Category Archives: Politically Incorrect

Do you frequentlyneed someone to defend you because you've made "politically incorrect" (racist, sexist or homophobic) jokes online and your children are threatening to emancipate themselves?

Are you afraid of what "cancel culture" means for you - a person who is unlikely to ever be "cancelled" due to not actually being a public figure?

Well we've got just the thing for you.

Journalist and professional contrarian Toby Young has announced he is now the general secretary of something he calls the Free Speech Union and he's charging near 50 a year for the privilege of joining it.

Unfortunately we cannot tell you how the union describes itself, because our work computers think its official website is a security risk.

But the general idea is that the Free Speech Union will defend you from no-platforming, cancellation - all that fancy modern stuff.

Announcing the scheme with a Twitter video, Young says: "We can't continue to appease the enemies of free speech.

"As Churchill said, an appeaser is someone who keeps feeding the crocodile in the hope it will eat them last.

"Many good men and women died fighting for our right to speak our mind and exchange our ideas without being persecuted by the enforcers of intellectual conformity and moral dogma.

"This is our precious inheritance and we owe it to them as well as our children to come to its defence."

Given Young's immediate defence of Andrew Sabisky, the former Downing Street adviser caught in a eugenics row, last week, it seems he is willing to overlook anything to stand up for your right to free speech!

READ MORE:Andrew Sabisky made vile claims about women and sex on Reddit

Though of course the people who criticised Sabisky's claims and called for his sacking were also using their free speech to say he was unsuited to a government position. But he did not see it that way. They were the "enforcers of intellectual conformity", to use Young's own words.

The reality is nobody needs to spend 49.95 to protect free speech (or even 24.95 for students and retirees).

And you definitely don't need to give it to Toby Young to do it for you.

If you're in a situation where you feel your free speech is truly under threat? Perhaps it's time to call a lawyer, not a journalist who is best known for slagging off a teenage climate activist.

Read the original:
Toby Young launches 50-a-year 'Free Speech Union' - The National

It seems counter-intuitive to claim that the re-election of the free-speech champion, the notorious politically incorrect jackhammer, Donald Trump, would pave the way to greater censorship rather than greener pastures.

Let me be clear: Im saying if a Democrat wins in 2020, the first wave of censorship would have proven to be not only an effective political strategy, but it would achieve what Project Veritas has exposed as Silicon Valleys desire to change the way people think. The digital book burners, modern-day tyrants, and behavioral re-educators, could take pause, needing only to tweak the successful model to be re-deployed in future elections, and set on autopilot.

What happens when the king senses his power is fading, and control is slipping from his grasp? Typically, they double-down on the very behavior that makes him the tyrant in the first place. If the past is prologue, then the re-election of Donald Trump will be the breaking point in 2020. The first wave of censorship would be deemed a failure, requiring retaliation and a second wave of expurgation. Unfortunately, what is even more chilling is that the political excommunication will worsen, and Donald Trump will do nothing about it.

According to a recent press pool report, the president applauded the so-called MAGA club. For 144 days, we set a record stock market. It means 401Ks, it means jobs. Four trillion-dollar companies: Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft. You have MAGA. The trillion-dollar club. Perhaps, he may be more concerned with the flattering numbers of financial success rather than the staggering numbers of banned or demonetized patriots: Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Gavin McInnes, Steven Crowder, Laura Loomer, and the list is literally endless.

Within minutes at the Social Media Summit, intended to highlight big tech censorship and biases, the president began to compliment the stock market and skyrocketing 401(k)s. Great, slow hand clap.Unfortunately, Trumps showmanship on censorship wont repair the harm done to those banned online, many of which depended on their conservative activism for a living, and ultimately assisted the president in his electoral success.

Is it financial success if the next 50+ years are consumed by technological oppression? None of the major players banned were in attendance even though they are widely credited for the presidents election. Why, are they too controversial? Would it detract from the summits purpose? On the contrary, it would have reinforced its objective. But, we as conservatives have allowed the left to designate what is considered fringe within our own party; meanwhile, the radical left runs rampant with no guardrails or moderators, only having drunken cheerleaders on the sidelines.

The left has lost the battle through the judicial system, and they have been unable to materialize hate speech as a legal definition. Consequently, leftist technology companies are embracing the concept of hate speech by creating community guidelines and banishing violators from their platforms.

Recently reported byThe Post Millennial, Censored.TV, founded by Vice co-founder Gavin McInnes, has been banned on Facebook and Instagram and it is literally impossible to send links to his channel through private communication or DMs. The leftist behavioral re-educators not only want to control what you post in public and in private, they seek to control how you think about issues through conditioning and intimidation.

According toStatista, 59 percent of the earths population is plugged into the world wide web, approximately 4.54 billion people. More than ever these social media platforms and applications are an essential component in our social environment and establishing itself as the modern public square. Ignoring the phenomena of digital gulags would hinder controversial, provocative, and inquisitive thinkers from ever reaching an audience, and without radicals, we wouldnt have Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Jr., or the other Martin Luther.

Out of fear of violating conservative orthodoxy and the idolization of free-market absolutism, we are afraid to take meaningful steps in reigning in the political targeting and digital assassination exhibited by those who control information. YouTube, a subsidiary of Google, is the second largest search engine, and many of the conservative firebrands have been de-platformed and deprived of access to a market that many leftist radicals continue to reach and enjoy.

If the right doesnt take action on censorship in fear of advancing the tentacles of big government, then the Trump phenomenon will fade; meanwhile, the burgeoning tentacles of big tech will strangle conservatism into a slow death, and there are only so many missteps one can make before the fall becomes fatal. Behold America, a new tyranny is amongst us. A citizen-tyranny where fellow Americans report you not to the government, but to a soy-pounding drone tech employee, sifting through content and complaints made for your improper and impure thoughts (posts).

How would the great architects of Western civilization see todays frenzy of censorship? We have inherited the worlds greatest tradition and we are squandering it to pathological political knuckle-draggers. Aristotle famously said, Man is by nature a political animal with the gift of contemplation and the power of morality. It is indisputable that those who have been targeted for censorship are not the hate-mongers theyve been falsely accused of being. The real hatemongers are hiding in plain sight, like David Duke, Richard Spencer and radical Islamic terrorists. Strangely, they all have been graced with the privilege of maintaining Twitter along with other various social media accounts. Perhaps, it serves the lefts purpose to raise certain individuals to prominence while degrading true conservatives into obscurity.

Aristotle would have probably agreed, to deny a man his political voice, is to deny him his humanity.

See the original post here:
Couple in car runs two Trump-supporting boys off the road - The Post Millennial

A culture of self-censorship and fear of backlash from funders, colleagues and the public is convincing arts and cultural workers to stay silent on important issues, according to new research from ArtsProfessional.

APs Freedom of Expression survey has uncovered pressures on arts workers ability to speak out ranging from the fear of harassment and humiliation to more overt measures like non-disclosure agreements. More than 500 artists and arts workers contributed some 60,000 words on questions about their experiences navigating controversy and coercion.

The research indicates the openness, risk and rebellion that many believe characterises the sector is being eroded. While about 90% of respondents agreed that the arts and cultural sector has a responsibility to use its unique talents to speak out about things that matter, regardless of the potential consequences, more than 80% thought that workers in the arts and cultural sector who share controversial opinions risk being professionally ostracised.

READ MORE:

While much of the sectors censorship is self-imposed, one in six respondents said they had been offered a financial settlement in exchange for their silence on circumstances an organisation wanted to keep private.ArtsProfessional Editor Amanda Parker said the research reveals a deep division between public perception and the reality of working in the arts and cultural sector.

Our survey shines a damning light on the coercion, bullying, intimidation and intolerance that is active among a community that thinks of itself as liberal, open minded and equitable.

We are very aware that this research doesnt reflect all views, but its a sad and timely indication of the suppressed hurt and anger felt by many, despite the loud and growing conversations about collaboration and inclusiveness.

The sector is biting its tongue for fear of biting the hand that feeds, the survey shows.

Nearly 70% of respondents said they would not criticise a funder for fear of jeopardising future investment and 40% said they had been subject to pressure from funders for speaking out.

There was a sense that funders are immune from scrutiny, with respondents citing times they kept quiet about waste and cronyism, among other issues. One described the relationships with funders as being like a parent and child: Its hard to challenge or open up a dialogue with them even if there are genuine concerns.

Criticising a funders decision to award or turn down a grant or their continued support of elitist organisations would be a problem for many. Responses on this issue largely fell into two camps: those who felt the sector was only paying lip service to diversity and those who thought it attracted too much attention but neither group felt able to speak their minds.

Pressure to keep quiet was most likely to come from colleagues, according to two-thirds of respondents. However, the survey also revealed examples of retribution from organisations against arts workers who spoke their minds, from marginalisation and isolation to lost commissions, cancelled contracts and being screamed, shouted at [and] bullied by my ex-boss.

Some workplaces censor their employees online activity while others actively gag them: One in six respondents said they had been offered money if they signed a non-disclosure agreement.

One person said they had been offered money to keep quiet about corrupt practices in arts funding at the EU level; a whistleblower who told top management about mostly male bosses bullying their female subordinates was paid off and invited to leave the organisation. Another respondent accepted a redundancy package when the redundancy wasn't wholly legal; and one person reported a gagging order regarding a colleagues sexual harassment case and a boards illegal processes.

The research indicates the arts and cultural sector is intolerant of viewpoints outside of the dominant norms. Anything that might be considered politically incorrect to the liberal-leaning sector including expressing support or sympathy for Brexit, the Conservatives or other right-wing political parties was felt to be risky territory.

Religion, gender and sexuality were also considered a minefield and no-go areas for many: Anything to do with gender issues, especially trans issues, will get a lot of flak for either not being on message enough, or being off message, or too on message, one person said.

More than three-quarters of respondents said workers who share controversial opinions risk being professionally ostracised. One person commented that people working in the sector are nowhere near as open as they pretend to be, there is a lot of hiding and backstabbing.

Only 40% of respondents agreed that personal views and opinions are met with respect by others working in the arts & cultural sector, and 42% said they feel free to speak publicly whether in person or online about their personal views on issues affecting the arts sector.

One person commented that it wouldnt be advisable to point out that the arts tend to do well under the Tories.

The dangers of this culture of self-censorship was summarised by another respondent:

Our arts, culture, and indeed education sectors are supposed to be fearlessly free-thinking and open to a wide range of challenging views. However, they are now dominated by a monolithic politically correct class (mostly of privileged white middle class people, by the way), who impose their intolerant views across those sectors.

This is driving people who disagree away, risks increasing support for the very things this culturally dominant class professes to stand against, and is slowly destroying our society and culture from the inside.

This culture of censorship is also affecting artistic expression and programming decisions. While four in five respondents agreed that organisations that wont risk controversy wont deliver the most exciting creative work, they also recognised the pressure on organisations. Only a third felt their boards were being unduly cautious about potentially controversial work.

But 45% had been pressurised, intimidated, ostracised, coerced, trolled, harassed or bullied, either in person or on digital media over their artistic and creative activities. Of that group, 44% had changed their product, programming or plans due to this pressure.

Negative public reaction can shut down free speech there is a culture of inviting and then overreacting to complaints when in fact they represent a tiny proportion of views, one person commented and cause artists to self-censor, the survey shows. Artists fear damaging their reputations or those of their organisations.

One person explained it as a matter of picking battles.

I sometimes have to weigh whether what I really need to say requires the element that will turn others away. If it is important to me, I will stick to my plan, but sometimes, it is not the most important thing and I choose to tame my ideas. I have felt like a traitor to my own self-expression, but I have to ask if anyone needs to hear from me at all.

Read theFreedom of Expression report, including over 1,000 comments and personal testimonies relating to freedom of expression in the arts and cultural sector.

Next week AP will launch an anonymous platform where you will be able to:

We won't share your identity anywhere.

See the rest here:
EXCLUSIVE: 'Culture of censorship' as arts workers fear backlash - ArtsProfessional

Britains National Health Service (NHS) has been a vocal and active advocate for trans affirmative medical care. Their latest foray into making sure male-bodied trans persons feel comfortable is to allow them access to medical care on womens hospital wards. If a female patient has a problem with it, she will be removed.

Women patients who complain about having a biological male in the next bed risk being kicked off the ward under new NHS transgender guidelines. Medical staff will be expected to deal with those who object to trans patients on single-sex wards as if the complainant is a racist or homophobe, the guidance states. Rather than relocate the trans patient, such as to a single room, it will be the person who makes the complaint who will be moved, according to the policy.

Womens groups complained about this change but were rebuffed. In fact, if a woman complains at being roomed with a male-bodied person, hospital staff is instructed to protect the trans person from the woman. The duty of care extends to protect patients from harassment and should the woman continue to make demands about the removal of the transgender patient and be vocal in the ward it would be appropriate to remind her of this Ultimately it may be the complainant who is required to be removed.

The NHS argument uses racism as a means to bolster the argument, claiming that If a white woman complained to a nurse about sharing a ward with a black patient or a heterosexual male complained about being in a ward with a gay man, we would expect our staff to act in a manner that deals with the expressed behaviour immediately. Of course, these are completely different things. Race has no bearing on gender, as both sexes exist within every race on earth. The same goes for sexual orientation, the fact of who a person is attracted to has nothing to do with their anatomy.

Under the guise of medical care, the NHS has encouraged hormone treatment, breast binding, and packing in minors. Before removing via surgery or chemical childrens reproductive capability, they may pay for the freezing of eggs and sperm, so that after the children undergo sterilization they will have access post-transition. At least one mother was threatened with the removal of her child by child services after she balked when NHS referred her 14-year-old daughter for gender reassignment hormones.

Grade school children are asked if they are comfortable in their own gender, while the NHS refers to children as young as 4 to gender reassignment doctors for assessment. There was even an NHS doctor who was fired for stating that gender is not assigned at birth, but is an innate condition. Women have pushed back against both the placing of male-bodied trans persons into womens prisons and refuges. One woman was appalled to receive care from a trans nurse when a female nurse was requested.

Over and over, womens spaces are being opened to male-bodied trans persons, children are being encouraged to assess their own bodies for correctness, young people are given life-altering drugs and surgeries before their brains are finished forming, and women are told to put up or shut up. Its bad enough to house men in womens prisons, or in battered womens shelters, both of which see women at their most vulnerable. But allowing men into womens hospital wards seems barbaric and cruel.

Anyone with a brain can agree that, despite gendery feelings, the difference between those with male bodies and those with female bodies are their bodies. Every time I write this it seems more and more absurd to say that men and women have different bodies or to try and justify just how bodies are relevant to medical care. But men and women have different bodies, the differences in those bodies are even more apparent when both take off their dresses and stand naked before medical professionals. The kind of medical care that men and women receive is different precisely because their bodies are different.

Rape victims should not arrive for hospital care only to be roomed with a male-bodied person. Male bodied persons need different care for their reproductive systems because they have different reproductive systems. Its frankly insane that we have to keep saying this. Male bodied persons do not need gynecologists, no matter how much silicone theyve been fitted with.

Gynecological patients should not have to undergo vaginal exams with a male-bodied person in the bed next to them, or be fitted with a catheter, or worry about their hospital gowns slipping, or showing too much skin when they carry themselves to the bathroom or fear intimate conversations about their anatomy being overheard.

This continued push against women having private spaces has so much to with mens needs being put first. In medical circles, it has come to light that the understood symptoms for heart attack were male-centric, and that there have been biases against womens pain. Women are less likely to be given CPR, to be properly treated for dementia, and often have their concerns overlooked. Now, even in womens hospital wards, women will have a harder time getting noticed, having their concerns heard, or even finding privacy.

Trans advocacy that puts men in womens spaces reflects the demand that women submit to mens wishes, desires, and delusions. The NHS should recognize this as the gaslighting it is, and give women back their medical autonomy. Medical services should be more aware of womens needs, not less. When women speak up for themselves, they should be heard, not silenced, shuttled off to some locale where they will get even worse medical care than that which they already access.

Most women who are housed with males on a womens hospital ward will not speak up, they will instead suck it up, for fear that their lives will be put at even more risk. Its up to the NHS, legislators, and womens groups to stand for womens rights, and not throw them under the proverbial gurney.

Read this article:
Scotland to become the first country to provide free sanitary products to women - The Post Millennial

Robert Conrad died at the age of 84. For most of us that grew up in analog America, Conrad was the quintessential model of the American Male. Whether he was playing super secret agent James West in Wild Wild West or 'Pappy Boyington in Ba Ba Black Sheep, Conrad command the screen. His career is well documented by our friends at Fox News.

I grew up watching the adventures of Conrad's character James West. He and his partner, Artemis Gordon traveled the country by train fighting bad guys in a combination Western/Sci Fi series. By the way, full disclosure they were both bachelors that loved chasing the women. West was the alpha who always got into trouble, but with the help of Gordan and his secret gadgets always beat the bad guys. You can get a vibe of the show here.

The world was simple and honest on television back then. It was good verses evil, right verses wrong. The men were masculine and heroic. Sadly, a show like Wild, Wild, West couldn't be made today. Too politically incorrect, too much toxic masculinity. (Whatever that means.) Here's a full episode.

Heroes were role models and the villains were sometimes comical. Robert Conrad became famous later in life by filming a battery commercial. It went viral before there was a thing as going viral.

Rest in Peace Robert Conrad...

Follow this link:
Remembering The Great Robert Conrad - KIDO Talk Radio

Where have all the rock stars gone? That's a question asked with increasing urgency in the past few years. Pop and hip-hop icons have overshadowed the efforts of new and veteran rock acts, and if one takes a look at the Billboard Top 200, a majority of the scattered rock albums residing there are classic albums or greatest hits titles from the likes of Guns N' Roses, Queen, Creedence Clearwater Revival and AC/DC.

Perhaps theres no one to blame for this state of affairs more than the rockers themselves. It was the edgy, dangerous elements that originally made rock 'n roll so appealing, from inappropriate public behavior to verbally bashing politicians to actual activism. But when it comes to social issues, nonrockers are taking the reins, such as Lizzo confronting body image assumptions, country rapper Little Nas X challenging racist and homophobic attitudes, and Eminem drawing Secret Service scrutiny for anti-Trump lyrics. Mainstream rockers? Not so much.

The genre, and the historical moment, is all but screaming for the creative and political destruction of their landmark album, American Idiot.

As Green Day pondered on the song Somewhere Now from 2016s Revolution Radio: How did a life on the wild side ever get so dull? But that bout of self-reflection didnt lead the punk-revivalist rockers to return to their rowdy past on their new album, out Friday. The genre, and the historical moment, is all but screaming for the creative and political destruction of their landmark album, American Idiot. Instead, the most provocative part of the new offering is its profane title, Father of All Motherf------.

But how shocking are obscenities in an era when the president is known to use them. Musically, the albums approach of 10 songs spread out over 26 minutes is reminiscent of hardcore punk bands that roared through one- to two-minute anthems. Of course, Green Days music isnt hardcore punk, and these shorter tracks, ironically, play well in our Spotify era of short attention spans.

Father is essentially retro rock given an energetic Green Day facelift. The '70s glam stomp of Oh Yeah! samples Joan Jett's cover of Gary Glitter's Do You Wanna Touch Me (Oh Yeah). (The band, aware of Glitter's numerous sex offender convictions, are wisely donating proceeds from that tune to sexual assault organizations.) The best cut, Stab You In the Heart, rocks like a '60s Merseybeat tune on steroids. Soul and Motown influences crop up. The hyperactive title track, which arguably cribs from Jimi Hendrix, even has lead singer Billie Joe Armstong performing a Jack White-like falsetto.

Get the think newsletter.

Despite producer Butch Walker's overproduction threatening to crush the band's energy, Father is the bands most amped-up release in years, even if it is ruffling some fan feathers for being different and slicker. Change and rock make strange bedfellows. Many rock fans tolerate incremental change from their icons, yet complain if they stay on auto-pilot or change too much. And many aging rock fans are also more conservative than some thought, leading bands to tread cautiously today in politics.

So lets be honest: Father is a fun album. But is this the Green Day album we need? Their 2004 opus American Idiot, put out at the height of the Iraq War and President George W. Bushs power, possessed an insurgent spirit that acted as a middle finger to an irrational red state America. Yet 15 years later, with racism, political corruption and authoritarianism on the rise under the Trump administration, that critique is arguably needed more than ever and their new record avoids taking a similar approach.

In a recent interview, Armstrong remarked that the band is just not in that mode, even though many people probably expected an anti-Trump tirade on at least one of the tracks. Theres so much toxic s--- in the ether right now, Armstrong told Spin. I didnt want to write songs that would contribute to that.

Instead, Green Day wants us to get up and dance. The video for the title track intercuts band performance footage in front of a Jailhouse Rock-type backdrop with images of people of all ethnicities and genders from different time periods doing everything from twisting to moshing. Its a message of unity through music, which is admirable, but theres none of the heavy social commentary in American Idiot or its follow-up,21st Century Breakdown, both of them ambitious rock operas.

One can't necessarily fault Green Day; theyve arguably done their part. They even led a crowd chant of No Trump! No KKK! No Fascist USA! live on the 2016 American Music Awards. But if their time for questioning norms and the powers that be has passed, where are their mainstream rock heirs to pick up the mantle? Leftist agitators Rage Against the Machine are reuniting for a tour this year, but where are their successors?

In the late 1960s, American rock 'n roll found its mojo in pissing off conservatives by espousing sexual and chemical experimentation, challenging authority and protesting the Vietnam War. The Clash, Sex Pistols, Ramones and numerous '70s punk bands added gasoline to the fire with anarchistic intensity, though some of them later flamed out.

During the Reagan and Bush era of the 1980s through early 90s, a resurgent time of conservatism and uber patriotism, many artists continued to challenge the status quo. Even heavy metal got in on the act with bands like Anthrax, Queensryche and Megadeth, plus various underground thrash acts, making statements about the Cold War, social issues and political corruption.

But in the late 1980s came the buffoonery of hair bands, and with it, the ugly side of the rock paradigm emerged. Truth be told, many of those rockers had more in common with Wall Street brokers in their pursuit of hedonistic pleasures and big money. That type of hard rock ultimately ended up pissing off liberals who did not like its self-absorbed nonrebellion, while many of the elements that made rock 'n roll dangerous were things that became clichs and also politically incorrect.

Grunge and alt-rock in the early to mid-1990s did its part to reinvent the genre while espousing more inclusive messages. Green Days breakthrough album Dookieemerged in 1994. But in the latter half of the 90s, techno, teen pop and nu-metal took over. With the 2000s came the karaoke posturing of American Idol and a deluge of safer pop and rock artists.

We need rock stars with purpose again this time those willing to piss off or unsettle both sides of the aisle in their quest to express their truth. Partly, that should come through the message, and partly from the musical approach.

Solo artist and System of a Down singer Serj Tankian has been a lifelong musician and activist, so the combination is natural for him. A good love song can help change the world as much as a powerful political one," Tankian told me. "That said, when something is very obviously unjust and artists bypass it so as not to lose fans, I dont have any respect for that."

Many of the elements that made rock 'n roll dangerous were things that became clichs and also politically incorrect.

Gary Clark Jr., at 35, might be the best current model for the type of reinvention rock needs. An artist who straddles the blues and rock worlds, Clark's Grammy-winning single This Land thrives on the spirit of classic protest songs and was inspired by racist incidents he experienced in Texas. The song's chorus, an angry exchange between a racist and a black man defying him, should make any white person uncomfortable, even empathetic ones, especially if they attempt to sing along to the chorus in public.

Rock needs this type of renewed energy, and the younger, more diverse generation Clark represents. We need a new cohort of rock artists who are keenly aware of the huge stakes in what promises to be the most bitter and divisive presidential election cycle in modern American history. So we can respect the middle-age and elder statesmen like Green Day that are passing the torch to a new generation if that new generation is willing to set things ablaze.

More here:
Green Day's new album 'Father of All ...' plays it too safe, like most recent rock music - NBC News

For the second year in a row, the Academy Awards will have no host, confirming that the Academy's attempt to cancel Kevin Hart has permanently backfired. If accepting the hosting gig ensures the woke mob will turn over every stone in your past to paint you as problematic, why would anyone want the job? It's likely that the Oscars will never gain a host again.

But if anyone can make us miss a specific host, it's Ricky Gervais. The comedian, fresh off of his expert excoriation of Hollywood during the Golden Globes, took to Twitter to share how he would start his opening monologue if tapped to host the Oscars.

Gervais already quit while he was ahead, announcing that this year's Golden Globes would be his last, and if the Academy couldn't stomach the slightly politically incorrect Hart, there's no way they'd let Gervais host the Oscars. But the Brit perfectly distilled how the only kind of humor that lands in our deeply unserious times is self-deprecating.

Consider, Oscar attendees are not only claiming that we're on the breach of the apocalypse because of the Orange Man in the Oval as they live in the best place in the best time in human history. They're sipping on Cristal and munching on caviar as they're doing it. No one, except for the left-wing presidential candidates they love, expects successful celebrities to resign themselves to asceticism, but a little self-awareness about plutocratic prosperity could help. And rather than wax on about wokeness and women not receiving enough Oscar nods, perhaps they could try a little penance for their protection of the Harvey Weinsteins of the world.

But of course, that would actually be entertainment, a commodity hard to find in Hollywood these days.

The rest is here:
Ricky Gervais makes us wish he were hosting the Oscars, too - Washington Examiner

While skipping a host for the Oscars every once in a while is nothing new for the Academy, this year many are speculating that this will become the new norm after the second year in a row of not having a host, seeming to surface in the era of cancel culture.

In late 2018, comedian Kevin Hart publicly stated he would be hosting the 2019 Oscars; an announcement that triggered intense public scrutiny regarding homophobic jokes and tweets he had previously put forth.

While backlash against Hart came from all directions, a majority derived from social media platforms like Twitter. Although it is not a particularly new phenomenon as it has been particularly prevalent in the last five years, cancel culture was brought to the forefront of American pop culture after Harts canceling.

According to Vox, to be canceled is defined as being, culturally blocked from having a prominent public platform or career. Whether justified or not, it is evident that this was the intention of the public backlash as many fighting for social justice sought to tear down Harts career by resurfacing old instances of homophobia reflected in his style comedy.

After a back and forth of Hart refusing to apologize and claiming he had already adequately addressed his past comments, Hart ultimately stepped away from hosting the Oscars, citing the whirlwind of drama that followed him as the reasoning behind the decision, not wanting to be a distraction to the main purpose of the ceremony.

This opinion seemed to be shared by other celebrities, with Seth MacFarlane declining the offer to be Harts replacement in 2019. MacFarlane hosted in 2013, opening the ceremony with a skit that included a number called We Saw Your Boobs in which he named the various actresses who have appeared topless in their movies, effectively minimizing their performances in Oscar-nominated films to the fact that the audience saw their breasts.

Considering the Academy was already infamous for its lack of diversity, this host inflamed tensions by making the women in the room feel even more isolated and objectified. Although MacFarlane was accused of sexism and faced scrutiny for the manner in which he hosted the Oscars, he was asked to return six years later.

Perhaps this was out of desperation on the Academys part as they sought to quickly find a replacement for Kevin Hart. Regardless, MacFarlane pointed out that there would always be a target on the hosts back, no matter who was asked. Any celebrity that would agree to host would immediately be placed in the public eye to be scrutinized if they had made mistakes in the past.

More so than who hosts the Oscars (or if anyone even hosts at all), the larger issue at hand is cancel culture itself. Many find themselves asking what the purpose even issome view canceling as a tool to hold powerful figures accountable who, without extreme backlash from a public audience, would face little to no consequences for their actions, while on the other hand some view canceling as a toxic practice that impedes improvement without accounting for character development.

Those in favor of the practice cite the fact that it is necessary for powerful celebrities to face consequences for their words and actions, especially considering that most of the celebrities who have been canceled in the past few years have been only minimally impacted by it. A Time article mentions comedian Louis C.K. getting dropped by his agency, losing almost all of his career opportunities at the time, only to sell out extremely controversial shows a short time later.

While his career was temporarily affected by public backlash, it is clear C.K.s career did not and will not suffer in the long term, even considering the fact that he abused his power as a celebrity in order to take advantage of female comedians he worked with.

More of the same was seen with actress Gina Rodriguez, who was canceled after using the n-word in an Instagram story in October of 2019. While this caused some scandal for her in the short term as she has almost entirely disappeared from social media since, it is likely Rodriguez will continue with acting without long term repercussions to her career.

To some extent, it does feel unfair that celebrities can seemingly get away with hurting other people or making damaging and harmful statements, even after being canceled for a little while. At the same time, it is worrisome and perhaps detrimental that as a society, we perpetuate a culture of simply canceling someone instead of encouraging them to be better and holding them accountable in a constructive way.

Public outrage against celebrities is expected and perhaps even justified in some cases (especially in those like Louis C.K.s where there are nearly unforgivable atrocities that have been committed), but many disagree with and push back against this culture and acknowledge the fact that apologies should suffice for smaller missteps, that growth should be allowed for celebrities just as much as it is for the general public. Really, the only difference between them and us is every mistake they make is recorded and put on display for everyone to see and remember for years to come.

Both positions make sensecelebrities should absolutely be held accountable for their actions, but at the same time, they should be allowed to make amends when there is an opportunity for growth.

Though I disagree with Seth MacFarlanes approach to comedy as it appeared in the 2013 Oscars, it is true that whoever hosts the Oscars will have a target on their back. In general, celebrities should try to be better people and probably not seek out offending other people out of cruelty, nor should we want people who will attempt to make other people uncomfortable in a degrading way, but we should also give them the chance to be better.

At this point, with most celebrities having politically incorrect pasts (especially comedians,) it is unlikely there will be a host for a few more years. Hopefully in time we will be able to get to a place where we hold people accountable in a constructive way so that we can continue the tradition of great comedy at the Oscars instead of opting out of having a host at all.

See the rest here:
OPINION: What another hostless Oscars says about cancel culture - The Daily Toreador

Quentin Tarantino doesn't make traditional "Oscar movies." His nine films to date are filled with violence, cursing, politically incorrect observations, more violence, more cursing and a good deal of pulp. They tend to be angry, bloody affairs. Despite that, he's won two Academy Awards for best original screenplay. And this year presents his best chance to finally nab the top prize with his sentimental ode to the industry, "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood."

Could 'Jojo Rabbit' win the Oscar for best picture? The case for Taika Waititi's WWII satire.

Could 'The Irishman' win the Oscar for best picture? The case for Martin Scorsese's gangster epic

The movie doesn't just depict the Hollywood of the 1960s, it downright glamorizes it. One sequence finds us at the Playboy Mansion, decked out for a party, as Steve McQueen smokes a joint and slyly watches Sharon Tate dance. Our characters drive down the Sunset Strip, visit the Spahn Movie Ranch and dine at El Coyote. The whole thing is a shot glass full of nostalgia for anyone who's spent time in Los Angeles, particularly during the latter half of last century (a number that includes many academy voters). It doesn't hurt that the movie is funny, well-crafted and, in a strange turn for the auteur, sweet.

Is that enough?

Total nominations: 10 (picture, director, actor, supporting actor, original screenplay, cinematography, sound mixing, sound editing, costume design, production design).

Synopsis: A washed-up actor (who lives next to Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate) and his stunt double stare down the end of their careers in 1969, as the Manson Family cult continues to grow.

Directed by: Quentin Tarantino.

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio as Rick Dalton, Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth and Margot Robbie as Sharon Tate, with a supporting cast rounded out by Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Timothy Olyphant, Julia Butters and Bruce Dern.

Why it could win: The academy has a soft spot for movies that present Hollywood in a good light. Who doesn't enjoy a bit of self-adulation? In the past, we've seen films like "Argo" and "The Artist" earn the top prize against arguably better fare, probably because they bathe Tinseltown in a golden light. Well, "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" does that and more, correcting a historical atrocity while romanticizing the movie industry of the 1960s. Toss in a few movie stars and killer soundtrack, and we've got a real contender on our hands.

Why it might not win: The movie ends with a quick but intense bout of pulpy violence, the kind generally found in the sort of genre fare that hasn't historically resonated with the academy. Such gore (along with a nearly comedic amount of strong language) isn't uncommon in Tarantino films, but it's also a major reason his movies tend not to earn best picture. Still, "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" is arguably his warmest, most traditional film. Perhaps in this instance, nostalgia will outweigh the brutality.

EDITORS: This story is part of a series evaluating the chances of all nine best picture nominees.

Read more here:
Could 'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood' win the Oscar for best picture? The case for Quentin Tarantino's ode to Tinseltown - Omaha World-Herald

A producer was called to the stand by Harvey Weinsteins lawyers to testify about his former friendship with Annabella Sciorra and then prosecutors used his own texts to reveal his close relationship with Weinstein.

Paul Feldsher, a New Yorkbased film producer, was called to tell the jury about how Sciorra allegedly told him about a consensual encounter she had with Weinstein. During his testimony on Thursday, prosecutor Joan Illuzzi-Orbon used Feldshers text messages to show that he and Weinstein were in frequent contact after allegations against the producer were made public in 2017.

Illuzzi-Orbon read out text messages Feldsher sent Weinstein alleging that the dogpile of women recalling repressed memories was hideous and telling him, until you are proven legally guilty, I will continue to be that politically incorrect person who defends you.

I had no idea that my text messages would end up in court, Feldsher said.

Feldsher was the first witness the defense called to testify after prosecutors rested their case Thursday morning. Feldsher said in court that Annabella Sciorra who testified earlier this month that Weinstein raped her had told him that she did a crazy thing with Harvey at some point in the early 1990s.

Feldsher testified that he assumed Sciorra was referring to fooling around with Weinstein.

As I recall if it had been something provocative or something that had frightened her, I cant imagine that it wouldnt have evoked something more, he said. There was no component of what she said that was shocking or stressful. Feldsher also said that he recalled Sciorra was taking Xanax and drinking alcohol a lot during that period of time.

Feldsher testified that Sciorra and he had been close friends three decades ago but under cross-examination, he revealed he did not know her friends and had never visited her Gramercy Park apartment.

We have not been in touch for seven years, but I still care about her, he said.

Things took a dramatic turn when Illuzzi-Orbon presented Feldsher with text messages that hed exchanged with Weinstein, including ones discussing Sciorra.

In one message, Feldsher described Weinstein as voracious when it came to a script, a movie or yes, a girl.

When Illuzzi-Orbon asked Feldsher what he meant by that, he described Weinstein as someone with extreme appetites and said he had a sex addiction.

I probably shouldnt have called him a sex addict, he later said.

Illuzzi-Orbon then presented texts between Feldsher and Weinstein where they discussed Sciorra.

Earlier this month, during her testimony, Sciorra read out a text message she received from Feldsher after she spoke publicly about her alleged abuse to the New Yorker. In the message, Feldsher said he was sorry about a bunch of stuff and that he Would love healing and peace, and friend back, I hope you are all well. Current events are way too much for text, but obviously acknowledge goes to that awfulness, X.

Around the same time, Feldsher texted Weinstein: I think shes full of shit.

I know you guys had an awkward whatever the fuck night twenty years ago, he wrote.

In another message to Weinstein, Feldsher called Sciorra as an asshole and said, The rape version got her an agent at CAA, so theres that.

Feldsher also texted Weinstein about other women who had said he had allegedly sexually assaulted them. I think the dogpile of women who are suddenly brave in recalling repressed memories is hideous, he wrote.

I was speaking to him partially because nobody else was, Feldsher said in court. I felt badly that he was completely abandoned. I felt bad that it would be difficult for him to be the recipient of due process.

Illuzzi-Orbon asked Feldsher if he was just saying what the defendant wanted to hear both in his text messages and in the courtroom.

No, Feldsher replied.

Illuzzi-Orbon then presented Feldsher with a final message this one from Weinstein to him. It simply read: I love u.

Go here to read the rest:
Harvey Weinsteins First Witness Said The Dogpile Of Women Saying The Producer Allegedly Sexual Assaulted Them Was Hideous - BuzzFeed News