If I were under the age of 21 I would be one pissed-off mother-fucker.
So, bear with me for a moment while I turn 19-years-old.
There.
Done.
I am now politically correct (not!) and can therefore self identify. As such I am now 19-years-old.
Got it? I am 19.
And don’t fuckin’ argue with me, because that will force me to pull out all kinds of political correct bullshit such as self identification and other fallacies designed to force you to concede to my viewpoint or shut the fuck up. And if you don’t concede to my viewpoint or shut the fuck up I will shout louder than you and drown out any of your pithy arguments. And trust me, we folks of the politically correct persuasion know how to drown out the opposition with noise….
Wow, I’m feeling kind of powerful in my new, politically correct, 19-year-old skin!
And for just this moment…for this ensuing rant, I’m going to really enjoy the specific “self identification” perk of being politically correct.
Here goes:
The governor of California earlier this month signed into law legislation that makes it illegal for me and everyone else under the age of 21 to enjoy tobacco products, whether smoked, dipped, chewed or vaped. This follows on the heels of Hawaii, which made such acts illegal for those under 21 in April.
R U F’ing Kidding Me!!!
You technically make me an adult at age 18 by giving me the vote and forcing me to file (and perhaps—eeek!—pay) tax returns. And you’re willing to send me off to foreign countries where I might be forced to blow a man’s head off, or where my head could be detached from my body by the crazy people you are expecting me to subdue on your behalf…..
And you are telling me that I am not legally allowed to enjoy partaking in activities that the rest of you allowed-to-vote clowns can partake in at whim???
Yeah, well fuck you!!!
OK, that’s it. Rant over. Boy, that was fun!
For the record I don’t even smoke (any more), but that’s pretty much the same rant I made back in my youth when states started raising the drinking age to 21. Of course, as I grew older and became able to legally drown my ire, I lost my passion for fighting what was such an obviously hypocritical and unjust legal construct.
And yes, these laws governing “underage” drinking and smoking admittedly save lives; however, they still fall under the rubric of “tyranny.”
Perhaps a couple of years of tyranny is worth it. Still, I am truly glad that I am no longer under the age of 21 and under the thumb of such….
—Originally published May 6 on behalf of Hash It Out!
Well kids, the level of political correct lunacy appears to be reaching all-time highs this month, with the recent antics of the Loony Left leaving me gobsmacked and thinking that the world is truly going crazy.
I mean, President Obama has determined that children can “self-identify” whether they are male or female independent of any biological determinants or parental input. Crazy or what?
If “self identification” is going to be the law of the land then I choose to self identify as a dog so that I can shit and piss wherever I please, bathrooms be damned. Of course, as self identification is a PC construct its use will undoubtedly be restricted to marginalized peoples and off-limits to straight, white, privileged folks such as myself.
Anyhow, Obama’s PC-related gambit is just one small sample of this month’s lunacy. Social justice warriors (SJWs) across the land seem to be working overtime in pursuit of enacting their various PC-oriented agenda. It seems like a concerted effort, almost as if the SJWs have been triggered into mass activism.
Perhaps it’s because one of their activists was taken down a notch or two late last month after she tried to disrupt a panel discussion at the University of Massachusetts on whether political correctness has gone too far. The insightful and humorous panel discussion, featuring Christina Hoff Sommers, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Steven Crowder, can be seen here: The Triggering: Has Political Correctness Gone Too Far?
If you have the time the video is well worth watching, as the panel totally rips into the nonsense and hypocrisy that is today’s political correctness.
Cora Segal, the social justice warrior who aggressively tried to disrupt the discussion, has become the new face of political correctness. While “Trigglypuff,” as Cora has been aptly renamed on social media, wasn’t the only SJW in attendance, her lunacy was perfectly captured by student journalist Kassy Dillon, who is helping chronicle and publicize the rise of censorship on North American campuses. Kassy’s video has made Trigglypuff (and the bemused attendee in front of her) a You Tube sensation and you can watch a short clip of it below:
While I doubt the public downfall of SJW Trigglypuff, and subsequent publicity given to the common-sense panel discussion, is the actual trigger for some kind of mass effort by the PC holy warrior faithful, they sure have been especially active ever since. Consider the following:
Student activists at Seattle University’s Matteo Ricci College have taken over the dean’s office and threaten prolonged occupation unless a lengthy list of demands is met. The bloviated manifesto—MRC Student Coalition Demands—is so poorly written that I could have as much fun eviscerating it editorially as I could ripping apart its ludicrous demands.
Consider the second sentence: “We consider it an ethical matter to name the disturbing experiences we have lived while in this college, while also noting that we are not the first students in this college to express these concerns, as they reflect a long-standing history of oppression and resistance in cohorts long since graduated.”
I know, “huh?” And the writer(s) never do get around to specifically “naming” the “disturbing experiences,” so I guess we’ll just have to call them “Bill,” “Ted” and “Alice.”
Anyhow, from what I can construe from the bloviation, key among the dozens of “demands” are the firing of the dean, hiring of gay and minority professors, and a teaching of “non-Eurocentric” humanities courses that “decentralize whiteness” but focus on white oppression and aggression. As noted in the manifesto, the “current curriculum does not reflect the kind of education we expected nor want,” which begs the question as to why they applied to the college to begin with.
The demands also seek far more student power within the professor-student relationship and the silencing of voices and ideology that do not conform to the students’ own beliefs. The stifling of “microaggressions” and “triggers,” as well as creation of “safe spaces,” along with other means for latent censorship of voices and ideology the students don’t like, play a key role throughout the list of demands.
I sincerely hope that Seattle University does not put up with this nonsense for much longer. I mean, tear gas and billy clubs will certainly not be needed, as the delicate snowflakes will undoubtedly collapse in tears at the sight of handcuffs.
And then we’ve got the Chicago Public School system, responsible for almost 400,000 children. It rolled out new rules last week that require students and teachers to address transgendered students and school employees by their preferred name and pronouns. According to the rules, transgendered students and employees can choose their preferred bathroom, locker room, name and pronouns, and everyone is required to conform to their new chosen identities.
Not sure what the penalties for non-compliance are, but the whole PC “gender identity” movement is filled with all kinds of confusing and constantly-evolving terminology. I mean, “Ze?” Really? What the fuck is that supposed to mean? And “gender-fluid” seems to be especially popular with the PC transgender movement. Students identifying as such will certainly have fun getting their classmates in trouble.
Student “Black Lives Matter” activists at Dartmouth College tore down a display honoring police officers who had fallen in the line of duty because the display was “offensive,” “white supremacist,” and allegedly “promoted violence against black people.” The activists replaced the display with dozens of flyers that stated: “YOU CANNOT CO-OPT THE MOVEMENT AGAINST STATE VIOLENCE TO MEMORIALIZE THE PERPETRATORS.”
My message to Black Lives Matter: “YES, BLACK LIVES MATTER; HOWEVER, THE BIGGEST KILLER OF BLACK LIVES IS OTHER BLACK FOLKS, NOT THE OCCASIONAL ROGUE COP—FOR EVERY ONE WRONGFUL MURDER COMMITTED BY A POLICE OFFICER (MANY OF WHOM ARE “BLACK”) THOUSANDS ARE COMMITTED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE.”
Over in Illinois, SJWs at Millikin University’s Office of Inclusion and Student Engagement (OISE) have warned fraternities that they will be punished if they use face paint during their annual frat pledge events. Yeah, OISE warned Tau Kappa Epsilon and other university fraternities that fraternities “are prohibited from wearing black and red paint wigs/and clothing items that mimic or depict an ethnicity or culture,” and threatened them with “student conduct sanctions” should they fail to abide by the warning.
Well, as a direct descendent of ancient Gallic tribes, Nordic Vikings and—yes (not kidding)—even the Powhatan native American tribe, I am offended that OISE is preventing my cultures from being honored by the frat boys who want to paint their faces in ways reminiscent of my various ancestors’ preparations for battle.
I don’t know, do I have some kind of justification for a lawsuit here?
And, while not last among the recent “are-you-fucking-kidding-me” PC news, a teen advocacy organization has reportedly come up with a plan to encourage television animators to fatten up their cartoon characters to protect fat kids from body shaming. Apparently “Project Know” believes that the svelte teenage action hero cartoon characters are demoralizing role models for overweight pre-teens.
I’m sorry, even though there’s way more recent PC bullshit to report, I just can’t handle it anymore. I mean, can you say, “Bark at the moon?” ‘cause we’re getting to that level of crazy.
OK, Kid’s, it’s Friday and you know what that means….
That’s right, time for the MJM weekly rantathon about the latest politically correct idiocy and/or other bullshit afflicting our world like….
I don’t know, like…it’s getting ridiculous. The easily outraged and offended PC crowd seems to be getting more volatile by the week—more touchy about anything that might cause offense, especially if the offense is at all directed in any manner toward any of their sacred cows.
I mean, it sucks to be a comedian these days, cause just about everybody but straight, white, conservative males is off limits. Bust a joke about Blacks, Gays, Chinese, Muslims, Mexicans, females, the mentally unstable, anything “trans,” etc., and the PC righteous will set out to destroy you for your insensitivity.
Begs the question: if the PC crowd refuses to find any humor amidst the foibles of humanity (other than that of straight, White, conservative males), and seem to spend all of their time and energies looking for excuses to wield their self-righteous outrage, do they ever find time to have fun? Do they have a sense of humor? Can they crack a smile? I kind of doubt it….
But I digress. I am supposed to be ranting about the latest politically correct idiocy afflicting our world like…for this week we’ll say “like the fetid puss of a festering boil.”
Heading our list for this week are the usual easily outraged suspects who just had to jump on the PC bandwagon to express their outrage and offense over Snapchat’s use of a Bob Marley filter on 420 Day. The filter allows users to superimpose the reggae star’s classic dreadlocked Jamaican look over their own or others’ faces on the social media photo-sharing service.
Not only were the PC holy warriors outraged by this alleged cyber “Blackface,” but they felt the use of the iconic musician’s likeness as a Snapchat filter was a case of cultural appropriation and that its use diminished Marley to a stereotype. The release of the filter on 420 Day, an unofficial day to celebrate Marijuana, also incensed the PC righteous because they felt it diminished Marley’s other talents by focusing on his well-known adoration and support of Marijuana.
OK, PC freaks, get over yourselves. Bob Marley was Black. Any image of Marley should be Black, and if a White person superimposes that image over their own it shouldn’t automatically be construed as “racist.” In fact, chances are that 99 percent of people using this filter love Bob Marley, his music and even his love of pot, and in no way are trying to insult his Blackness or anything else for that matter.
In fact, get over the whole “Blackface” thing—the days of the minstrel are long over, and the vast majority of people who utilize Blackface these days as part of a costume are not doing it in any way to purposely insult Black folks.
As for the release of the filter on 420 Day, get over that one, too, because Bob Marley is one of the historical proponents of Marijuana usage and legalization and should be honored on such a day. In no way does this diminish his musical talents or cultural achievements.
Finally, the filter was created in partnership with the Bob Marley estate, so this kind of makes all of the PC crowd’s complaints utterly moot and worthless.
While the above marks yet another case of PC inanity, the politically correct unfortunately managed to score two victories this week.
ESPN caved in to PC pressure and fired baseball analyst Curt Schilling due to a meme and comments he posted on his Facebook page. You can see the meme to the right, and among his comments were: “A man is a man no matter what they call themselves. I don’t care what they are, who they sleep with, men’s room was designed for the penis, women’s not so much. Now you need laws telling us differently? Pathetic.”
Unreal. If bullshit like this keeps up, no one will feel comfortable expressing his or her opinions about anything anymore….
A PC victory was also scored this week with the U.S. Department of Treasury, which made all the right PC moves in its planned revamping of the $20 bill. That is replacing a racist ex-president with a Black, feminist, abolitionist hero.
Unlike the first PC victory, I don’t really have a problem with this one. While Andrew Jackson was a pretty decent president and war hero, he was also kind of prick and a racist, what with being pro-slavery and the architect behind the Trail of Tears, which resulted in the death of thousands of Indians. And Ms. Tubman was a hero deserving of respect, helping to save thousands from slavery, and working to help secure the right of women to vote.
But man, I hope they can find a halfway decent image of her. I mean, talk about a scowl—her visage is the grumpy, outraged face I picture, whether White or Black, whenever I read or hear the pontifications of pompous PC potentates.
—Originally published on behalf of Hash It Out on its Facebook page
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment is my favorite part of the U.S. Constitution. Not the amendment’s opening part. I mean, I believe in the free exercise of religion, but kind of hope no more religions are “established” as the ones already established cause enough trouble in the world. And that part about petitioning the government is kind of worthless, cause you can petition about your grievances until the cows come home, but good luck receiving any redress.
It’s the “freedom of speech, or of the press,” part of this amendment that stirs my soul, and the one I have actively supported since my rabble-rousing youth. It is the reason I rail against political correctness, which is so often used to furtively stifle free speech and oppress critical thinking.
To this day I believe the U.S. Supreme Court did the right thing by defending flag burning as freedom of expression. While I personally disagree with burning Old Glory, the fact that it is allowed as a form of expression is part of what makes America great.
I also find various garbage proclaimed as “art,” such as works by Robert Maplethorpe and others of his ilk, to be offensive; however, its public display, no matter how loathsome, is worthy of first amendment protection, too.
In my rabble-rousing youth, university and college campuses were bastions of free speech. On just about any given day you were likely to find all points of view expressed on any number of issues, not to mention plenty of public “bad taste” antics and other questionable displays by fraternal organizations and other social groups. All without any real fuss or overt animosity between competing factions or diametrically opposed interest groups. Students tended to discuss divisive issues, but for the most part did not try to suppress ideas and speech they did not agree with.
So I’ve got to ask: What the fuck happened?
How is it that in the span of roughly one generation, the ideal of free speech has been cast aside by most institutions of higher learning, with the apparent full support of a majority of professors and students?
Students aren’t taught about “freedom of speech,” because they are now being taught “freedom from speech.” Universities, colleges and many of their students seem to be focused on limiting just about any speech that might possibly cause offence, and stifling ideas that may run contrary to specific students’ beliefs. And with the emphasis on trigger warnings, safe spaces, microaggressions, speech codes, privilege of various sorts, and other popular politically correct taglines, “debate” is obviously now a foreign concept on campuses. Instead, students are being taught how to engage in “goodthink.”
Consider in just the past 10 days:
DePaul University enacted a ban on students chalking political messages on campus sidewalks because of the “offensive, hurtful, and divisive” nature of pro-Donald Trump chalking.
The State University of New York at New Paltz abruptly canceled a planned campus debate between a notable left-wing media critic and a notable right-wing media critic on “How the Media Can Sway Votes and Win Elections.” Certainly sounds like a well-balanced debate on an important issue. Unfortunately, one of the debaters had “extreme” right wing views, according to complaints lodged by at least one professor and several unidentified students. Can’t have that, now can we. . . even if balanced out by another speaker on the opposite end of the political spectrum.
Campus police forced University of Delaware students to censor a giant inflatable “free speech beach ball,” because someone had drawn a picture of a penis on the ball, along with the word “penis.” The students, who were promoting free speech values, were advised that campus speech codes and sexual harassment policies overrode any rights to free expression. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and Young Americans for Liberty both issued protests to university administrators advising them that the campus police were infringing upon the students’ First Amendment rights.
And how about this for complete irony:
About 700 professors and students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison signed letters complaining about racism from campus police and administrators, and demanding that a student arrested for spray-painting graffiti on scores of campus buildings be given clemency for his actions and be allowed to graduate on time this May. The letters allege that police engaged in racism by interrupting an Afro-American studies class when they arrested the student vandal, and that administrators are guilty of promoting racism because they were more interested in protecting campus buildings than students—such as the vandal—who are fighting for social change.
The student vandal’s fight for social change included graffiti on 11 different buildings with such messages as: “THE DEVIL IZ A WHITE MAN,” “DEATH TO PIGZ,” “WHITE SUPREMACY IZ A DISEASE,” AND “FUCK THE POLICE,” among others.
Unbelievably, both the chief of campus police and university chancellor have issued statements of apology over the incident, with both vowing to review police practices. I wouldn’t be surprised if the vandal ends up serving as the university’s valedictorian during the upcoming graduation ceremonies.
So, Hash It Out: Is the politically correct induced dissolution of the First Amendment on campuses turning American universities batshit crazy?
Hallelujah! I have seen the light and now realize the long-term error of my ways….
I will no longer engage in behaviour that diminishes or demeans marginalized people and cultures, and will cleanse my speech of microaggressions that might prove insulting to anyone. I will use trigger warnings on anything I write in the future that could possibly cause undue stress or apprehension to those with fragile constitutions. I will promote and protect “safe spaces” to ensure that marginalized people and groups are not threatened by any streams of thought that might prove contrary to their own beliefs. I will vigorously support the ideals of multiculturalism, and publicly humiliate those who engage in cultural appropriation. And I will strive to only engage in “goodthink,” so as to help foster the social justice ideal of “Ingsoc.”
That’s right folks, I am bound and determined to become a militant, politically correct, social justice warrior. And, yes, from perusing the righteous and socially conscious websites of politically correct organizations and social justice activists, I do realize that it’s an especially tall order to fill.
I mean, how can I ever achieve political correctness with so much “privilege?”
Think about it: I’ve got “Male” privilege, “White” privilege, “Straight” privilege, “Thin” privilege, “Ability” privilege, “Class” privilege, “Western” privilege, “Christian” privilege, “Neurotypical” privilege, “Gender-Clarity” privilege, “Blue-Eyes” privilege, and probably other privileges of which I may not yet even be aware.
In short, I must be the most privileged mo-fo around.
And, as militant social justice folks who strictly follow the dictates of political correctness know, the day-to-day benefits I receive from these unearned privileges result in the day-to-day oppression and disenfranchisement of those who do not have these privileges—my privilege is their living hell!
Thus, in order to become truly politically correct, I must exorcise these privileges from my life. So here’s what I’m going to do:
I am transitioning into a woman (“Janella” is my new name, by the way). There, in one fell swoop I have knocked out a whole bunch of privileges. I no longer have “Male” privilege because I am now a woman (“hear me roar!”). I no longer have “Straight” privilege because I’m just not into boys and will have to be a “lesbian” woman. “Gender-Clarity” privilege is obviously gone. And I’m just going to assume that if I am confused about my gender then I am probably not thinking clearly with regard to other aspects of life, so this serves to nullify the “Neurotypical” privilege, too.
Thanks to the adoption of “self-identification” as a tenet of political correctness, I now identify as “African-American,” eliminating the “White” privilege. And yes, the white skin is a bit of a problem, but guess what? I’m an “albino” African-American,” which I believe obviates the “Ability” privilege because albinism is a disability of sorts. And not only am I African-American, but I am now a Muslim African-American, which takes care of that pesky “Christian” privilege.
Given all of the above, I don’t believe that there’s any way I can still be considered to possess “Class” and “Western” privilege, but I’ll leave that for the PC potentates to decide.
“Blue-Eyes” privilege? Well, I’m thinking I’ll have to go with colored—oops, I mean “tinted”—contact lenses.
And that leaves “Thin” privilege… Not sure how I’m going to handle this one. I thought about maybe eating burgers like Wimpy, so as to gain some quick girth and poundage, but eating meat like that just seems so anti-PC. This one is a conundrum, as I certainly don’t want my svelte figure to be the cause of distress to those who may be generously proportioned. Beaucoup tofu, perhaps?
Anyhow, what with now being a Black-Lesbo-Hajihead-Gimped-Tranny, I have clearly eliminated the bulk of my privileges and am definitely on the path to political correct enlightenment.
What’s with Americans wanting to be outraged all the time? Is it just me or does it seem like Americans across the country are perceiving everything as a possible insult or disparagement.
Black folks seem to be especially touchy of late, what with a light-skinned black actress playing Nina Simone in an upcoming biopic feature film stirring up the latest outrage….
And, oops, I may have just made a major faux pas, as I referred to them as “Black” rather than “African American.” But sorry, I refuse to use “African American,” as most Black Americans are about as “African” as a German Shepard is “German.”
Or to put it another way, if I were insulted by being called “White” and insisted upon being referenced to by a moniker based on my ancestors, then I’d be an English-French-German-Scottish-Spanish-Dutch-Acadian-American-American (please note that the “American-American” part of that description is due to some Native American blood in my line).
And I’m about as English, French, German, Scottish, Spanish, Dutch or Acadian as a German Shepard is “German.”
All in all, pretty ludicrous, eh?
So earlier this week a Black couple stopped into an IHOP restaurant in Texas to pick up a to-go order, and were “stunned” to find the words “BLACK PPL” printed on the receipt, apparently as a means of identifying who the take-out order was for.
The couple took great offense at being called “Black,” raised a ruckus on social media, contacted the news media, and garnered a quick public apology from IHOP and a firing of the wait staff who had erred by identifying the couple as “Black.” Because apparently calling Black folks “Black,” is racist…even if you happen to be Black yourself, which the poor waiter was.
Well, Rolman Sparkman, one-half of the aggrieved couple who contacted the media about the alleged slur, said the most “shocking” thing about the incident was that the waiter was “Black.” Though apparently Sparkman had no qualms about calling the waiter “Black.”
The fired waiter, Dwayne Williams, attributed his use of “BLACK PPL” instead of getting the couple’s actual names to the restaurant being especially busy at that time, and said he certainly did not mean to cause offence, and, “as a Black Prince myself,” was not being racist.
No word yet on whether the couple is planning to file a lawsuit alleging egregious harm and all manner of mental trauma due to the racist insult.
Which begs the question(s), would being called “Black” hold up in court as a racist epithet? Since when has “Black” been considered racist? And, whatever happened to “Black Power” and “Black is Beautiful?”
The release last week of the nominations for the 88th annual Academy Awards stirred an immediate backlash due to the lily-white composition of the best actor and best supporting actor categories. That’s right, for the second year in a row the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ 6,000-plus voting members failed to recognize any people of color or ethnic diversity for their acting abilities.
You would think that the crackers—more than 90 percent of the Academy members are white—would have learned from last year’s backlash and made an effort to be more inclusive. Last year’s slate of 20 white acting nominees marked the first time since 1998 that the nominees didn’t include at least one racially or ethnically diverse actor. This despite the critically acclaimed acting in the Martin Luther King Jr. biopic “Selma.” And now the Academy voters have done it again, and revived the “Oscars So White!” backlash.
But are the Academy’s crackers biased or was there just a lack of good racial or ethnic talent? Critics are pointing to “Straight Outa Compton,” “Beasts of No Nation,” and “Concussion,” as being filled with black talent that was ignored by Academy voters. Of course, the review of “talent” is highly subjective and many people might argue that these movies, though quite good, are not representative of Oscar-worthy talent.
Academy President Cheryl Boone Isaacs, who happens to be a woman of color, said, “Of course I am disappointed, but this is not to take away the greatness [of the films nominated].” Nevertheless, she added, the Academy’s efforts to diversify are moving too slowly. For the record as part of its efforts to become more inclusive in the wake of last year’s backlash, the Academy invited “Selma” star David Oyelowo, “Concussion” acrtress Gugu Mbatha-Raw, and “Straight Outta Compton” director F. Gary Gray to join its ranks.
This obviously isn’t going to tip the scales enough, and will probably only alleviate the apparent Academy bias against blacks. What of other minority groups? We don’t see them represented with any nominations. Are any of the acting nominees Asian? How about Hispanic? Disabled? Gay? Native American? Trans? Obese?
The answer appears to be “no.” And if you are appalled by this blatant lack of diversity in the Academy Awards nominees, then no doubt you would support a mandated affirmative action program for the Academy’s nomination process. And not only would this ensure the inclusiveness of all marginalized minority groups, but it would force Hollywood to make movies more reflective of the actual world we live in.
Here is what the slate of “best” and “supporting” actors would be comprised of under such an affirmative action nominating program (with nominations based to the extent possible upon the actual percentages of subgroups within the at-large U.S. population).
Fourteen whites
Three Hispanics (with at least one being of Mexican origin)
Two blacks
One mulatto
One Asian
and one Native American every sixth year
Of the nominees seven must be obese, four must be physically or mentally disabled, and one must be gay (every 22 years the gay actor can be substituted for a transgendered actor).
So, what do you think? Should we force Hollywood to be more realistic by holding it accountable to affirmative action in its awards nominations? Hash-It-Out!
For the latest in politically correct absurdity I bring you to my adopted land up here in the North, the land of ice, moose, beavers and Eskimos known as Canada. And there I go, already committing a politically incorrect faux pas by daring to refer to Inuits as “Eskimos.” Perhaps the provincial human rights commission needs to mount an investigation to determine whether this constitutes “hate speech,” but at the very least I should obviously be vilified by all.
Anyhow, the politically correct absurdity of the week award goes to the University of Ottawa’s Student Federation, which has shut down yoga classes at the university, deeming yoga’s cultural issues too controversial for the student body.
“While yoga is a really great idea and accessible and great for students, there are cultural issues of implication involved in the practice,” stated an email ordering a yoga class long-held at the university’s Center for Students with Disabilities to be shut down. “Yoga has been under a lot of controversy lately due to how it is being practiced,” added the email, noting that the cultures from which yoga emerged have “experienced oppression, cultural genocide and diasporas due to colonialism and western supremacy [and] we need to be mindful of this and how we express ourselves while practicing yoga.”
The absurdity of this is almost beyond words, but stems from “cultural appropriation,” which is basically a politically correct activist concern that the Western (primarily “white”) world is (and has long been) appropriating the rest of the world’s culture without granting appropriate reverence and recompense in return.
PC Activists began ramping up their campaign against cultural appropriation many years ago, with protests against inappropriate sports team names—Redskins, Indians, Warriors, etc—marking their first shots in this regard. Inappropriate Halloween costumes came next on their list–In case you haven’t noticed (and how could you not, as Halloween seems to really piss the PC crowd off), in the past few years dressing up as an Indian, Chinaman, or any number of other “cultures” has been strictly forbidden by the potentates of PC.
More recently they’ve been tch-tching western celebrities who dare sport clothing that incorporates features that may come from a marginalized culture. Katy Perry was harangued for dressing like a geisha during an American Music Awards performance, and several celebrities have been harassed of late for sporting bindi designs. All indications suggest that the PC activists are getting ready to seriously ramp up their war against the cultural appropriation of fashion.
And now they’ve fired the first shot against yoga.
What’s next?
Well, from trolling the websites of noted PC activists I can tell you that martial arts, ethnic foods and rock and roll, among others, are being closely examined for their cultural appropriation, so stay tuned.
Oh, but don’t let me forget to mention the inherent hypocrisy of this latest PC movement (easy to forget as PC culture is rife with hypocrisy): “Multiculturalism” is a key mantra of the politically correct, and yet, if I utilize or display anything that may have evolved from another (perhaps “marginalized”) culture I am guilty of “cultural appropriation.”
But no need to worry about this possible inconvenience should you lean PC, because remember, if you’re PC you can self identify. Cultural appropriation only applies to “privileged” white folks such as myself–If you’re politically correct you will be applauded for your multiculturalism.
“Cultural Appropriation!” Add this to the list of politically correct activist catch phrases, such as “white privilege,” “social justice,” “hate speech,” “marginalized cultures,” “inclusiveness,” “trigger warnings,” “micro-aggression,” “safe spaces,” “gender neutrality,” “self identification,” etc…
As the tides of political correctness engulf the land like a slow building storm surge, it almost seems that people are so dazed by the storm that they can’t see the absurdities coming in with these tides like so much mud riven up from the seabed. People see the actions and hear the words of the politically correct and take them at face value, as though they should be construed as normal. Thus my efforts here to stir that mud and show the absurd detritus within.
This week’s absurdity award goes to Dartmouth College administrators and the Dartmouth “Black Lives Matter” student protesters. The Ivy league college made the news after the protesters stormed the college’s library and disrupted students studying for their exams.
The hyperbole of some right-wing media elevated the “disturbance” almost to the level of a “riot;” however, the protest never got that out of control, nor was anyone physically assaulted as suggested in such news articles. Nevertheless, the protesters were intimidating and very “in-your-face” disruptive (a video of the incident can be seen here).
I fully support the free speech rights of the protesters and believe they have the right to scream “black lives matter,” “fuck your white privilege,” “fuck your comfort,” and “fuck your white asses” (the latter three statements are not heard in the video, but protesters freely admitted to using them). But I don’t believe they had the right to do so in the library, which is not a “public space” per se as proscribed in the First Amendment’s dictates. Nor do I believe that they had the right to break into the personal space of any of those people studying in the library. Where I come from breaking the six-inch personal space and screaming expletives and attendant spit into one’s face is grounds for throwing a punch.
However, the protesters are justifying their actions. “While I don’t think the protest should happen again to the extent where people are being yelled at and making people cry, I think the invasion of space needed to be done,” said one protester. Another one said the students in the library “represented the greater degree of ignorance, apathy and privilege that you see at Dartmouth.”
Privilege? Ah, yes, “white privilege.” The catchword being used by the politically correct to indicate all the many benefits and advantages white folks get for, well, being born white. Apparently it’s our fault that we were born that way and the politically correct believe we need to atone for it, as well as all the privileges enjoyed by our ancestors.
Yes, those students studying in the library are privileged. Anyone going to an ivy league school like Dartmouth is exceptionally privileged, which—hello!—includes those very student protesters.
And what of the numerous white students who protested at the library in fellowship with the black students? What of their white privilege?
Well, they are politically correct, and activist proponents of political correctness believe in “self identification,” so obviously those white “Black Lives Matter” demonstrators identify as “underprivileged black Dartmouth students,” and we just have to accept them as such.
And to compound all the above absurdity, let’s “blame the victim.”
As one protester said, “I have a problem with the protest being made to look like a spectacle by the students who were recording videos of it in the library.”
These right-wing media “allegations of physical assault are lies to make the white students look like victims and students of color to look like the perpetrators,” said another protestor, who added that the white students in the library deserved to feel uncomfortable.
OK, so the students peacefully studying in the library were responsible for this whole incident….
And then we’ve got Dartmouth administrators who are putting their support solidly behind the protestors, while thus far ignoring complaints by students harassed in the library. During a meeting with minority students, vice provost for student affairs, Inge-Lise Ameer, called the protest a “wonderful, beautiful thing,” and issued a public apology to the students who engaged in the protest for the negative responses and media coverage that they received. “There’s a whole conservative world out there that’s not being very nice,” she said.
Un-fucking-real! This woman is undoubtedly of the same politically correct ilk that would apologize to ISIS for being part of the western world’s social and economic construct that is ultimately responsible for fomenting its rise and encouraging its subsequent application of harsh tactics such as torture, beheadings, rape and the like.
What do you think? Do Dartmouth and the protestors deserve the politically correct absurdity of the week award?
Runner Up: Princeton University Administrators who have agreed to consider the removal of President Woodrow Wilson’s name and likeness from the school grounds based on his racist legacy of supporting segregation. Well, if this emerging trend keeps accelerating you can pretty much say goodbye to most U.S. Presidents’ names and likenesses on campuses, because the majority of them carry racist baggage of different sorts. But that’s activist political correctness for you—selective revision of history and language that may be offensive to marginalized groups.
You know what? I think it’s time to let loose with some hate speech….
Yeah, I’m going to spew out some vile, vituperative vitriol….
Are you ready? Here goes:
I despise you activist purveyors of political correctness with your demands for safe spaces, trigger warnings, speech codes, gender neutrality, social justice, and abject conformity to your views. I despise your ongoing calls for tolerance and inclusiveness, which really only apply to your politically correct brethren and the marginalized segments of society you purportedly protect from the rest of us. I despise your hypersensitive, holier-than-thou whining about micro-aggressions, and all the countless everyday words and actions that are so quickly described by you as “demeaning to” (insert marginalized victim of the day here).
I don’t despise you as people—honestly do not care if you are black, white, Asian, Hispanic, Muslim, female, gay, trans, obese, disabled, or whatever supposedly marginalized group you care to identify with—nor do I necessarily repudiate your specific causes.
But I despise your emerging ideology and methodologies. The former akin to Marxism, but instead of trying to extinguish class differences, it appears that you are trying to eliminate personality differences in your quest to homogenize the human race to conform to your ideals. The latter ironically fraught with divisiveness and intolerance.
And I especially despise how you seek to stifle freedom of speech and thought—how easily you are offended and ready to erupt in outrage until the offending subject matter is removed or censored. Your efforts in this regard are starting to reach a crescendo, as evidenced by the recent explosion of politically correct student activism on college campuses across America.
Take the University of Missouri in just the past few days:
Media studies and journalism professor Melissa Click physically tried to block the press from covering student demonstrations on the quad. During the altercation the professor called for “muscle” to help her remove an offending journalist.
Professor Melissa “I need some muscle over here” Click is a disgrace to the profession, and any and all journalism credentials should be stripped from her forthwith.
Meanwhile the vice president of the school’s student association, Brenda Smith-Lezama, expressed her disdain of freedom of speech when she told MSNBC that “I personally am tired of hearing that first amendment rights protect students when they are creating a hostile and unsafe learning environment for myself and other students here.”
Really? How did this woman ever get into university? I mean, as an African-American minority student Ms. Smith-Lezama surely must realize that she would never be student association vice president, let alone even have been admitted to the university, were it not for the First Amendment rights that allowed her forebears to push for civil rights.
And the campus police have entered the PC war, sending out a message on social media encouraging Missouri students to report any and all instances of hateful or hurtful speech, noting that while not against the law, the Office of Student Conduct can take disciplinary action.
So, if your feelings are hurt, call the police….
Over at Yale University, PC students are calling for the head of a professor who dared criticize school efforts to encourage students to wear politically correct costumes during Halloween. The professor suggested that students should not take offence when seeing insensitive Halloween costumes, but should instead be tolerant of them and debate why a particular costume might be offensive.
“Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free and open society,” the professor said.
Apparently not for the students at Yale….
And we’ve got speech codes and trigger warnings—all the rage across U.S. campuses. It appears that today’s college students are so sensitive that just about any content offered in class that might be offensive or even mildly controversial needs to come with warnings so that students can opt out so that the material does not upset their delicate sensibilities.
What a great way to get out of classes, tests and reading….
So, that’s it. That’s my hate speech. Put a trigger warning on it and call the PC police.
PC, because remember, if you’re PC you can self identify. Cultural appropriation only applies to “privileged” white folks such as myself–If you’re politically correct you will be applauded for your multiculturalism.
