Category Archives: Political Correctness

The Senates failure to remove President Trump from office for abuse of power constituted a giant step toward authoritarianism. Separation of powers and impeachmentfailed to check its advance. Unfortunately, the Constitutions establishment of the electoral college allowed an anti-democratic minority to gain power. Driving this trend isa demographic shift toward whites becoming the minority in about 20 years. "Birtherism," building a border wall, banning Muslim immigration, and legitimizing misogyny reveal the bigotry driving this community.

Decades of Republican efforts to prevent gun control, attack "political correctness," limit reproductive rights, suppress the minority vote, and gerrymander voting districts make it clear that individual freedom and expansion of human rights is not where President Trump and his supporters want the country to go. Voters who see themselves as a persecuted minority look to Trump to preserve their long held privileges by preserving white supremacy. The countrys only hope for ensuring democracys survival now lies in the outcome of the election of 2020.

David M. Collins

New London

See original here:

New London and southeastern Connecticut News, Sports, Business, Entertainment and Video - theday.com

Juneaus Wearable Art exhibition has seen better days at least more creative days, and more liberated days.

Just two years ago, more than 30 entrants typically took part in the pageant, which is a fundraiser for the operations of the Juneau Arts and Humanities Council.

[Read: The end of art in Juneau]

But then came the woke police.

In 2018, one creative entry from Haines caught the ire of progressives, who said it was cultural appropriation. The garment and model were withdrawn from the competition and publicly humiliated. JAHC then set forth stringent rules to ensure that no one ever commits the sin of cultural appropriation again.

Creativity, meet political correctness.

The result of JAHCs plunge into an era of artistic prohibition? Only 18 people even entered this, the 20th anniversary of the arts event. Thats a 40 percent drop in the usual number entries.

2018-2019 became the era of an ensuing Mao-like criticism-self-criticism exercise by the arts council, which now states its mission as not promoting the arts, but destroying racial inequality.

The JAHC recognizes that our society is challenged to overcome a complex web of inequities racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and ableism among them. All of these forms of discrimination are powerful drivers of unequal individual and group outcomes. However, it is our belief that ALAANA [African, Latino, Asian, and Native American] individuals whose identities intersect with those of other minority social statuses often experience compounded mistreatment that is amplified by the interaction of race. We support the work being undertaken to dismantle the array of social and economic injustices; however, The JAHC has determined that we must focus our efforts to heighten our effectiveness. We move forward from our assessment that racism is one of the most pressing issues of our time, and that meaningful progress on advancing racial equity will have significant positive impact on challenging other discrimination-based injustices. Therefore, our current priority is working against racism by working toward racial equity in arts philanthropy.

So states part of the long political creed that prospective artists read before they take part in the wearable arts competition.

The JAHC Board of Directors and Staff have enacted an equity and inclusion policy to guide JAHC programming, events and actions. During the development of this policy there have been many courageous conversations about racial inequity, cultural appropriation and unintentional exclusion and stereotyping. And, we are confident and hopeful these rewarding and courageous conversations will continue. Please review the equity and inclusion policy on the next page, and keep it in mind as you design and create your project.

The theme for this years pageant was Joie de Vivre, joy of living. The artists, however, held back because in this era of political correctness, being subject to shame by your arts peers is a bit of a kill joy.

(Editors note: the wearable art shown at the top of this story is from the 2019 competition, the first-place winner Wishes & Prayers in Turbulent Times by Rhonda Jenkins Gardinier).

Like Loading...

Read more from the original source:

Juneau's wearable art pageant shrinks in age of political correctness - Must Read Alaska

Japanese animation has long had a reputation for pushing the boundaries of whats acceptable, but is it pushing too far these days?

Anime used to be conceived, produced, and consumed pretty much all within the confines of Japan. Sure, the occasional series would get licensed for overseas distribution, but with its story and characters so thoroughly rewritten, and its visuals so extensively re-cut, as to have little to no relation to the original version.

That started to change in the first major overseas anime boom of the 1990s, but even then, a series getting officially released outside of Japan was still the exception, not the rule. Nowadays, though, things have flipped entirely. Its now practically a given that any anime but the most obscure or prohibitively expensive-to-license ones will stream online internationally, and most of those will get overseas home video releases too.

But as access to anime gets easier and easier, its overseas audience is continually expanding beyond people who grew up with or have an interest in/affinity for the set of Japanese societal values reflected in the medium. Because of that, theres been increased debate as to whether or not anime needs to be more concerned with the idea of political correctness, and Japanese Twitter user @poepoeta01 recently weighed in with his opinion.

Many people are under the mistaken impression that Japans manga and anime have earned their popularity overseas simply because of the artists high level of technical skill.

Japans manga and anime are interesting because compared to other countries, theyre made under wild, limitless freedom of expression, without any restrictions.

Saying If anime isnt more conscious about being politically correct, it wont expand its overseas market it totally off the mark.

The majority of the direct reactions to @poepoeta01s tweet have been in support of his analysis and stance, with comments such as:

Totally right. I think this is why Chinese-made anime-style animation hasnt caught on internationally.Its like how late-night comedy shows are really funny, but then they lose their edge when the performers try to transition to more mainstream prime-timeprograms.I cant imagine another country where artists would be able to make a manga about Buddha and Jesus sharing an apartment.Japanese culture has traditionally been a closed-off one, where otaku-like communities come together to push an artistic field forward, and while that inner circle is amusing itself, the art becomes so polished that eventually outsiders notice and are impressed by the quality. People who like anime support each other, and people who dont like it dont watch it.

That last bit of reasoning, though, is something one could argue has new wrinkles to it in the current anime industry. With international distribution now easier than ever before, brand-new anime content is just a few clicks away for anyone with an Internet connection. Setting aside the question of whether or not anime has become more mainstream in overseas markets, access to it has definitely gotten much easier for non-Japanese media consumers, and an anime with content they find objectionable now risks leaving money on the table, money that could be used to help secure the long-term stability of a franchise and bankroll the continuing content production.

While not as numerous as the responses of agreement, @poepoeta01s assertation that anime shouldnt be concerned with political correctness also produced a few that disagreed.

Youre totally wrong. I have no idea what youre talking about.Looking at the staff credits for anime, I feel like you can say that it isnt made only by teams that are 100-percent Japanese anymore, and I think thats going to be the case more and more.

@poepoeta01, though, went on to offer a different idea of how the internationalization of anime could play out in a follow-up tweet, saying that he hopes Japan becomes a bastion of free expression that will welcome artists from overseas who feel like their creative efforts are being stifled by regulations in their home countries.

In a purely mathematical sense, all else equal it stands to reason that reducing the amount of potentially offensive content in an anime broadens its potential market. On the other hand, animes distinct style and atmosphere, which grew out of its by Japan, for Japan nature, has established a fanbase outside its original country of origin thats really only surpassed by Disney in the animation field. If the goal is to maximize animes popularity overseas, ostensibly theres a sweet spot between aligns so poorly with overseas societal expectations as to anger and alienate viewers and overlaps so much with the tone of overseas media that it cant stand out as unique.

The question of whether or not Japanese anime creators want to try to find that sweet spot, or if they fell trying to do so would put too much of a damper on enthusiasm from Japanese audiences, though, is something they still seem to be sorting out.

Source: Twitter/@poepoeta01 via Hachima KikoTop image: PakutasoInsert images: Pakutaso Want to hear about SoraNews24s latest articles as soon as theyre published? Follow us on Facebook and Twitter!

Like Loading...

See more here:

Does anime need to start being more politically correct for overseas audiences? Twitter debates - SoraNews24

By Alicia Clark

SaturdayFeb22,2020at2:01AM

For some, a shift over the decades was done with great trepidation. Who can blame them? Almost everywhere you look there is evidence of a culture in crisis: Democrats vs. Republicans, traditional values vs. progressive political correctness.

Add to that the very real concerns regarding America's national security and the geopolitical unrest taking place throughout the world. Many people (even people of faith) have forgotten that God's laws never change.

This nation was founded on a belief in God and biblical principles, which have been under attack for years. For all practical purposes, America allowed the Supreme Court to rewrite the Constitution when they removed prayer from school. The justices based their decision on the constitutionality of prayer in schools on a clause that to that point had only been seen as a way to keep the government from dictating how people of faith were to worship.

Obviously political changes can lead to changed perspectives. I wonder if the justices had any idea what a Pandora's Box their decision opened up. After that came free speech for Hustler and Playboy magazines. Somewhere on the timeline following that decision, free love stepped onto the scene.

Free love was not without consequences and once again the court found another obscure meaning to the Constitution ruling that abortion was a woman's health issue and therefore right.

Forty-seven years after Roe v Wade, almost 60 million innocent lives have suffered the consequences of a "woman's right to choose."

For those who believe man was created in the image of God, abortion became the signature attack on the image of God in the world. For those who don't hold that worldview, the procedure has been sanitized and is being marketed as a "woman's health issue."

American has turned her back on God. The evidence is written in her laws and "we the people" have allowed it to happen.

Alicia J. ClarkZeeland

The rest is here:

Letter: What is the true State of the Union? - HollandSentinel.com

CNNs Chris Cuomo tonight told Democrats they have to see what beat you and have a firm grasp on Trump voters frustrations if they want a chance at winning people over.

You need to see what beat you. Trump told people with legitimate gripes exactly what they wanted to hear.

He showed a montage of Trump supporters talking about liking the president because he speaks his mind and hes not politically correct. He added, Hear them, more importantly ignore them at your own peril again. Theyre not asking for a granular plan of how many years and how many dollars over how much time for health care, they just want to know that you get the system does them dirty.

Cuomo went on:

Make no mistake, there are hateful folks who see Trump as a champion of their bigoted ideas. But there are so many more who want you to address this. Government wastes the money. Passes laws that players can get around. Corrupt with their money and connections to power and this two tiered justice system. Policies that they have to pay for but dont benefit from. Politicians lie, connive, they pick winners and losers and with the media they push political correctness to the point of paralysis. Trump convinced many who feel like that and there are a lot that he hates the same things, that he is the systems perfect nemesis.

He argued Democrats need to show they can actually deliver and that Americans will win with you.

You can watch above, via CNN.

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Go here to see the original:

Chris Cuomo: Democrats Need to Speak to Trump Voters Real Concerns, Ignore Them at Your Own Peril Again - Mediaite

Mike Bloomberg speaking with supporters at a campaign rally in Phoenix, Ariz., February 1, 2020. (Gage Skidmore)

In a previous post, I highlighted a poll showing disparate reactions among racial groups to Mike Bloombergs stop-and-frisk policy in New York City. The Data for Progress poll surveyed voters in Texas, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, and California, and found that white voters were significantly more likely than black voters to take an unfavorable view of Bloomberg after being reminded of the stop-and-frisk policies he enacted as mayor of New York City.

The post was intended to highlight a broader political phenomenon vicarious aggrievement, I called it of white liberals taking offense on behalf of a minority group which is less offended, collectively, than the white liberals aggrieved on their behalf. The Data for Progress poll mirrored other data we have suggesting that white liberals, as a group, are more attuned and receptive to the mores of political correctness than are their non-white counterparts.

In any case, the post was not a defense of stop-and-frisk as such. Kyle Smith argues here that the policy was wrong-headed and heightened tensions between racial minorities and law enforcement. I am inclined to agree with his conclusion. Even as legal censure and policy changes have stunted the use of the tactic the number of people stopped and frisked fell from 686,000 to 12,000 between 2011 and 2016 crime has continued to fall in New York City. The constitutionality of the practice is dubious.

The merits of the policy notwithstanding, the Data for Progress poll is demonstrative of the white liberals tendency to champion the causes of people whom he purports to understand, even as the data suggest otherwise.

See the rest here:

About Stop-and-Frisk - National Review

The idea that there is a free speech crisis at British universities has gained considerable currency over the last decade. No platforming, safe spaces and trigger warnings have been held up by conservatives, libertarians and classic liberals as the holy trinity of campus censorship methods supposed threats to free speech and academic freedom.

There is plenty of sympathy for this view in the Conservative party. During the 2019 election campaign, it pledged to strengthen academic freedom and free speech in universities. Now that the Tories have been re-elected, they are starting to make noises: in the Times earlier this month, the education secretary Gavin Williamson declared that if universities didnt take action to protect freedom of speech on campus, the government would do so itself.

The myth of the 'free speech crisis' cannot be divorced from the wider rise of the global far right

As Nesrine Malik and William Davies have both described, the myth of a free speech crisis has been spread by the right as part of a broader culture war against political correctness, wokeness and identity politics. In an era when conservatives and the populist right have been in the ascendancy, the culture war has descended on universities, because they are a significant battleground against racism, misogyny, homophobia and transphobia (as well as traditional class hierarchies).

But the calls for government intervention to protect freedom of speech on campus have a much longer history. As the student movement raged in Britain in the late 1960s, there were protests against several controversial speakers, such as Enoch Powell and the rightwing MP Patrick Wall, which led to disruptions at a number of universities. There were calls from the conservative media and politicians to censure students for their protests. An editorial in the Times in May 1968 decried the silencing of opponents by mob action and lamented the university for becoming the breeding ground for mindless opposition.

In 1974, the National Union of Students implemented the policy of no platform for racists and fascists. By the mid-1980s, some rightwing students were seeking to overturn it and some on the left to extend it within individual student unions to oppose sexists, homophobes and rightwing politicians (especially those with hardline positions on immigration and support for apartheid South Africa). When these politicians went on speaking tours to universities, they were met with fierce opposition from students. John Carlisle was physically assaulted at Bradford University in February 1986; later that year, Enoch Powell had a ham sandwich thrown at him at Bristol University, as students stormed the stage.

Intense media attention and statements from politicians gave the impression that free speech was under attack at universities. Education secretary Sir Keith Joseph called protesting students the new barbarians. In response to these protests, the Thatcher government inserted clauses to protect free speech on campus into the Education (No 2) Act 1986, calling for reasonable steps to be taken to ensure freedom of speech by university administrations.

The effects of this were soon seen when, after the University of Liverpool prevented two South African diplomats from speaking in 1988 and again in 1989, conservative students took the university to court for violating the 1986 act. The high court eventually found the university was technically flawed in taking into account public order issues when banning the diplomats from speaking.

Since this decision, there has been an ever-present contest over the right of student unions to no platform controversial speakers, such as the British National party or the Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir, and the legal obligations of the university to allow free expression and debate. Throughout the 2000s, the BNP portrayed themselves as defenders of free speech against political correctness and used this to gain a presence at several universities, as well as generate publicity through university debates.

In the last few years, the push by some student unions to no platform speakers deemed to be transphobic has helped thrust the topic back into the media spotlight. Media and political attention has focused on snowflake students allegedly shutting down debate even though parliaments 2018 Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the topic stated it did not find the wholesale censorship of debate which media coverage has suggested. The right has taken a decades-old trope of the overzealous student and used it to great effect, while adapting it for the 21st century: where there were once warnings about the threat of the violent student radical, now there are fears about online mobs using social media to pressure universities to cancel events or disinvite speakers.

The myth of the free speech crisis cannot be divorced from the wider rise of the global far right. So we should be wary of calls by Boris Johnson, or any other leaders, for government intervention to protect free speech at universities and colleges. This is really just posturing a way to further the culture war and demonise woke students.

The last half-century has shown that when it expresses concerns over free speech, the right is trying to weaponise it to its own advantage, especially when it feels it is being challenged such as during the radicalism of the late 1960s and early 1970s or the turbulent mid-1980s under Margaret Thatcher. Freedom of speech on campus in these instances, as Guardian columnist Dawn Foster has written, often masquerades a desire for freedom from criticism.

But the university cannot be a place where racism and fascism as well as sexism, homophobia and transphobia are allowed to be expressed. Tactics such as no platforming and the creation of safe spaces are necessary for students and activists because the threats that led to no platforming in the 1970s remain. Government action that waters down the ability to combat these threats must be resisted.

Evan Smith is a research fellow in history at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia. He is the author of No Platform: A History of Anti-Fascism, Universities and the Limits of Free Speech

Visit link:

The university free speech crisis has been a rightwing myth for 50 years - The Guardian

BUFFALO, N.Y. Jack Londons novel, The Call of the Wild is considered to be a Great American Novel and it truly deserves that consideration. So, it is incumbent on filmmakers when they adapt this story to at least attempt to make it a Great American Film. Director Chris Sanders (The Croods) tries in this, his first live-action feature. He almost succeeds, but is waylaid by plot modifications that seem to bow to political correctness, and some CGI that ends up being a bit distracting.

If youve read the novel (who hasnt? Its almost required reading in our various school systems.) then you know the story is about Buck (Terry Notary, Avengers: Engame, War for the Planet of the Apes), a large, spoiled, rambunctious St. Bernard/Scotch Collie mix.

Terry Notary (Motion Capture) as Buck in The Call of the Wild

2019 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. All rights reserved. Photo Credit Courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox

Hes kidnapped from his Santa Clara, California home, and transported to Alaska, where hes dragooned into the life of a sled dog.

(L to R) Terry Notary (Motion Capture) as Buck, Cara Gee as Franoise and Omar Sy as Perrault in The Call of the Wild

Photo Credit Courtesy of 20th Century Fox

He ends up on a sled team, and eventually becomes a leader. After an adventure or two, he ends up with John Thornton (Ford, Blade Runner 2049, Cowboys & Aliens) and the two head off into the Yukon. If you need more of a plot synopsis than that, dear reader, consult the novel.

Omar Sy as Perrault in The Call of the Wild

2019 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. All rights reserved. Photo Credit Courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox

So, this films source material is truly outstanding. Its a great yarn, even if it is a bit diluted by some plot sanitation that completely removes the First People from any villainous role, and glosses over some of the more violent scenes. Still, the most important aspects of the events that happen to Buck and serve to develop his character are there.

Terry Notary (Motion Capture) as Buck in The Call of the Wild

Courtesy of 20th Century Fox

Make no mistake, Buck is the star of this movie. Notary provided the motion capture that Bucks movements were based on. The technology is nothing short of miraculous, but the filmmakers went a bit overboard in grafting human expression onto Bucks canine face. Still, the scenes with Buck where those pesky humans arent involved are some of the best in the movie. Buck and Thornton dominate this film to the point that one wishes some of the other cinematic worthies like Bradley Whitford (Get Out, The Last Full Measure) and Karen Gillian (Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, Occulus) arent given more to do. Omar Sy (Jurassic World, Inferno) and Cara Gee (Birdland, Red Rover) are utilized a bit more and to good effect. Most of the outdoor scenes are compelling enough that viewers might not notice that, with the exception of some shot in Santa Clara, the entire film consists of set pieces.

Merie Wallace

Most of the above is quibbling. The fact of the matter is that The Call of the Wild is a family friendly film that tells a thrilling, compelling and emotionally evocative story, in spite of the fact that the 1907 story has been cleaned up so as not to offend 2020 audiences. Perhaps the late 19th and early 20th century realities would have detracted from the family friendly nature of this film, or perhaps not. In any event, The Call of the Wild calls up 4 and a half out of 5 boxes of popcorn.

While the Call of the Wild has a great cast with the likes of Ford, our next film has, well, Katie Holmes (Thank You For Smoking, Dear Dictator).

Katie Holmes stars in BRAHMS: The Boy II

Courtesy of STXfilms

Brahms, the Boy II is a sequel to 2016s The Boy. Its Rated PG-13 for terror, violence, disturbing images and thematic elements.

Owain Yeoman, Katie Holmes and Christopher Convery star in BRAHMS: The Boy II

Courtesy of STXfilms

Critical attention seems scarce. I havent seen it yet, so I cant really weigh in, and its not on my docket for this weekend

Im Larry Haneberg, and Im taking you 2 the Movies

RELATED: 2 The Movies: 'The Photograph' never pulls focus

RELATED: Sonic the Hedgehog, more like Sonic the good movie-hog

RELATED: 2 The Movies: Birds of Prey is about Girl Power

RELATED: 2 the Movies: 'The Rhythm Section' has a slow beat

RELATED: 2 the Movies review: 'The Gentlemen' offers violent, funny film

RELATED: 2 the Movies: Bad Boys come back to life

RELATED: 2 the Movies review: '1917' earns well-deserved praise

RELATED: 2 the Movies Review: Spies in Disguise, Little Women and Uncut Gems

RELATED: Altered Avatars: 2 the Movies reviews 'Jumanji: The Next Level'

RELATED: 2 the Movies: '21 Bridges' is about more than geography

RELATED: 2 the Movies: 'Ford v Ferrari' races to the end

More:

2 The Movies: Call of the Wild Delivers - WGRZ.com

As the Windrush scandal was breaking, it became clear that there were two parallel perceptions of the UKs immigration system. Those who had been mangled by the Home Office machine knew the truth: that the system was cruel and broken. The other view, more popular but fabricated, was that the countrys immigration policy was lax, gullible and open to abuse.

The overall result is a climate unreceptive to the anxiety of students on British campuses

The same now applies to life on Britains university campuses. Last week a report found a culture of non-disclosure agreement abuse. NDAs, originally designed to prevent departing university staff from sharing professional secrets, are now being used to gag victims of sexual harassment, bullying and poor teaching in order to protect the abusers and, by extension, the universities themselves. Freedom of information requests by the BBC in 2019 revealed that UK universities had paid about 87m in NDA payoffs in the previous two years. This suggests a nationwide and institutional failure to protect students from predatory abusers, a culture of exploitation of those who are vulnerable, and a failure to meet the needs of those with disabilities. In other cases, when universities failed to adequately investigate sexual assault allegations, students were pressured into signing NDAs without even receiving a payout, the BBC report found. This is likely to be only the latest instalment in a series of revelations exposing an unregulated culture of thuggery and malpractice in academic establishments. In October, an inquiry by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) found that about a quarter of minority ethnic students, including non-British white students, said they had experienced racial harassment since the start of their course, and that not only did British universities not tackle the thousands of racist incidents experienced, they also refused to acknowledge the scale of the problem.

It is also likely that students negative experiences and any potential measures to address their widespread concerns will continue to be submerged by a fictional, popular narrative of British universities as a hotbed of woke culture populated by a snowflake generation wanting to eject from jobs or the public space anyone who in their sensitive eyes has offended them. Another word for this alleged behaviour is cancel culture. The term now has its own entry in the urban dictionary, which calls it a phenomenon perpetrated by those quick to judge and slow to question.

Little is said of what is arguably more prevalent and more effective: what I call wokesmearing the stigmatising and shaming of someone for crimes of extreme political correctness. Wokesmearing has a more powerful engine than worthy students. The rightwing press and tabloid media will fix on any incident that looks like it may be an example of progressive values overstepping the mark. If none or few of these incidents are found, they are made up. Scant details are tortured into solid stories, and before those stories can be challenged or even corrected, they have passed into the mainstream narrative.

Take the case of Lola Olufemi. All she and her fellow Cambridge students wanted to do was introduce some new writers into their syllabus. In 2017, they sent an open letter to the literature faculty requesting that non-white authors be added to the curriculum. Four months later, after precisely zero complaints from fellow students or members of the faculty, and before any decision had been made, the Telegraph published Olufemis picture on its front page with the headline: Student forces Cambridge to drop white authors. Within days the story was given credibility when it was debated in earnest on BBC Radio 4. The very channel that broke the NDA story is frequently a useful tool for the promotion of stories that originate in less responsible outlets, a gullible eager consumer of fake outrage. When I spoke to Olufemi a few months later, she said the most frustrating thing, other than being called upon to address the lies as if they were legitimate, was that the artificial outrage obscured what was actually happening on the ground on campus, the abuse she was receiving and the chill that had been sent down the spines of other black students many of whom were from disadvantaged backgrounds and could not afford loss of future employment prospects if they were seen as troublemakers. The whole effort to simply add more authors to a syllabus, not to replace any, had been successfully wokesmeared.

And on it goes. As university campuses become increasingly unsafe for students and employees, a carousel of mythical stories is confected, amplified and recycled. So rich has this genre of reporting become that it now has its own formula: big, flashy, pearl-clutching headline followed by a quote from someone scandalised by the latest liberty-taking, then rounded off by a tiny detail, one buried at the end, that invalidates the whole story. One such example is a BBC news dispatch from October 2017. It starts with Cambridge Uni students get Shakespeare trigger warnings, only to end with: Some lecturers indicate that some sensitive material will be covered in a lecture this is entirely at the lecturers own discretion and is in no way indicative of a faculty-wide policy.

The same principle is applied to all the developments we now take as an integral part of British campus culture, such as safe spaces and no-platforming and terrified administrators cowed by leftie students. No-platforming in particular is frequently presented as a simple case of mob rule and of frightened faculties placating students, when they often, far less contentiously, involve college bureaucrats lacking the resources to responsibly curate controversial union debates and the associated right of protest that comes with that.

The repercussions of the campaign by the cynical and the credulous are not just limited to point scoring in a culture war. The overall result is a climate unreceptive to the anxiety of students on British campuses. The fact that report after report states that universities are failing to act is down to more than just denial; it is a complacency and an impunity fostered by a rightwing culture that reinforces and perpetuates the myth that liberal spaces, especially universities, are dangerous, progressive playgrounds undermining tradition and common sense. Until that propaganda is acknowledged and combated, the calls of distressed students from the UKs campuses will continue to go unheard.

Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist

Excerpt from:

Students who complain about abuse on campus are being wokesmeared - The Guardian

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. Retired first baseman Aubrey Huff, a key force behind the Giants drought-breaking World Series championship in 2010, has been told he will not be invited to a 10-year reunion at Oracle Park this season because of a series of social-media posts the Giants considered vulgar.

Earlier this month, we reached out to Aubrey Huff to let him know that he will not be included in the upcoming 2010 World Series Championship reunion, the Giants said Monday night in a statement.

Aubrey has made multiple comments on social media that are unacceptable and run counter to the values of our organization. While we appreciate the many contributions that Aubrey made to the 2010 championship season, we stand by our decision.

The Giants sent the statement to The Chronicle after they gave it to the Athletic, which first reported the Giants decision.

Huff has not been shy about tweeting his conservative political views, but several recent posts drew widespread criticism and even outrage.

In one, he smiled as he held up a paper shooting-range target full of bullet holes and said, Getting my boys trained up on how to use a gun in the unlikely event @BernieSanders beats @realDonaldTrump in 2020. In which case knowing how to effectively use a gun under socialism will be a must. By the way, most of the head shots were theirs. @NRA @WatchChad #2ndAmendment.

In an even more decried tweet, responding to another that suggested the United States should invade Iran and bring some of their attractive women here, Huff said, Lets get a flight over and kidnap about 10 each. We can bring them back here as they fan us and feed us grapes, amongst other things. He later deleted the tweet, which he said was intended as a joke.

Huff last month tweeted criticism of the Giants for hiring a woman to coach, Alyssa Nakken, terming it political correctness, but the team said it decided not to invite Huff to the reunion before the Nakken tweet.

Huff did not immediately return a request for comment but told the Athletic he was shocked and disappointed.

If it wasn't for me, they wouldnt be having a reunion, he said. But if they want to stick with their politically correct, progressive (b.s.), thats fine.

Henry Schulman is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer.

See original here:

Giants tell Aubrey Huff he will not be invited to 2010 reunion due to tweets - San Francisco Chronicle