Category Archives: Political Correctness

Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery, one of the most popular comedies of the 1990s, arrived in May of 1997, 25 years ago this week. The film, which stars Myers as both hero Austin Powers and villain Dr. Evil, spawned a pair of sequels, as well as a half-dozen catchphrases, from yea baby, yea, to do I make you horny, baby?

The film, in which Myers played Powers as a horny secret agent of the 60s transposed into the slightly more politically correct 90s, was part of the trend towards 60s nostalgia, 30 years later. Written by Myers himself, the film drew a lot of inspiration from plots in the James Bond series and featured Elizabeth Hurley (in the first film) in her first major starring role.

Hugely influential at the time but getting old relatively quickly Austin Powers-mania was a major force in the late 90s and early 2000s, especially when the sequels arrived in 1999 and 2002.

Here are a few things that you might not know about Austin Powers:

Myers once said in an interview that the origin of the Austin Powers character was, as he drove home from hockey practice one night, hearing the Burt Bacharach song The Look of Love, and wondering whatever became of 60s swinger culture. The Canadian-born Myers was also inspired, in some ways, by the culture of his British-born parents; his father also had Scottish heritage, which inspired everything from Myers All Things Scottish sketch on SNL to his father character in So I Married an Axe Murderer to his voice of Shrek.

While Myers played lots of recurring characters on Saturday Night Live, Austin Powers didnt come from there. The character actually started in Ming Tea, a mock band Myers formed along with a group of musicians, including Matthew Sweet and Susanna Hoffs, in the mid-1990s. Hoffs husband, Jay Roach, directed all three Austin Powers movies.

About a third of the film was improvised, Myers said in an interview around the time of its release, although its hard to say how significant that is when the credited screenwriter is also portraying both the hero and villain.

Cool Britannia was a cultural moment in the second half of the 1990s, coinciding with Tony Blairs arrival as prime minister, in which British culture became cool around the world again. Austin Powers was a key part of this, as was Four Weddings and a Funeral, as were bands like Oasis and Blur, and of course the Spice Girls. Both Austin Powers and The Spice Girls heavily featured British flags in their iconography.

Myers originally wanted Carrey to play the villainous part, but ultimately Carrey was busy with Liar, Liar, and Myers took the part himself.

If youve ever heard Saturday Night Live creator Lorne Michaels speak, its hard not to notice that Dr. Evils speech patterns and mannerisms are clearly meant as a homage to Lorne, the fellow Canadian who was Myers boss for many years on SNL. This was acknowledged out loud on a Saturday Night Live anniversary special.Myers SNL and Waynes World co-star, Dana Carvey, once accused Myers of stealing his Michaels impression, although he later said he had forgiven Myers.

Everyone likely remembers Austin Powers as a huge phenomenon, but it actually took a while to get going. The first movie, when it came out in 1997, had a box office figure of $53.8 million, while many fans discovered it on DVD or home video months later. The two sequels, however, both made more than $200 million, per Box Office Mojo figures. And while Verne Troyers Mini-Me was a huge part of the franchise, you may have forgotten that he was not in the first film.

Austin Powers is well-known for having lots of references to the James Bond series, from its secret agent plot to punny names like Alotta Fagina to what Roger Ebert called The Fallacy of the Talking Killer. But the film is full of other cinematic references and homages. The films of Peter Sellers are referenced constantly, especially with the stars multiple roles, and there are also nods to everything from other British spy films to the Beatles cinematic oeuvre.

Powers says this line at one point, which is a direct reference to Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, the 1970 Russ Meyer film that was the lone screenplay credit by Roger Ebert. Ebert noted this in his review.

This is always a silly question to ask, and especially silly with this film. A big part of the plot, after all, is that an unreconstructed 1960s man is dropped into the 1990s when standards of political correctness are very different than they were 30 years before. Despite more than a decade of rumors, a fourth Austin Powers movie has yet to be produced- but that likely has more to do with those catchphrases having gotten tiresome over time than any modern notions of wokeness.

Now Streaming

See the rest here:

Austin Powers: 10 things you didn't know about the landmark '90s comedy - Tilt Magazine

D. Allan Kerr| Columnist

Right-wingers in the Republican Party apparently think keeping their base fired up over what they consider wokeism is the formula to take back power in Washington DC and elsewhere. They might want to consider how foolish their antics may seem to those who are more rationally minded.

The more strident if not downright shrill GOP members have launched counter-attacks on so-called woke positions with what I consider "stokeism,"intended to stoke outrage among their constituents and not really accomplish much else.

One of the more bizarre aspects of this effort has been an apparent obsession with iconic kiddie-culture characters. Last year Ted Cruz complained about Sesame Streets Big Bird encouraging people to get vaccinated against COVID. Now Ron DeSantis has declared all-out war on Mickey Mouse for the Disney corporations advocacy for the gay community.

In fact, recent legislation pushed through by Floridas governor may be among the most transparent examples of stoke policies to date.

The so-called Dont Say Gay law signed by DeSantis in March outlaws classroom instruction in kindergarten through third grade on sexual orientation or gender identity. Now, Im pretty sure theres not a lot of sex ed in those early grades, but the legislation is vague enough so teachers could face punishment if they, say, share a book about a kid who has two dads.

Apparently, kids should not be made aware that sometimes kids have gay parents.

The Disney corporation opposed this legislation, which some say ostracizes the gay community. DeSantis, in a pretty clear case of retaliation, promptly sought to strip Disney of a special self-governing status in place for more than 50 years. However, the action was taken so hastily it isnt yet clear who will wind up footing the bill for the services previously provided by the corporation.

Ironically, DeSantis has claimed hes making this move because he wants to protect children from indoctrination. Which is funny, because I first became aware of the guy when a 2018 gubernatorial campaign ad featured him reading to his infant son a book from everyones favorite childrens author, Donald J Trump.

So now, Disney which has defined the term family-friendly for multiple generations is being portrayed as a woke corporation out to brainwash kids, and DeSantis is concocting stoke legislation to cast himself as a defender of the masses. But hes not alone. In fact, its been downright entertaining to watch some of these hard-right folks try to top each others anti-woke histrionics.

One particularly surreal episode occurred just a few weeks ago when Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin presented the Pentagons national defense budget before a congressional committee. Florida congressman Matt Gaetz (what is it with Florida Republicans?) questioned him about some obscure lecture previously given at the National Defense University, then embarked on a tangent about wokeism in the military.

Weve seen some curious moments of political theater in recent years, but watching Eddie Munsters frat-boy kid brother try to lecture a retired combat-tested four-star general a guy who served multiple stints in the 82nd Airborne and was awarded the Silver Star for leading troops in battle in Iraq about military preparedness is one of my all-time favorites.

Now, lets be honest; Matt Gaetz will never be the sharpest tool in the shed, but even he knows a classroom lecture on socialism isnt going to make our armed forces any less lethal. Nothing of significance was accomplished by his grandstanding, but Im sure he was able to stoke the indignation of those being told they are victims of wokeism.

Just as this clown heading Oklahomas Republican Party, whos now running for Congress, doesnt really believe Dr. Anthony Fauci should be tried and placed in front of a firing squad, as he said just this week. But his outrageous line drew cheers and applause at a campaign rally, and hell no doubt get some of the spotlight he clearly, desperately wanted.

Likewise, DeSantis taking away Disneys status of self-sufficiency doesnt make life any better for his constituents or their community. Its not going to repair roads or build bridges or reduce health care costs or make higher education more affordable. It doesnt lower taxes or make people safer or improve their situation in any tangible way. If anything, this move could wind up increasing taxes for neighboring towns who may have to pick up the bill to pay for services previously covered by the corporation.

But that was never the point. These political opportunists are playing to a particular segment of the population who have been persuaded smaller segments are getting special treatment. This is what drives a lot of folks now.

The Republican party I remember stood for small government, big business, a strong national defense, love of country and minding your own business (unless you were gay, or a woman). Now there seems to be an ever-growing faction simply terrified of losing their place in line.

Many of todays Republicans sound like the crybabies they always accused Democrats of being. Theyve flipped the script so much the GOP of old has become the POG the Grand Old Party is now the Party of Grievance. I dunno, maybe it's always been this way, but during the most recent heyday of Republicanism, the Reagan era, I don't recall quite so many whiners.

And all you have to do to win their support, apparently, is loudly bash what I believe used to be called political correctness. You dont even have to actually get anything done you just have to stoke to fight the woke.

D. Allan Kerr of Kittery is the author of "Silent Strength: Remembering the Men of Genius and Adventure Lost in the World's Worst Submarine Disaster."

Link:

Kerr: GOP's 'stokeism' is replacing substance with the surreal - Seacoastonline.com

The 21st century finally has its Moose Murders.

As if her two stage collaborations with Mel Brooks werent enough to make her the Vulgarian of Broadway, director-choreographer Susan Stroman followed The Producers and Blazing Saddles with Big Fish, which featured dancing elephant buttocks, and Bullets Over Broadway, which featured dancing hot-dog penises.Its fitting that Stroman should direct Selina Fillingers new comedy, POTUS, which opened Wednesday at the Shubert Theatre. Its a play that finds humor in suppositories, an anal abscess, dildos, scat, pus from that aforementioned abscess and a character who vomits blue puke. The blue-puke projectile happens twice, maybe three times. After that, the character just dry-heaves a lot for our amusement.

No surprise, POTUS is set in the White House. The big surprise is how much its subtitle Or, Behind Every Great Dumbass Are Seven Women Trying to Keep Him Alive misleads. Here, its not the president but his wife (Vanessa Williams), lesbian sister (Lea DeLaria), paramour (Julianne Hough), a female reporter (Lilli Cooper) and his female staff (Rachel Dratch, Suzy Nakamura, and Julie White) who are the real incompetents.

Beowulf Boritts massive West Wing set goes round and round, featuring everything from the chief of staffs office to the ladies loo, but its ultimate effect is to scatter the comedy all over the place. Williams has the least to do and doesnt look happy doing it. White tries especially hard, screaming to the point that she gives a pretty good vocal imitation of Harvey Fierstein. And Cooper may be the first actor to use breast pumps on a Broadway stage.

Dratch has a fun moment early in Act 1 when she accidentally ingests a lot of hallucinogens and cant find the ground shes walking on. In Act 2, shes still tripping but now covered in stage blood and multi-colored Post-Its, and wearing a big pink innertube. Since Boritts spinning set wore out its novelty in the previous act, Stroman sends Dratch into the audience to distract, followed by a few other actors, who look as if theyre really trying to escape the theater.

Hough also manages to entertain. Its refreshing to see a character break through the glass ceiling of political correctness with such determination. Maybe only a female director and a female playwright would have the courage to feature a pregnant character vomit repeatedly, then perform (offstage) fellatio on a couple of Secret Service men, who turn out to be disabled war veterans (one blind, the other an amputee), before performing cartwheels and the splits on stage. As a critic, I live to write sentences like that.

Read the original post:

POTUS Broadway Review: The President Cant Be Held Responsible for This Mess - Yahoo Entertainment

Before I get started, I recommend pulling up and reading Lennox Reeders OpEd on 3/21 side-by-side with my response to follow along.

I would like to applaud Lennox for their exposition on the subject of individualism from the perspective of a Black student at Reed College. Lennox critiques the progressively racist environment students harbor by masking it in the language of political correctness. Obligatory preface: as a White person I cannot accurately speak on non-white issues; rather, it is my duty to continuously educate myself about issues pertinent to the Black community. I am aware I hold implicit biases and with this in mind, it is not my intent to disregard Lennoxs thoughts but to expand on them.

Your observation of Reeds student body is on-point; the type of person Reed College attracts is the woke White liberal (I would describe as someone who creates a glorified humanitarian-based persona of themselves outwardly while internally holding technically conservative beliefs). I have observed that a majority of people on campus preach a community-based and equal environment while secretly believing they are the only morally correct person here. I am saying this aware of also having once held similar opinionswhich I am actively working on correcting and optimistically believe is on a positive linear track.

The quote you have chosen from philosopher Slavoj Zizek is a perfect connection to the sense of Othering you describe that exists in sub-communities on campus. While at Reed there is a desire for individualism, there is an equal, if not greater desire to belong. These insecurities materialize through the persistent cycle of subtle bullying. This idea of an insecure-rooted sense of belonging goes beyond the topic of race, however, since your OpEd highlights race as a factor, this is what I will be focusing on as well.

Your perspective on how people assume hostility towards themselves from others is understandable but is missing a key factor to go beyond the racial, and societal issue you raise; this being a post-Trump era. President Trumps administration may have only lasted one term, but its effects are long-lasting. Political beliefs aside, it is apparent Trumps America allowed Confederate pride to arise in a more apparent way than it has in the 21st century. As a White person, I believe it is reasonable for a person of color to be wary of the dominant White culture surrounding them. In Trumps America, it seemed there was an encouragement to perpetuate the internal oppressive larger regime upon sub-communities in the country. So, what does it say of your character if you go throughout your day proclaiming any issue white people hold with you as being racially motivated? As an onlooker, there is no one answer to your questionthere are individual factors that play into the larger discussion at hand. Claiming that each scrutinous issue a White person may have with you is solely due to your race, is what I would deem a form of self-victimization.

Let me create a scenario: a math professor is grading an Asian students work more harshly than a White students due to the stereotype that all Asians are good at math, yet there is no apparent evidence of the professor doing this. There may be a thought in the back of ones mind that their more strict evaluations were racially motivated; this is a valid concern to hold alongside the unknowing of the professor's own implicit biases. Possibly an even better, more timely example is the information that has come to light about Professor Paul Curries racist and xenophobic behavior. Paul may not outwardly show bias toward his students, but it would be unreasonable to assume his bias was not an influence on his past gradings.

You mention the phrase assuming everyone is out to get me. Your previous point talked about assumptions coming from White people, and yet here you talk about everyone; and everyone is not only White people. The intent of my mentioning this is out of genuine confusion. Would the situation not also vary depending on the closeness and openness one has with you? Nevertheless, if clear boundaries are not made and/or recognized, it is once again reasonable to assume something has been enacted by the other with malicious intent.

I enjoy your phrasing: when we presume trauma we enact trauma onto ourselves, violating the basic principles of consent in communication. I think this idea is incredibly important to keep in mind, however, when this is the main thought process in interactions, too much leeway may create unsafe circumstances. Moderation is imperative so one does not impose trauma onto themselves while also having the ability to keep up enough of a guard in case things go array.

You touch slightly on the topic of you, as a mixed-race individual, having difficulty finding a safe space. I cannot offer the right advice to aid in the sense of Othering you may have, as I have no obvious physical quality that would Other me. What I can say is, I think the realization you had after arguing with your partner is quite beautiful. It is also beautifully circularthis realization and new question you pose is almost the same point you made which I expanded on earlier.

Initially, I was surprised to learn that you are anti-anti-racist. I am pro-CRT teachings as they helped me broaden my understanding of persistent racial disparities that exist today. As a White person, I am the intended audience for implementing Critical Race Theory and so my viewpoint is inevitably going to be different from yours as a Black person. Upon reading my response and clarifying some points, Lennox explained the intent of the paragraph: I dont disagree with you there, CRT is good and absolutely necessary due to the violence of its definition. I dislike antiracism as in the antiracist baby or how to be anti-racist; racism is a conscious choice to meso by perceiving ita materially bad thing will bring it out into discussion. Lennox continues by explaining how if we equate racism as bad, no one will want to identify as being racist, thus causing the race to further become an issue in society. Antiracism [] [is] moralizing the issue and relying on people who already want to be better. This reduces its efficacy. I had not heard this perspective before talking to Lennox, and it is enlightening; I still, however, have a question. Considering the systemically racist society we live in, it is inevitable for young children to interact with encouraging-racist ideologies; how do you suppose we progress from this if the antiracist baby or how to be anti-racist were not implemented? The way I view it, these concepts are imperative as the mediatory phase before obtaining the ideal societal thought you express above.

(I am not going to touch on the 1916 Project since I have not heard of it, but I wanted to shout it out anyway.)

What I can touch on is your invalidation of political correctness. Dont get me wrong, I thoroughly believe in holding views outside of what is considered politically correct; I also believe it is important to hold beliefs that do fall into a category of political correctness. How I understand this concurrency can be explained through the pro-choice versus pro-life debate: would Unnamed Person ever consider having an abortion? No. Does this mean Unnamed Person believes no one should be able to have an abortion? Also no. The separation between two ideas can coexist by being individually pro-life while being outwardly pro-choice. If this is what you were saying in this section, I apologize for misinterpreting.

I think the topic of individualism itself is tricky to discuss in general, and you did a good job consideringalthough it was rather dense and it took me a couple of reads to understand. It truly feels that Reed is a perfect environment for narcissists to materialize while simultaneously causing these narcissists to hate each thing about themselves the second they are alone in their rooms. This observation isnt meant to call anyone out individually; it is merely exposing a harsh reality we all live in and yet all collectively dont want, at least to some degree. I just hope people allow themselves to go beyond the words you wrote and perform a deeper, more internal analysis.I also want to address the comments you received on the Quest website. Commenters Recent Alum and Reed make the most constructive comments rather than flat out criticism as Student2 and Guest did. If Student2 and guests re-read the piece with more due diligence, they will find the theme is the concept of individuality as a Black person rather than educating White people on Black issues is wrong. Interpreting your OpEd in the former further proves how progressive racism is alive and well on Reed Colleges campus.

Continue reading here:

Letter To The Editor: A Response to the OpEd 3/21 The Reed College Quest - The Reed College Quest

Bill Maher fans, get ready to clap your heart out. The Real Time host, whose new HBO stand-up special #Adulting airs April 15, is a self-identified liberal who likes to complain about political correctness. And he has made a career out of what Seth Meyers dubbed clapter. As described by Tina Fey, way back in 2008, clapter happens when you do a political joke and people go, Woo-hoo. Donald Glover later explained that the clapping means so true, yes, so, so true. But what you did isnt funny; theyre just clapping and laughing to be on the right side of history.

Clapter comedy threatened to overtake stand-up during the Trump era, as audiences weary of unintentional black humor in the news turned to pop cultures clear-eyed court jesters just to feel sane. But recently, catalyzed by a fiery debate surrounding free speech, hate speech, and cancel culture, clapter has metastasized into something even more corrosivesomething that goes beyond the actual substance of comedys much-discussed woke wars. As in all other corners of our polarized society, comedians have defaulted to binary ideas about right vs. wrong, our side vs. their side, justice warrior vs. truth-teller. And that impacts voices on all sides of these issues.

From provocateurs like Dave Chappelle to progressives like Hannah Gadsby, comics on the worlds biggest stages are allowing the faceless haters who criticize them on social media to consume their work. As these conflicts escalate, the result is even more attention for these stars. That isnt just bad for public discourseits bad for a mainstream comedy landscape that too rarely spotlights the many voices doing subtler, gentler, weirder, or more experimental work.

Bill Maher in '#Adulting'

Greg Endries/HBO

In defending their ideas and their work, too many of the most famous stand-ups have become smug, narcissistic, self-righteous, petty. Maher epitomizes this exhausting phenomenon. As excruciating as some of his opinions are (on R. Kelly: The music didnt rape anybody), whats most unappealing is the manner in which he delivers themas though hes the only sane, smart person in the world. The more public pushback he gets, the more sanctimonious he becomes. We never stand up to the people who wake up offended and live on Twitter, Maher complains in the special, as though his Real Time monologues werent engineered specifically to inflame that crowd and rally his own social-media surrogates. This sort of sentiment is common among comedians of his cohort: rich, famous, middle-aged, liberal men with ride-or-die fandoms who rail against cancel culture as a threat to their free speech, despite the fact that said culture doesnt even have the power to prevent Louis C.K. from winning a Grammy a few years after he admitted to sexual misconduct.

Mahers whiteness shields him from a certain strain of unconsciously racist backlash that others might face. But the vagueness of his targets also separates him from someone like Dave Chappelle, the superstar who has become the most prominent face of the free-speech-at-all-costs contingent. Theres plenty to saymost of which has already been saidabout the transphobic streak in Chappelles comedy. In discussing his style more than his content, I dont mean to minimize discussions around his attacks on a vulnerable minority that right-wing lawmakers are currently attempting to legislate out of existence. But Mahers righteousness reminded me of Chappelle, different though he may be.

David Chappelle in 'The Closer'

Mathieu Bitton/Netflix

Chappelle isnt above pandering to audiences thirsty for provocation, but hes overall a more complicated thinker. His tone veers between openhearted empathy and viciousness, drawing attention to contradictions in viewers own opinions on fraught issues and leaving room for what is often productive ambiguity around what he actually believes. And when he speaks on topics about which hes not supposed to have a take, there is often reason to be glad he did. But in last years The Closer, which Chappelle frames as his response to the LGBTQ community, the tactic backfires. An emotional anecdote about his friendship with the late trans comedian Daphne Dorman is undermined by lazy stereotyping and faulty logic that often positions queer or trans identity and Black identity as mutually exclusive. Gay people are minorities, Chappelle says, until they need to be white again.

What has stuck in Chappelles craw, as he admits in the special, is the accusation that hes punching down at trans people. That hurts becausesince theyve labeled him transphobic and since he, too, represents an oppressed communityhe feels like the injured party. If he is going to show trans people kindness, then they need to show him kindness first. Empathy is not gay, he says. Empathy is not Black. Empathy is bisexual. It must go both ways. Its a surprisingly sweet joke, but one that fails to acknowledge his long history of painting the trans community, with the exception of one trans woman who met Chappelle on his own terms, as monolithic. As far as Dave Chappelle is concerned, it seems, the most important thing about trans people is that theyre angry at Dave Chappelle. From there, its a short leap to responding to critical questions from teens at his alma mater with a reminder that, at least for now, Im better than all of you.

Such sanctimony isnt limited to comedians bent on offending the politically correct. My personal beliefs, for what its worth, align more closely with those of Hannah Gadsby, the Australian comic who broke through in the U.S. with a 2018 Netflix special, Nanette, that connects her experiences in comedy with the trauma shes suffered as a woman and a lesbian. Gadsbys particular talent as a comedian is synthesis. She can pull together a seamless set, incorporating a wide range of topics and emotional beats, by weaving in callbacks, refrains, and meta-commentaryand she knows this so well that she flaunts it, outlining at the beginning of both Nanette and 2020s follow-up Douglas what shes going to do and how shes going to do it, like Babe Ruth calling his shot. Its a neat trick, but one that can slide into the territory of condescension when Gadsby starts explaining to her audience how she expects them to react to her material, as though shes a powerful enough manipulator to override any conceivable viewers capacity for free thought.

Hannah Gadsby in 'Douglas'

Ali Goldstein/ NETFLIX

Her critics latched on to this tone as well as the specials dark content, protesting that Nanette shouldnt be classified as comedy. Douglas takes up the latter accusation in earnest. Of course not everything in Nanette was supposed to be funny, Gadsby tells the crowd: I turned the laugh tap off myself. It was a decision. I stand by it. Its not like I got halfway through the show and though: F-ck, Im out of jokes, Ill tell a sad story. Elsewhere, she launches into a self-consciously shrill rant about menjust, she says, to bait her haters. The problem with this stuff isnt that its not funny (although it isnt) so much as that it isnt insightful or challenging in the way that her other material can be. Its self-absorbed. It protests too much.

I dont think comedy specials that address serious themes, in tones that are also sometimes serious, are the problem. Stand-up is a relatively young art form, and there are only so many ways to stand in front of a microphone and deliver punchlines. More fluidity between the worlds of stand-up, spoken word, storytelling, theater, and music should only be daunting to genre puristswho, frankly, need to lighten up. The rest of us get to spend time with work that defies expectations, from Nanette to Chappelles blistering response to the murder of George Floyd, 8:46, to Bo Burnhams Inside. Earlier this month, HBO unveiled Jerrod Carmichaels Rothaniel, a deeply personal special directed by Burnham that plays like a conversation and a confession, studded with very funny jokes, about the contradictions of being a gay, Black man coming out in his mid-30s.

Jerrod Carmichael in 'Rothaniel'

HBO

For more of TIMEs culture coverage, subscribe to our entertainment newsletter, More to the Story, by clicking here.

I dont believe, either, that the woke wars are at the core of comedys current crisis. What I see is an elite tier of highly paid, internationally known comics who cant seem to accept the fact that the privilege of performing for an audience of millionsand being treated as not just an entertainer, but a thought leadercarries with it the burden of subjecting yourself to public scrutiny. Self-deprecation has gone out of style in stand-up. (For Gadsby, the choice, which she describes in Nanette, was a conscious one.) Now, theres precious little space left for introspection or humility or self-doubt. Meanwhile, the epidemic of controversy-courting smugness has been exacerbated by a content-hungry streaming industry that incentivizes comedians to insert themselves into the news cycle. When one of their names trends on Twitter, thats free advertising for the comic and the platform that releases their specials. No wonder Netflix doubled down on its support for Chappelle.

This is all a shame, because vulnerability goes a long way toward defusing the anger directed at people who tell jokes. Why has Larry Davida 74-year-old straight, white guy who never met a piety he didnt want to puncturethrived for long enough to charm millennials and Gen Z? Because his jokes about other people rarely overshadow his jokes at his own expense.

Theres a difference between using your platform to wring laughter out of the human folly in which we all participate every day and using it to fight petty battles against the haters. Comics who position themselves as infallible are always going to catch hell for ripping into others. Who are these perfect people that we have in America now? Maher demands in #Adulting, during a riff on the supposed cancellation of Aziz Ansari. So many perfect people who never make a mistake, never do anything wrong, yet get to judge your date. Comedian, heal thyself.

More Must-Read Stories From TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com.

Read the original here:

Bill Maher's #Adulting and Comedians' Obsession With Haters - TIME

[Editors note: WatchNot My Partyevery week on Snapchat.]

Tim Miller: Not the political outsider we want, but maybe the one we deserve?

Elon Musk (playing Wario on Saturday Night Live): I am not the evil, I just am misunderstood.

Batman (from a CollegeHumor parody): What? Come on!

Miller: This is Not My Party, brought to you by The Bulwark. I always hear from fellow squishy centrists that we need an outsider to break up the two-party duopoly. In their minds, this imaginary person is sensible, pragmatic, with moderate political tastesan American Macron.

Leonard Hofstadter (Johnny Galecki in The Big Bang Theory): Is that even possible?

Miller: Sadly, the voters here dont really seem to dig that. The truth is if we are ever going to get a third-party candidate who can break up the political order, it will almost certainly be much crazier than the practical person of our dreams.

Video game characters: Its a bird! Its a plane!

Captain Kirk: Its something so . . . completely different.

Miller: The candidate who might pull it off would likely have a problematic posting habit, a fondness of smearing people they dont like as pedophiles, and a tabloid marriage that keeps them in the news. No, not that guy.

Alec Baldwins Donald Trump: Terrific.

Miller: This one. Musk is the rare, controversial firebrand who has popularity across partisan lines. He works for a company that can make a dent in climate change, while also ranting about political correctness on social media. He hates the social justice warriors, but its hard to see him saying Onward Christian Soldiers as well.

Mike Allen: Do you believe in God?

Dwight Schrute: Ill take that as a no.

Miller: Though Elons most important trait isnt ideological, its a mastery of mass communication in the modern age. Take, for example, how he inserted himself in this weeks new cycle. For some reason, Elon decided to troll his way into becoming Twitters largest shareholder.

Elaine Benes: Can he do that?

Jerry Seinfeld: He did.

Miller: So it was looking like Musk was going to join the companys board, so that he could air his grievances about Twitters censorship practices. Thats what a typical investor would do: Work behind the scenes to get Twitter to stop with the overly politicized speech restrictions, like silencing the Hunter Biden laptop story I mentioned the other week, and then try to help the company grow so the investor could make more bank.

Stephano / Count Olaf (Neil Patrick Harris in A Series of Unfortunate Events): What a sensible idea.

Miller: Not Elon, he was reminded that board members have, ya know, fiduciary responsibilities.

Jonah Simms (Ben Feldman on Superstore): That sounds incredibly not fun.

Miller: And that those obligations to the company might hamper his ****posting, which was one reason why he backed out at the last second and then sent a lengthy Twitter thread about how terrible the company that he was investing millions in really is.

Pepper Brooks (Jason Bateman in Dodgeball): Its a bold strategy, Cotton, lets see if it pays off for him.

Miller: This shows that Elon understands his most valuable asset is command of the attention economy.

Musk: Where are the aliens? Maybe theyre among us. Some people think Im an alien.

Miller: He is rewarded by blowing **** up for the lolz and creating drama. Not by being practical and trying to nudge things along.

Miller: I reinvented electric cars, and Im sending people to Mars in a rocket ship. Did you think I was also gonna be a chill, normal dude?

Miller: Its the attention economy that fuels his ability to send rocket ships to the moon, both figuratively and literally. And sometimes his attention-hogging is good, like when SpaceX helps Ukraine get internet access. And sometimes its bad, like when hes downplaying a pandemic that killed millions. But no matter what you think about his hot takes, as a business matter, the strategys working.

Musk: I dont really have a business plan.

Miller: Check out this chart from my colleague at The Bulwark a few months back. Tesla is worth more than GM, Ford, Honda, and Toyota combined, despite selling the fewest cars of all. The reason is partially investors betting on the future, but its also because Elon dominates the meme marketplace with his fanboys. So could that type of populist, contrarian, trolling ethos disrupt politics the way it did the auto industry?

Musk: We dont think about it at all really.

Miller: I think the answer is yeah, with the right messenger.

Shrek: Really?

Donkey: Really, really.

Miller: Unfortunately for Elon, but probably fortunately for the rest of us, hes not an American, so he cant do this himself, at least on the presidential level, as long as that rule stands

Arnold Schwarzenegger (in Hercules in New York): I am tired off the same old faces.

Miller: But when thinking about a future where a new politician, unshackled from the two parties, offers a third way, look to an iconoclast like Musk as the modelnot the studious teachers pet that some of us might prefer.

Musk: Okay. Im not sure I want to be me.

Frank Reynolds (Danny DeVito in Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia): Youre full of shit.

Miller: See you next week for more Not My Party.

Excerpt from:

Elon Musk, Twitter, and the Politics of Disruption - The Bulwark

Dominic Raabs proposal to replace the Human Rights Act with a British bill of rights is not evidence-based and will diminish protections for individuals, MPs and peers have said.

The criticisms by the joint committee on human rights (JCHR) are the latest directed at the planned changes, which the justice secretary has said will counter wokery and political correctness and expedite the deportation of foreign criminals.

In a report published on Wednesday, the committee says that by placing greater restrictions on who can bring a human rights claim or reducing damages owed to a claimant because they are perceived as undeserving, the government would contravene the fundamental principle that human rights are universal.

While Raab has said the changes will strengthen free speech the liberty that guards all of our other freedoms the JCHR claims it will weaken other rights, against which it is currently balanced, such as the right to privacy and to a fair trial.

The JCHR chair, Harriet Harman, said: The governments case that human rights legislation is in serious need of reform is not proven. There is nothing in their consultation that would serve to strengthen the protections we currently have and much that would weaken them.

In many cases what is described as the strengthening of rights is simply tweaking what is already protected, while at the same time making it harder for people to actually enforce their rights.

The committee found that the right to jury trial in the new bill of rights was symbolic as there would be no change to the current limit on jury trial in England and Wales for serious offences. It said fears that UK courts were taking decisions that should be made by parliament were unfounded, rendering obsolete any need for change.

The proposals, out for consultation until 19 April, would also weaken the current obligation for UK courts to take into account judgments from the European court of human rights (ECHR).

In response, the committee says the number of cases brought against the UK in Strasbourg since the Human Rights Act became law in 1998 has fallen. It adds that if, as a result of changes, UK courts diverged from established interpretations of convention rights, it would lead to lengthy and costly litigation and ironically more cases presided over by the ECHR.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: Our proposals will strengthen quintessentially British human rights, such as freedom of expression, while staying a party to the ECHR.

They will also prevent abuses of the system, adding a healthy dose of common sense and restore parliaments rightful role as the ultimate decision-maker on laws impacting the UK population.

Read more from the original source:

Replacing Human Rights Act will weaken protections, say peers and MPs - The Guardian

We as individuals in a modern society becoming more technocratically dystopian by the day, will inevitably be faced with a choice. Succumb to the allure of a centrally owned and issued digital money (panopticoin) or a truly sovereign, organic, digital money with roots in the physical (Bitcoin).

The west is no longer The West. It no longer even deserves to be capitalized.

What made it great and successful, the Enlightenment values and the sovereignty of the individual, are all but dissolved in the morass of modernitys mindlessness.

Gone are the days of excellence, greatness and standing out.

In are the days of conformity, compliance, acceptance, participation awards and fitting in.

The values and virtues that made the West great have been replaced with the incessant cry for comfort and convenience, in return for obedience.

The crescendo of this horrific orchestra is nigh.

Gaslighting is the norm, and like Orwell predicted, War is now peace, Freedom is now slavery, Ignorance is now strength.

In place of the article, I could just stick a bunch of images upbut alasI am a writer.

Collage by author

Collage by author

The west was not defeated by a single blow. It was death by a thousand minute and meaningless cuts.

From pronouns to equality, scientism, welfare, climate alarmism, political correctness, this incessant need to deconstruct objective reality into completely arbitrary subjective falsehoods has transformed the once-great West into a cesspool of moral relativism.

When everything matters, nothing matters.

It truly has become clownworld.

Source: @nvk Twitter

We used to aspire to greatness and excellence. We were interested in the idea of quality, of worth and of value.

Now: there is no more value like the money we conjure out of thin air and use to measure human action and all resources. Everything has been supposedly made abundant (because we have no anchor to real cost) and as a result, were drowning in excess quantities of fake wealth and junk that does not matter, whether this be NFTs, moronic media, reality TV, garbage music, fake celebrities, brainwashing at school, nursing-home-level politicians or scamdemics.

And because we spend all our time lying to ourselves and burning through real resources, were simultaneously suffering from shortages in areas that do matter energy, food, responsibility, intelligence and courage.

We used to be pioneers. We used to envision our place in the stars. Now we bicker and worry about our place in the dirt:

Its a sad time for humanity, and dare I say that only god knows when we come out on the other end, if we do so at all.

The empire of lies cannot last, and it will collapse either on top of all of us, or atop only some. I sincerely hope the latter for the only meaningful and realistic goal we have left, as sovereign intelligent individuals, is to limit the collateral damage.

As we embark on this pursuit, and as the collapse of these false orders inevitably occur, its my belief that Homo sapiens will bifurcate into two primary camps, and perhaps even species (after many generations):

The former are the classic mid-wit/NPC/shitcoiner/statist persona those who lack personal control and restraint, and as such project that lack onto the rest of the world.

A key characteristic is the yearning to reduce the diverse constituents of a complex organism into simple numbers, and transform these systems into mere spreadsheets.

They are the doctors who believe health is the absence of disease, that disease is the absence of modern medicine and that depression is the absence of Prozac or MDMA.

They lack the capacity to think holistically and they view all fractal, complex systems as linear and isolated from the whole.

They have major control issues because they lack self-control, and thus compensate by attempting to control others.

They are willing to trade the diversity and complexity of life for sterility and linearity of control.

Homo Bitcoinicus on the other hand will be the kind of individual who continues to become more robust, sovereign and self-reliant. They will be too busy practicing self-mastery and building something of value to bother with meddling in other peoples lives.

They will live more local, they will own the product of their labor, they will trade freely and they will have no master. They will own stuff and be happy.

And of course, among Homo Bitcoinicus there will be diverse classes of people arranged into hierarchies of competence. They will not be built upon some arbitrary authority-by-decree, but via the emergence of natural leaders and masters of their craft.

This is what nobility means in the classical sense. To be noble is something to aspire toward, not something to sneer at.

To be noble is to pursue excellence and greatness. It is my hope that the New West will be both built and populated by Homo Bitcoinicus.

But before we get there, there will be a significant price to pay. Ive experienced first-hand the vitriolic nihilism, short-termism and mindlessness from lemmings who believe in fantasies like pumpamentals, surveillance states, digital identities and Ponzi schemes.

These meaningless, empty pursuits have an allure to the masses which will be hard for Bitcoins core value proposition to compete with. Most of these people dont want responsibility. They don't produce anything.They want a leader (overlord)- They want UBI. They want to be told what to do and they want a safety net provided by their masters.

Enter crypto

Wonder Boy + Tech + Blockchain + VCs + WEF + Academia + UBI

If thats a prince, we know exactly how sickly both the world and crypto are.

The ideal way to ensure the sheep get led to the slaughter is to encourage them to run in that direction themselves. In fact, if those sheep have some actual wealth and resources, you may even be able to get them to buy their own ticket to the slaughterhouse.

This is what Ethereum and the broader VC-backed shitcoin industry is:An expensive ticket to your own spot in the techno-gulags of the 21st century.

Synthetic wombs, bugs, soylent and the metaverse await you. Heres your Bored Ape jpeg, a copy of Hararis 21 Lessons and proof of iris-scan. You may now proceed to your pod.

Collage by author.

Meet your new masters.

For all the crypto-bros, whether larping about freedom or chasing muh gains, congratulations. Seriously. Youre trading your freedom for some monopoly money, and trading Klaus Schwab for Vitalik Buterin.

There is no honor or courage in this. Furthermore, there is no morality. There is only the loss of ones soul.

Free money and airdrops are tools to get you sucked into the racket. Nothing in life comes for free; there is always a cost. In this case, it will be the cost of your own sovereignty.

A lemming will always trade their freedom for the free scraps wiped off the (network) table at which your overlords eat. Dont be one of them.

And if you can avoid that siren call, then have the courage to not be one of the opportunists who acquires the scraps first to sell to the others. That does not make you better.

Men with integrity are those who can show restraint, and in a world where sound values are continually being eroded and structures are falling apart, restraint is an asset the best of us must necessarily possess.

Bitcoin = Individual Freedom.

At the center of the divide for Western Man lies this choice:

Crypto or Bitcoin

This may sound like an exaggerated statement, but its true.

Legacy fintech will dissolve and be absorbed into this new technological paradigm, irrespective of how moronic it is and the quantity of smoke and mirrors used to obfuscate their real operation.

Bitcoin fundamentally changed everything, and one of the unfortunate trade-offs that had to be made in open-sourcing money, was a world where the money-printer would in a sense be democratized. Its made it easier for any dweeb to just spin up their own shitcoin, get some funding and roll it out; as such the legitimacy of national currencies issued by nation-states will continue to diminish.

The only option available to legacy finance and central banking is to either partner with organizations such as ConsenSys (which they are already doing), or simply fund them, whether overtly or covertly.

This is the attack vector that not enough intelligent people are talking about. I made it clear to Pomp on his podcast about a year ago now, and if anything, my suspicions have proved accurate:

If youre supporting these shitcoins, then you are in fact part of the problem. Youre adding liquidity, youre justifying their existence, and youre making the Overton window more inclusive for scammers, idiots and the literal enemy.

Crypto is a wolf in sheeps clothing and the sheeple are falling for it, hook, line and sinker.

There are many reasons, but to sum up a few of them, Bitcoin is:

The magnitude of this achievement is staggering and the inability for people to comprehend it is both mind-numbingly frustrating, but also expected, considering the nihilistic pets humans have become.

Perhaps the words on this page jolt you. Or perhaps Im yelling at clouds. I do not know, but I will try my best to remind you that fiat is the enemy, in every sense of the word and in every incarnation. Shitcoins are just replicating the fiat we already have, but on a more digital standard, in a clear attempt to build technocratic oligarchies.

Do you want to give one of these nerds, who are no different than Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg, ultimate power over you?

Supporting shitcoins is not only a path to financial bankruptcy, but it is morally bankrupt. Youre supporting not only the scammers who create them, but youre helping lead other sheep to the slaughter and youre just slowing down the best chance we have to break the abomination that is the state.

The construct discussion by Morpheus in the original Matrix movie is likely the best quote in the history of film and I bring it up in almost every fifth article I write. But it rings so true. Those in the system will fight to save it, even though they are enslaved by it and you are trying to free them from their shackles!

Its mind-boggling, but I guess thats what happens when everybody is in a constant trance. Zombies walk forth blindly and the very meaning of the images they see and the words they hear are changed.

The word crypto for example used to be short for cryptography or crypto-anarchy.

Its now shorthand for cryptocurrencies, which unfortunately boils down to:

I dont know which exactly is the most potentially harmful, but Id venture to say the last one.

Ethereum, for example, is one of the more pernicious of these machinations.

Not only is the Ethereum Foundation (the existence of a foundation should give away what this thing is) infused with World Economic Forum participants, but Ethereum co-founder Joseph Lubin founded ConsenSys which owns Infura which practically the entire Ethereum network runs on. Lubin is part of the old guard: worked at Goldman Sachs and I believe is in bed with the agencies attempting to reduce the world into a spreadsheet and humans into numbers to populate it with (WEF, BlackRock, et al.).

How is any of this antifragile?

How is this in any way related to what Bitcoin stands for?

How are you sovereign when the foundation upon which the promise to you has been made is literally owned by a couple of people.

You are another product, in the same way youre Zuckerbergs product on Facebook.

Charles Hoskisson and his Cordanoh shitcoin is another example.

Heres Hoskinson talking at Davos in 2020 about social credit systems being built on blockchains. If you didnt know, Davos is the annual meeting put on by the WEF, where insiders and parasites fly in with private jets to talk about how the rest of us should own nothing, reduce our carbon footprint and be happy eating bugs.

Blockchain for social good.

These charlatans (Hoskinson is in his early 30s by the way; the whole late-40s professor look is a charade) and the think tanks they put together are either:

Either way, their wet dreams of globalist techno-utopias are panopticons in the making. Hoskinson claims that his goal is to build a global stock market, a global venture capital for the poorest people in the world by implementing a so-called self-sovereign identity on the network he owns and pair that with the tracking and traceability and the ability to know that people are spending money correctly.

Thank you, oh lord Hoskinson. Without you, I would never know how to spend the product of my own labor. I would simply starve, naked and alone on the streets.

Thats how dumb these people think we all are.

..unfortunately, for the Homo Hystericus subset of humanity, they may be right.

They are not the same.

And if youre a shitcoiner, we are not the same.

Ethereum changes nothing about the legacy financial and governance system, other than using some bitcoin-like technology for payments and the replacement of old-school bankers and politicians with nerds and new-school, globalist politicians, like Aya Miyaguchi, a board member of the Ethereum Foundation and member of the World Economic Forum (the think tank behind lockdowns, climate change hysteria and injection mandates).

In fact, the very existence of an Ethereum foundation tells you enough about what this project is.

Its a private company (like the Federal Reserve) disguised as a startup-like get-rich-quick scheme, designed to use your money to fund their way into control.

Been telling this for how long now?
Crypto is an attack on #bitcoin

Wake up.

We are not the same. pic.twitter.com/ujS6Y5DwSE

— Svetski (@SvetskiWrites) January 18, 2022

Weve seen what happens when the ruling class of Ethereum (its founders) dont like the outcome. From the DAO hack to the multiple hard forks, to the transitions of what Ethereum is. It all just represents a new cabal that is there to run your life.

Bitcoin is special not because it has a fixed supply, but because its fixed supply is both verifiable and enforceable.

Verifiable with a single request, that your full node can ping back immediately.

Enforceable because your full node runs Bitcoin. Not Infura. The fact that its in sync with other full nodes means that you have a global Bitcoin network.

You cannot run an Ethereum Node, nor can you even know the supply.

Pierre Rochard tore them apart in 2020-2021 when he asked an honest question to the Ethereum community about the total supply. Hundreds of different answers came back, followed by an uproar about that doesnt matter.

Well thats fantastic. These idiots literally built a monetary network which functions just like the old system, except slower and a little more open/accessible.

Congratulations sir, you got played.

Proof-of-stake is literally the definition of central banking, just in a digital capacity.

In fact, its even worse because the entity that created, pre-mined and launched the currency is the one that ultimately runs the network and can do so with minimal checks and balances.

Read the original here:

Slave Coin Or Freedom Coin: Which Way Western Man? - Bitcoin Magazine

The American news media has collectively decided to ignore Donald Trump's threats of white supremacist violence and sedition. If you believe this will keep you safe from his schemes and machinations, or from what his legions of followers may do, you are greatly mistaken.

Apparently, the gatekeepers of the approved public discourse have convinced themselves that they are somehow serving the public interest by ignoring these escalating threats. In reality, these gatekeepers are doing exactly the opposite: They are normalizing American fascism by minimizing its dangers. In a moment when the news media as an institution should sound the alarm even more loudly about the threat to American democracy, safety and security represented by Trumpism and neofascism a choice has been made to mock or whitewash the imminent danger.

One does not ignore an arsonist in the hope that he will stop burning down buildings; the same logic should apply to political arsonists as well.

Did you know that last Saturday Donald Trump held a political hate rally in Selma, North Carolina? If you follow the mainstream news media, the answer is likely no. Here is what you missed. As he has done repeatedly, Donald Trump summoned up the demons of Jim Crow and the Confederacy. He may try to hide his hatred and bigotry by sharing a stage with Black and brown people, and he may disingenuously employ the language of the civil rights movement, but Donald Trump is at his core a white supremacist and racial authoritarian.

RELATED:New research on Trump voters: They're not the sharpest tools in the box

Donald Trump remains the de facto leader of the Republican Party. He won almost 75 million votes in 2020 significantly more than in 2016 because Republican voters enthusiastically agree with him and what he represents. His values are their values. Trumpism and neofascism more generally are both a symptom and a cause of an American political culture and society that is deeply sick with multiple ailments: racism and misogyny, cruelty and greed, anti-LGBTQ bigotry, religious fundamentalism, anti-intellectualism, an obsession with violence and other antisocial and anti-human values.

The relationship between the leader and follower in a political cult such as today's Republican Party is deep and powerful. Diane Roberts of the Florida Phoenix summarizes this unhealthy psychodynamic:

Republicans are angry.

So very, very angry.

Deranged White Man Syndrome has not yet been listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, but it's just a matter of time.

Seriously, these dudes (and they are mostly male-gendered persons) are on a rampage of rage and loathing which cannot be healthy.

Living in a constant tantrum must be exhausting for Republicans. I suspect that somewhere in the deep recesses of their brains, they know that while they may hold power at the moment, the world is changing.

And they can't stand it.

Let's hope they get serious therapy: This is a sick, sick, sick bunch of people.

To the uninitiated and also to those who have just become numb to it all Trump's North Carolina speech was an uninspired recitation of his personal grievances, malignant narcissism ("I've got to be the cleanest, I think I'm the most honest human being, perhaps, that God has ever created") and victim fantasies, mixed with now-standard talking points about the Big Lie, the 2020 election and Jan. 6, "parents' rights", "invaders" at the U.S.-Mexico border, supposed crime and barbarism in "Democrat-run" major cities and an assortment of lies both small and large about Joe Biden and the Democrats.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

But for those attuned to the poisonous gospel that is white supremacy in America, Trump's words and the danger they represent were very clear. As a matter of self-defense and survival, Black and brown folks must be keenly aware of such words. Trump's cult followers and other members of the conservative movement and larger white right also hear his words and understand their message clearly. For them, Trump's words are inspiration and aspiration.

Too many Americans choose not to hear Trump's gospel of hate it all feels so unseemly and uncomfortable. They truly believe that they have the luxury to ignore reality.

Too many other Americans choose not to hear Trump and the white right's gospel of hate because it all feels so unseemly and uncomfortable. They may be fence-sitters, in denial about the realities of American neofascism and this moment of crisis. Or they may turn away because various forms of privilege, be it race, class, gender, religion or sexual orientation enables them to do so. Those who possess such privilege and other forms of unearned advantages truly believe that they have the luxury to ignore reality until it is no longer possible to do so.

Trump's gospel of hate in Selma focused on three main points. He spoke about the "heritage" of the South and how it is supposedly being destroyed or deleted by "woke" liberals with their political correctness. Here Trump was directly alluding to Confederate statues and other monuments as well as the Confederate flag originally erected to honor the white supremacist Southern secessionist traitors and their bloody desperate struggle to keep Black Americans as human property forever. Many or most such monuments were actually erected in the first decades of the 20th century, specifically to terrorize Black Americans, reminding them that they are supposed to be second-class citizens in their own country.

Today's Republican Party embraces the Lost Cause ideology and the Confederacy as something noble and good. That was visible in the Confederate flags seen at Selma, as well as those seen at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Thosesymbols cannot be salvaged or reclaimed. They represent a white supremacist insurrection against the very idea of multiracial democracy.

In an example of the rhetorical strategy known as "narrative laundering," Donald Trump also summoned up the Black Freedom Struggle and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause while defending his followers who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6. This is the newest iteration of the Big Lie, with its claims that these fascists are "political prisoners" who were "entrapped" by the Democrats and law enforcement agencies. Trump echoed the lie that has become widespread among Republicans that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is somehow responsible for the violence of Jan. 6, rather than Trump and his fellow coup plotters.

To use the language of the 14th Amendment explicitly added to the Constitution to protect the civil rights of Black Americans after their centuries of enslavement and then hard-won freedom as a cheap tool for defending the fascists who were fighting to overthrow multiracial democracy is perverse even by Trump's standards.

Using the language of the 14th Amendment added to protect the civil rights of Black people who had won their freedom to defend fascists is perverse even by Trump standards.

As he has reliably done at all his recent political hate rallies, in Selma Trump continued to incite political violence and terrorism against Joe Biden, the Democrats and liberals and progressives more generally. He called the Democrats "sick and radical politicians," claiming they were "destroying" America from within and must be stopped. Trump also claimed the right-wing paramilitaries who were recently acquitted on charges of planning to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer as fellow "victims" of some non-existent Democratic Party conspiracy.

Like other Republican-fascists and their propagandists, Trump continued to fan the flames of the QAnon conspiracy theory and the larger right-wing moral panic around "gender issues" and "critical race theory," claiming that (white) children and the (white) American family are in physical and moral danger from "the left." These threats are not implied: such language is an encouragement to violence and other forms of right-wing terrorism. As seen by the events of Jan. 6 such combustible language has real-world effects.

When more right-wing violence inevitably occurs, the news media will of course engage in collective shock and surprise, expressing wide-eyed disbelief that such things could actually happen in America.

Indeed, how could such things happen? After seven or so years of a rising fascist threat, none of this should be a surprise for anyone who has paid even the slightest of attention. That it is still a "surprise" to many of the country's pundits, opinion leaders and others who are supposed to know better says far too much about their increasing irrelevance in this interregnum of American history.

Trump's Republican Party and the larger neofascist movement are unified around one goal, which is creating a 21st-century version of American apartheid. This revolutionary campaign involves reversing the gains of the civil rights movement and Black Freedom Struggle and also undoing the victories of the women's rights, LGBTQ rights, labor and environmental movements, along with all other attempts to build a social democracy in which equal freedoms and rights are enjoyed by all Americans.

The Democratic Party has shown itself to be largely ineffective, powerless and incompetent in their response to the neofascist attacks on democracy. This is part of a much larger pattern: For more than 50 years the Republican Party and the "conservative" movement have won and kept power by leveraging the politics of white racial resentment and grievance-mongering, even though their policies are extremely unpopular with most of the public. In many ways, Trumpism, neofascism and straightforward white identity politics are the next step in that political strategy.

What should the Democrats do? They need to speak in clear and direct terms about the dangers the Republicans represent. Democrats also need to make clear to their voters and the larger public that Republicans (and the Trump movement specifically) view liberals, progressives, Black and brown people, the LGBTQ community and other marginalized groups as enemies and an existential threat to their right-wing nightmare version of America. That animus is not about "mere" disagreements about public policy or just a matter of "polarization," partisanship or hyperbolic language. It is a direct threat of violence, with the goal of eliminating the "enemy" in order to "purify" America.

In even more plain speech: if you are not white (and a man), a heterosexual, and a so-called "Christian," today's Republican Party, the "conservative" movement, and the larger white rightdo not like you. They want you to suffer.Republicans are masters at the personalization of grievance, and will lie and distort reality and the facts to frighten their voters in order to win, maintain and expand their political power and societal control.

Democrats need to respond in kind by personalizing the dangers that Republicans, the "conservative" movement, and the larger white right pose to the American people as a whole. This is a remarkably easy strategy to implement: All it requires is for Democrats to tell the truth about the human misery that Republicans and "conservatives" have caused for decades and the much worse misery they will cause in the future.

Yet out of gross denial, or perhaps naive investment in a "normal" political order that is dying and cannot be resurrected, the Democrats have not done that and likely never will. This is not even defeat. It's surrender, and a pitiable sight at a moment when courage is required to save American democracy and society from the neofascist assault.

Read more on the endless saga of our 45th president:

See original here:

Another Trump hate rally: The threats get worse, and polite America turns away - Salon

DL Hughley said that television and radio changed forever as a result of the February 1, 2004, wardrobe malfunction that Janet Jackson had during her Super Bowl halftime show with Justin Timberlake.

After the event, the television executives immediately inserted a tape delay. The delay was why the slap that Will Smith gave Chris Rock could not be seen on American television; it had to be viewed on a foreign feed.

Radio adopted a dump button. The FCC also added punitive action. Incidents of violence, profanity, and nudity can result in a $250,000 fine. According to Hughley, Smith has 70 complaints against him.

Now, something has happened again. As a result of the Smith slap, comedy is changing. One of the most significant changes has been to security, said Hughley. He said his latest show had vamped up security due to his agents concerns.

It is making people believe that they can walk on stage and slap comedians if they say something they dont like, said Hughley.

According to Hughley, cancel culture has already left comedians on edge. Social media has made comedy creators nervous about the material they use for shows and their actions on stage.

Comedy was already under assault. There was an [era] of political correctness that inhibited many people from saying things. Many people were hesitant to go out because something they said or did on stage could be then shown to the rest of the world and cause them to be canceled, claimed Hughley.

Hughley said comedy is now more dangerous because of Smith. He claims that many people agree with Smith, and people now think assaulting comedians is acceptable. Some comedians are afraid to get on stage after the slap, added Hughley.

Ive talked to several comedians; they dont want to go out anymore. Before that [slap], it was because of political correctness. Now its because of violence, said Hughley.

Hughley said laughter is the best form of medicine because it can heal people. Comedians, known in antiquated times as jesters, were once used to serve the king. Comedians have survived everything, even being killed by the king. Hughley said comedy has persevered through all the challenges and is now in jeopardy because of the Fresh Prince.

Originally posted here:

Comedy Is More Dangerous Because Of Will Smith: DL Hughley Weighs In On The Consequences Of The Slap (Video) - Radio Facts