she wrote, ticking off a number of examples of recent changes:

Although the Fox segment claimed the Stylebook calls for writers to avoid using the word terrorist, the 2017 Stylebook contains no entry on the term. An AP spokesman once told the Washington Post that reporters should shy away from independently identifying anyone as a terrorist and only refer to them that way if the FBI or another official source does first. Reuters and the Washington Post have similar policies.

Criticisms arose in 2013 when the AP first announced changes to its use of illegal immigrant and Islamist, as well. At the time, the news organization insisted it was just trying to be accurate and to avoid labeling people instead of behavior.

"It's kind of a lazy device that those of us who type for a living can become overly reliant on as a shortcut," then-Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll explained at the time. "It ends up pigeonholing people or creating long descriptive titles where you use some main event in someone's life to become the modifier before their name."

Media experts say the AP is likely striving to be accurate and to avoid offending marginalized populations, but simple word choices inevitably do impact the way the audience understands an issue.

We all know that language matters and language is powerful, and the words that people choose to use insert value judgments whether it is intentional or not, said Nikki Usher, an associate professor at the George Washington University School of Media & Public Affairs and author of Making News at The New York Times.

Despite complaints from the right about specific examples, Usher said conservatives have often done a better job of framing issues in their terms than liberals have. She was hesitant to assign political motives to the AP editors who decide which words should be recommended.

These are people who have made it their lifes work to think about words. Its not just a bunch of journalists in a room making arbitrary decisions, she said.

In many cases, such as reporting on the LGBTQ community, the APs guidance encourages writers to use the term that people prefer to use to describe themselves.

Its a reflection of good journalism, not political correctness, Usher said.

A former AP standards editor made exactly that argument in a blog post on the process of compiling a new Stylebook in 2015.

We dont see APs news report as a tool for social engineering, wrote Tom Kent. But if a suggestion will make our report fairer, more considerate or more balanced, were interested.

While that may be the intent, John Carroll, a professor of mass communication at Boston University and a former journalist, said a perception of bias is difficult to avoid on issues where the language used by the press helps frame the public debate.

I think in theory what the AP Stylebook is trying to do is be as specific and as neutral as possible, but when you hold some of the guidelines up to the light in a certain way, it looks like theyre trying to influence the reader in a particular ideological direction, he said.

In the case of abortion, pro-life and pro-choice were essentially marketing terms that each side used to put the other side on the defensive.

If those are the terms that are going to be used, both of them carry overtones that could influence people in terms of how they view the players, Carroll said. Changing it to anti-abortion and pro-abortion rights is arguably more neutral.

At times, though, he suggested the APs efforts at balance are off base. Describing migrants as people struggling to enter Europe is a phrase that is so vague, its virtually meaningless.

Once language gets weaponized, then it can turn you pretty much into a pretzel to try to avoid seeming to take sides, Carroll said.

Alexanders complaints follow two years of candidate and President Donald Trump railing against political correctness.

I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct, Trump said when questioned about his long history of insulting women at the first Republican debate in 2015. Ive been challenged by so many people, I dont frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesnt have time either.

A July 2016 Pew Research Center poll found a wide partisan gap in perceptions of political correctness. While 78 percent of Republicans said too many people are easily offended by language, 61 percent of Democrats said people need to be more careful to avoid offending others.

There was a similar split between Trump supporters and Hillary Clinton voters. Four out of five Trump voters said people are too easily offended, but three in five Clinton supporters said people need to exercise more caution.

It is not surprising, then, that a guidebook for journalists that wades into heated debates and attempts to defuse loaded language makes some waves.

The 2017 edition of the Stylebook is often more nuanced than critics suggest. While it spells out situations in which migrant or refugee are inappropriate terms, it does not advise against using them entirely.

Every guideline is a choice, Carroll said, and every choice opens the AP up to attacks from the left or the right.

At a time when the president and his allies are constantly trying to discredit the mainstream press and public trust in the media is at historic lows, targeting a guidebook that many media outlets rely on to set their standards could advance that effort.

If theres an interest in dividing the public over which news is reliable and which news isnt, going after the AP Stylebook could be an effective way to separate the two sides, Carroll said.

The AP rejects allegations that its guidebook is biased, maintaining that its goal is to encourage fair and balanced reporting.

The AP Stylebook offers guidance for journalists and others on spelling, language, punctuation, usage and journalistic style. Its guidelines are aimed at clarity, accuracy and objectivity in the news report, an Associated Press spokesperson said in an email Tuesday.

Usher noted that the genesis of the AP was the desire to create standardized, objective news that would be neutral enough to fit in with newspapers across the country.

It standardizes American journalism so that every time you get a news story, it roughly looks and reads the same, she said of the Stylebook.

Not everyone in the mainstream media is a fan. Casey Stinnett, managing editor of the Liberty County Vindicator in Liberty, Texas complained of its arbitrary and sometimes goofy mandates in a recent column titled, I despise the AP Stylebook.

However, Usher said most news organizations develop their own in-house styles, and even if they borrow heavily from the AP Stylebook in setting those standards, no publication is required to accept its guidance.

Its not some monolith that you have to listen to, otherwise your journalism doesnt count, she said.

Read more:

Journalist accuses AP of 'censoring conservative words' in Stylebook - WJLA

Suppose your favorite film critic started sprinkling his reviews with references to the Cowboy Test and made it clear that he was factoring into his appraisal of a work of art whether it contained cowboys. La La Land? Manchester by the Sea? Moonlight? All problematic, as these benighted films contain no cowboys. On the other hand, Cowboys and Aliens, Armageddon, and the Village People movie Cant Stop the Music, each of which contains cowboy characters, would easily pass the Cowboy Test and receive a hearty blessing.

You would think this approach to movies a bit odd. It is. But no odder than the Bechdel Test, a feminist litmus test that is currently being thrown around by movie critics as an important way to assess the quality or at least the political correctness of a film.

Assuming youre a normal person, and not a film critic, you may never even have heard of the Bechdel Test. Named for the lesbian cartoonist Alison Bechdel, it first appeared in an underground comic called Dykes to Watch Out For in 1985, in which it was called the rule. The rule is that a movie must have at least two (named) female characters who talk to each other about something other than a man. One Bechdel character sniffed that she would go only to movies that pass this test.

Today Bechdel is an over-ground artist, a very big deal. In 2014, she won a MacArthur genius award. A show based on her graphic novel Fun Home had a successful run on Broadway and won a Tony for Best Musical. She is regarded as a feminist savant by the left-leaning cultural cognoscenti.

In the past few years, the Bechdel Test has begun popping up casually in reviews like a feminist Good Housekeeping Seal of approval. Take this appreciation last month of the 1992 film A League of Their Own, published by Katie Baker on the site The Ringer: It is, in my possibly blinded by love but also correct opinion, one of the best sports movies there is. And it is an honest ode to women and sisters and friendships, with a story that breezes through the Bechdel test by the end of the opening scene.

Hey, and you know what? Tom Sellecks Matthew Quigley appears almost immediately in Quigley Down Under. Hurrah, this film breezes through the Cowboy Test by the end of the opening scene!

Neither of these two tests gives you any hint as to the worth of a film, and furthermore neither of them tells you anything about a films general feminist wokeness. It doesnt even tell you whether the film is entirely about a woman. Lots of films that have female protagonists fail the Bechdel Test notably Alien 3; Run, Lola, Run; Breakfast at Tiffanys (there is actual heated debate on this one, but if it passes it barely does so); and Gravity. The Princess Bride fails the Bechdel Test, as does Finding Nemo, and some argue that The Little Mermaid does, too. (Again, it might barely earn a passing grade.) Lots of blockbusters with beloved female characters fail the Bechdel Test, including the original Star Wars trilogy, Avatar, and all of the Lord of the Rings films. So do many classic Hollywood films, from Citizen Kane to The Godfather, and lots of films directed by women, including Kathryn Bigelows The Hurt Locker, not to mention most of the Harry Potter movies adapted from J. K. Rowlings novels. Showgirls, on the other hand, passes the test. Do feminists look at Showgirls and chalk that one up as a big win?

To give you some inkling of how little the Bechdel Test matters when it comes to filmmaking, consider that Sofia Coppola had never heard of it when asked about it in a recent interview. Coppola is one of todays most accomplished and acclaimed female directors, and all of her seven films prominently feature women, usually in the main roles. Yet her latest movie, The Beguiled, passes only incidentally. Although seven out of the eight main characters in the film are female girls and women living at a girls school in Virginia in 1864 they spend almost the entire film discussing a man, a wounded Union soldier they nurse back to health.

Some promoters of the Bechdel Test, stung by the many writers who have pointed out its utter vapidity and uselessness, say it isnt meant to be a litmus test but rather a strategy for drawing attention to the general way women are sidelined in Hollywood. But movies arent intended to be a proper demographic cross-section of America. Movies (at least Hollywood movies) are about people on the extremes of society cops, criminals, superheroes. These extreme characters tend to be men, and men tend to be the ones who create them. Women enjoy much more prominence in the milieu of low-budget independent movies, where the stories are more focused on ordinary people with real-world problems, but those movies usually attract small audiences.

It might be true that there would be more women prominently featured in movies if more women were writing and directing more movies. But it might also be true that the reason there arent as many women making films is that womens movie ideas arent commercial enough for Hollywood studios. To be slightly less reductionist than the Bechdel Test, women tend to write movies about relationships, and men tend to write movies about aliens and shootouts. Have a wander through the sci-fi and fantasy section of your local bookstore: How many of these books authors are female? Yet these are where the big movie ideas come from. If a woman wants the next Lord of the Ringsstyle franchise to pass the Bechdel Test, then a woman should come up with a story with as much earning potential as J. R. R. Tolkiens.

READ MORE: Artists Against Theater In Chicago, Thought-Police Brutality Elizabeth Banks: Wrong on Diversity

Kyle Smith is National Review Onlines critic-at-large.

View original post here:

If You Like Art, Don't Take the Bechdel Test - National Review