# Political Correctness and The Self Appointed "Sheeple" Who Police It.



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Gentlemen, (Unless that offends someone)
Most every week I scan through the world's news sources. From the credible to RT, and even the tabloids, I scan through perhaps a dozen. This is from the New York Post, an example of both credible and incredible. I believe this article hits the mark.

*PC Police Won't Let us Use These Words Anymore.*

On a crowded elevator in San Francisco in April, Richard Ned Lebow was asked what floor he wanted. The 76-year-old professor from Kings College London replied: "Ladies' lingerie."

Turns out, one of the people on the elevator was an easily triggered professor of gender studies at Merrimack College named Simona Sharoni.

Sharoni formally complained about Lebow's "misogyny" to the host of the International Studies Association, a conference that both professors were attending at the time. Now the association is demanding that Lebow apologize on pain of disciplinary charges.

Lebow says nix: "If I did apologize," he told The Mailon Sunday, "it would show that crazy people like this one can intimidate associations, and it will have a chilling effect on everyone. This is also about an issue of humor and the idea that humor is now becoming off-limits."

Any suggestion that political correctness amounts to "just being polite" is bonkers. Today, it's a weapon deployed by capricious neurotics from Planet Grievance to ruin perfectly normal people who display normal Earthling behavior such as "joking." Since when does a mention of "ladies lingerie" constitute a hateful attack?

Much of the nuttiest stuff in the thought-policing world continues to happen on campus. Robby Soave, who has covered college protests against speech extensively for Reason, writes that students generally tell him they support the First Amendment BUT "They also tell me some combination of the following: Hate speech isn't free speech; if marginalized people feel threatened by the speech, the speech is actually violence" and angry mobs that shut down speakers are not behaving unethically because they're not the government.

'As university culture seeps into everyday life, today's insufferable student will be sitting next to you at work tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow she might be your boss'

That attitude manifests itself in places like the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee's "Inclusive Excellence Center," launched in 2012, which cautions you to think twice about all the damage you do when you say the word "Nazi" (unless you're talking about actual Nazis; saying "Soup Nazi" means you're minimizing the Holocaust), "illegal alien" or "third world." Also, don't say "thug" because you might hurt their feelings, not to mention "lame," "man up" or "are you deaf?"

Hey, some people actually are deaf, don't be blind to their pain. Also, "blind spot" and "blind alley" increasingly get labeled "ableist."

The University of Michigan spent $16,000 in 2015 advising students not to say "I want to die" because it's offensive to the suicidal, nor "That test raped me" because some people actually have been raped, although probably not by calculus exams. At Minnesota's Macalester College, posters and social media warned in 2014 against using the words "crazy," "psycho," "schizo" and "derp." Which is nuts.

Wisconsin-Milwaukee also frowns upon the phrase "politically correct," which is pretty meta. "Over time PC has become a way to deflect, say that people are being 'too sensitive' and police language," reads a campus guide. "It is disconnected from authentic understanding of impact." In other words, the more ridiculous we get, the more you'd better not notice.

What used to be crazy campus hysteria (another banned word) has oozed down from the Ivory Tower and infected the normals - corporate HR departments and the like. Example: What could be more normal than Reader's Digest? Author "Molly Pennington, Ph.D.," writing for the venerable 96-year-old institution, recently revealed "12 Surprisingly Offensive Words You Need to Erase from Your Vocabulary."

"Basket case" needs to be jettisoned not because it's offensive to nutjobs but because it's offensive to all of those WWI vets you so often run into every day: The expression was first applied to soldiers killed in the Great War whose remains could fit in a basket, Pennington writes. "Think twice before you toss this uncompassionate term around," she advises, lest you trigger memories of any wars that ended 99 ½ years ago.

You'd also better not say "long time no see" because that's making fun of the way Indians talk, supposedly. "No can do"? You may not realize it, but this constitutes cruel mockery of Chinese immigrants, according to Pennington. "Hysterical" is sexist, deriving from the Greek word for uterus. More often, it means "funny." If I call Melissa McCarthy "hysterical," I think she'd be pleased rather than offended, but then again the word cops seem to be on a mission to drain the humor out of everything.

Pennington also cautions against using the phrase "grandfathered in," which "originates with the practice of allowing voters in southern states easier voting conditions if they had a grandpa who had voted before 1867. Guess who didn't have those relatives? Black voters, because their grandpas were slaves." So that time in 2013 when President Barack Obama said, "we went out of our way to make sure the law allowed for grandfathering," was he condoning slavery?

As university culture seeps into everyday life, today's insufferable student will be sitting next to you at work tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow she might be your boss.

Running afoul of her might cost you your job. Just ask James Damore, the Google engineer who was fired last year simply for publicly musing about differences between the sexes. As for Lebow, he refused ISA's demand to apologize by May 15, and it's unclear what sanctions they will take against him now.

If his case is any indication, the next stage of the PC plague will be killing off all the jokes.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

As a rule of thumb.......


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Precisely. Clearly misogynistic.

And they are among us.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Well, when you get down to the nitty gritty of it all.....

It’s interesting, and frankly depressing, to consider the new levels of absurdity that PCness has achieved in the years since the “Similar Threads” at the bottom of this page were created.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

FLMike said:


> Well, when you get down to the nitty gritty of it all.....
> 
> It's interesting, and frankly depressing, to consider the new levels of absurdity that PCness has achieved in the years since the "Similar Threads" at the bottom of this page were created.


And, they are supposed to be college educated. 
Guess a college education sucks.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Makes me want to shoot myself, then go puke!

Oh! 


Edit: I'm fortunate to be married to a splendid lady who, better yet, is extraordinarily PC! I get to goad her at every opportunity! :happy:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

'....let me take this opportunity to apologize to anyone who's ever been offended by anything at any point throughout time. To be challenged in any way, or made to feel an emotion that is not immediately recognizable, is the worst thing in the world, and something for which the incredible human gift of language should never, ever be used. We are sorry if your feelings were ever hurt about anything."

Courtesy of ThingX


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Not only is free speech no longer a protected right, but also it seems any audible proclamations what so ever that one might choose to make may be threatened as well! It saddens me to note that while the use of the term "women's lingerie is now verboten the incorporation of profanity in so many peoplesspeech is becoming increasingly common. :crazy:


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

I’m confused by one thing - we’re not allowed to say “rape” unless it’s in the context of an actual penetrative sexual assault, but anything offensive that’s remotely sexual is branded as assault?


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

This issue is why I prefer to live close to people who live in the real world and who have legitimate life issues to contend with. 

People struggling to survive day to day by plowing behind a water buffalo, cutting fabric 18 hours a day, running a small family shop, avoiding polio, trying to keep their drinking water and sewage separate, and avoiding being rolled up with the " usual suspects" by the local gendarmes tend not to be easily triggered since they have something other than made up concerns with which to engage their minds.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> This issue is why I prefer to live close to people who live in the real world and who have legitimate life issues to contend with.
> 
> People struggling to survive day to day by plowing behind a water buffalo, cutting fabric 18 hours a day, running a small family shop, avoiding polio, trying to keep their drinking water and sewage separate, and avoiding being rolled up with the " usual suspects" by the local gendarmes tend not to be easily triggered since they have something other than made up concerns with which to engage their minds.
> 
> ...


I think this pretty much sums it up. Political correctness and sensitivity to certain words is the luxury of those who have little to worry about.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> This issue is why I prefer to live close to people who live in the real world and who have legitimate life issues to contend with.
> 
> People struggling to survive day to day by plowing behind a water buffalo, cutting fabric 18 hours a day, running a small family shop, avoiding polio, trying to keep their drinking water and sewage separate, and avoiding being rolled up with the " usual suspects" by the local gendarmes tend not to be easily triggered since they have something other than made up concerns with which to engage their minds.
> 
> ...


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

My understanding of political correctness is simply nothing more than treating people with respect, and not making judgements or assumptions based on stereotypes.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

derum said:


> My understanding of political correctness is simply nothing more than treating people with respect, and not making judgements or assumptions based on stereotypes.


In my opinion, that has nothing to do with political correctness. That's just being a decent human being.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

FLMike said:


> In my opinion, that has nothing to do with political correctness. That's just being a decent human being.


And that is the origin of the phrase, I believe. Perhaps you are thinking of the contemporary usage of the phrase, which is pejorative.
Either way, I condemn the use of the phrase for political point scoring which, for example, has become more prevalent in the USA than perhaps anywhere else in the world.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Political correctness is the gap between reality and those ideas some people wish to enforce - they are not correct merely politically correct.

The aim of the politically correct is not so much concerned with imposing their ideology as it is with the imposition itself.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> And that is the origin of the phrase, I believe. Perhaps you are thinking of the contemporary usage of the phrase, which is pejorative.
> Either way, I condemn the use of the phrase for political point scoring which, for example, has become more prevalent in the USA than perhaps anywhere else in the world.


It's become prevalent here because we are perhaps the only country left who actually questions such nonsense.

Europe certainly doesn't. If there is some type of speech that is found to be offensive, they just criminalize it.

The rest of the world? Forget it. Anyone questioning authority of government gets locked up or executed.

As with all attempts to engineer certain behavioral norms, whatever the intention may have been at the outset, it is quickly lost.


----------



## Mr.D (Aug 2, 2015)

127.72 MHz said:


> Gentlemen, (Unless that offends someone)
> Most every week I scan through the world's news sources. From the credible to RT, and even the tabloids, I scan through perhaps a dozen. This is from the New York Post, an example of both credible and incredible. I believe this article hits the mark.
> 
> *PC Police Won't Let us Use These Words Anymore.*
> ...


Such a case is more than ridiculous.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

For the last _fifty _years, liberalism as a movement of moral liberation has repeatedly assured Americans, "If you like your morality, you can keep your morality." In both cases, the game is to promise a limited reform that will not seriously disturb the status quo while delivering changes that have revolutionary consequences.

The moral mugging is not over but still going on.

It has been liberals efforts to achieve "progress" by recourse to falsehoods should also lead us to probe more deeply and see the bigger, even more consequential falsehoods upon which liberalism has relied for the last two or three generations. With every step of the "progress" it has sought in recent decades, with every effort it has made to "free" us from some aspect of morality.

Here in Portland, Oregon where I reside any statement that can be twisted to "imply" that there is judgment will be met with hysteria and possibly violence by people who identify themselves as "liberals."*

*The word "_*liberal*_" derives from the Latin "liber" (_*meaning*_ "free" or "not a slave"). In everyday use, it means generous and open-minded, as well as free from restraint and from prejudice. Its use as a political term, however, only dates from the early 19th Century.

And they are indeed open-minded,....Just so long as you agree with them.

Of course my statements clearly show me to be a conservative correct? Not by a long shot. American conservatism has hoodwinked working people into believing that they alone can save some small semblance of societal norms. When in fact the U.S. Republican party represents pure capitalists,....If a capitalists can save one penny at the cost of a human life there is no moral dilemma for them.

Not one political party in the U.S. represents people who do not qualify for subsidies.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

127.72 MHz said:


> ...If a capitalists can save one penny at the cost of a human life there is no moral dilemma for them.


Huh? If you really think that dimly of free enterprise, I'm curious what economic system you espouse.

It seems pretty extreme (and not a small bit looney) to impugn the motives of all capitalists with a statement like that.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

The context is more to point out that the two political parties in the U. S. cater to the extremes,....The out of touch uber-wealthy and corporations who pay the bribes masquerading as "contrabutions." The politicians and political parties that take the bribes are only accountable to those who pay them. (Not your average Joe.) Combine this with more than half of the population not even bothering to exercise their civic responsibility to vote, and the ordinary man is left out.

I support a free market capitolist economy that *regulates* pure capitalism. Let's face it, pure capitalistism is precisely like the board game Monopoly. Absent adequate regulation the goals of capitilism do not include a responsibility to society as a whole. There must be some measure of responsibility to our society if a corporation wishes to conduct business from the relative sanctuary of the U.S.. These corporations are not going to volunteer to pay back anything to our society. Why should they? They have purchased the right to make to rules that allow them to "contribute." (Our Supreme Court calls it free speech!) They have all their bases covered eh?!

Again, there is not one political entity in the U.S. that represents people who are just "wealthy" enough to not qualify for subsidies, that is a problem.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

In the face of self-appointed arbiters of political correctness, where one must fear using this word or that, offering racy imagery or being accused of trivializing victims through the use of repugnant historical figures as anything but bland historical condemnation we have this brilliant one-size-offends-all tour-de-force of political satire conceived and offered by a Jewish WWII vet to honor this Memorial Day.

Not recommended for any easily offended by, well, by just about anything! 

The Hitler Rap -


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

Mel Brooks was funny and he ridiculed racism, islamophobia and anti semitism. Roseanne Barr was funny but propounded racist islamophobic and anti semitic views.
Both were judged as politically incorrect, but I know which one I rail against.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Rosanne Barr's recent comments show that she has gone completely round the bend.

Regardless of Valerie Jarrett's politics there is no excuse for this.

Rosanne Barr is bright enough to know full well how something like this comes across. She is responsible for her actions.

Bad show, period.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Barr's comment, prior to quitting Twitter, was monumentally ignorant.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Is anyone truly surprised by this? She’s been saying nutty stuff for quite some time.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I guess I'm not sure how the phrase "ladies' lingerie" would trigger someone.

I'm not all that conservative, but the whole "triggers" and "safe space" thing leaves me cold. 

People need to be more resilient.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Roseanne Barr's been spewing her filth, it seems for much of her life. I have no quarrel with the consequences (thew cancellation of her show) of her most recent oral eruption. However I am disappointed that that foul mouthed wanna-be comedian, Michelle Wolfe wasn't subjected to similar standards of acceptable speech and subjected to similar consequences when she savaged Sarah Huckabee Sanders at the recent White House Correspondents Dinner. Just like Roseanne Barr, Michelle Wolfe is a mouth...way out of control!! Why the two standards of censorship? :angry:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I don’t have an issue with Disney/ABC canning Rosanne. 

I don’t have an issue with any private company making such decisions whether well reasoned or as arbitrary as a Caesar. They are free to do so if it suits there interests. 

What I do take issue with is the endless moralizing and virtue signaling that typically accompanies such decisions. They did what they did based purely on financial factors. It’s not anything that is “not reflective of our values”
Or any other nonsense. In a way, I appreciate it and like it. As someone who believes in the power of the market place to be the best regulator, this is exactly what I want to see. Imagine if such decisions had to be made by government bureaucrats in some federal office of “Media Standards”. 

The reason why Roseanne was cancelled and Michelle Wolf or any number of liberals don’t pay a price when they cross the line is because as conservatives, we have jobs and careers and don’t have time to get bent out of shape at any little slight. Liberals, on the other hand, at least modern liberals, tend to fly off the handle and make noise. 

I suppose when you’re being coddled in the bosom of the Academy or a billionaire not content with counting your money and would rather take your time denying others the opportunities you had, it’s easy to find the time and energy to get outraged.


----------



## Winhes2 (Jun 29, 2011)

Is anyone else getting the feeling that those who have remained silent through the years of incremental expansion of this stuff have unintentionally put themselves at risk of being permanently silenced? I'm not from the USA so I dont know, but did reasonable people just dismiss each expansion with an exclamation of, "That's crazy." and the belief that each was a "one of", then went back about their lives while the promoters went back to the drawing board to plan the next one?

Similar thing are happening up here. I taught in post secondary institutions and got the impression that the promoters of this stuff were making blacklists of people who didn't step in line and that the students were too. Truly frightening stuff.

But what is to be done? Ignoring it has let them get ahead in the game. On a brighter note, I'm getting the impression that more people opposed to the crazy stuff are becoming more aware of the process. My kids are now in university. They have been exposed to idea molding and censorship from grade 1 onwards. I've noticed that they and some of their friends can recognize this going on in their classes and can also negotiate the landmines of politically prohibited speech. So, maybe their generation will take a more active stand against it. Or, maybe more accurately, maybe their half or so of their generation will take a more active stand against the other half or so of their generation. At least I hope the side of reasonableness is still about half.

The questions on which they are pressing forward now are a long way from the old ones on which there is more universal agreement.

Earlier in this thread free enterprise was mentioned. I've read the Canadian laws on privacy and they were written so that only operations large enough to have employees dedicated entirely to privacy compliance could comply. Yet the majority of Canadian businesses are much smaller than that. It is bizarre that laws are being made directed at large operations but applied to small ones unable, whike getting started or staying slightly profitable, to comply. The recent European GDPR privacy laws are worse. I'm not complaining about protecting privacy. I'm trying to point out that now even official rule makes are ignoring the reality of compliance cost for those restricted by the rule.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

It doesn’t help when companies and the culture at large normalizes this. 

Take the Starbucks incident, for example. Whether there was a racial component to this or not, I don’t know. Let’s assume their was. Let’s assume the employee in question was an utter racist. It’s still an action of that employee. 

Starbucks panicking and shutting down all their stores for racial bias training certainly does nothing regarding this. They have blamed and made up an institutionalize bias as it is easier to abdicate from the individual to the institution at large. It’s hard to single out an individual and say that person acted inappropriately. The mob wants heads. It’s easier to blame the culture at large and take the responsibility off of the individual.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Looking at the issue from a more pragmatic perspective, why should Starbucks be expected to provide free WIFI access and a comfortable area to relax in for non paying customers. Starbucks exists to sell a product and make a profit, not to be a charitable provider of goodwill for the potentially indigent. If they attract enough non-paying patrons at any given time, where will the paying customers sit? :icon_scratch:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Looking at the issue from a more pragmatic perspective, why should Starbucks be expected to provide free WIFI access and a comfortable area to relax in for non paying customers. Starbucks exists to sell a product and make a profit, not to be a charitable provider of goodwill for the potentially indigent. If they attract enough non-paying patrons at any given time, where will the paying customers sit? :icon_scratch:


Yes, exactly. They are now a public toilet serving coffee and scones.

The larger point is that we are a culture that tosses aside personal responsibility and blames everything on bias. "No one is really responsible; it's an institutional problem that requires an institutional solution".

I can guarantee you that there will be those who will now test and prod like these jackasses:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/12/21/us/youtube-plane-incident-trnd/index.html


----------



## EclecticSr. (Sep 21, 2014)

Lucido said:


> It's not a double-standard. You cannot compare roasting a political figure vs literally comparing a black person to an ape. You may not like the former but Michelle Wolfe's speech didn't contain hate speech or racism.


How about comparing a white female to a pig? Does "lipstick" give you a clue.
Done by a former POTUS.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

EclecticSr. said:


> How about comparing a white female to a pig? Does "lipstick" give you a clue.
> Done by a former POTUS.


He wasn't president when the statement was made, and it was in reference to McCains policies, not Palin.


----------



## EclecticSr. (Sep 21, 2014)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Looking at the issue from a more pragmatic perspective, why should Starbucks be expected to provide free WIFI access and a comfortable area to relax in for non paying customers.


Because that's what they promoted. Perhaps they should of had a different business model. Can't stand Starbucks, their coffee, or their politics. They refused to provide coffee to our armed forces.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Roseanne’s comments aren’t a surprise. She’s said things like this, interspersed with just enough sensible blather to keep people paying attention, for years.

This time, we’re in a society where any transgression means you’re shunned by the world and have to live in a cave wearing a hair shirt. And she actually had something to lose.

Kathy Griffin lost a lot for criticizing Trump in a particularly tasteless way. So it’s not all a liberal witch hunt.

What bothers me is that there was a different time where this was tolerated, and now that it’s not people are going back and applying our standards retroactively. Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby are accused of actual assault, a crime. But is Morgan Freeman or Al Franken getting handsy or rude years ago supposed to have the same punishment?


----------



## EclecticSr. (Sep 21, 2014)

derum said:


> He wasn't president when the statement was made, and it was in reference to McCains policies, not Palin.


 Did not claim that he said it while POTUS and what difference would that make? What did McCain's policies have to do with pigs and lipstick? Oh, who brought up Palin? Did you make the connection out of the blue? I didn't reference her. Seems somewhere there is a connection or why would you bring her up. Spin all you want.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

EclecticSr. said:


> Did not claim that he said it while POTUS and what difference would that make? What did McCain's policies have to do with pigs and lipstick? Oh, who brought up Palin? Did you make the connection out of the blue? I didn't reference her. Seems somewhere there is a connection or why would you bring her up. Spin all you want.


I'm a bad person, making all of those assumptions, without any intent on your part.


----------



## EclecticSr. (Sep 21, 2014)

Yep, now I remember McCain's policy on porcine futures, bacon of the Berkshire breed, as well as his stand on cosmetics, important issues during his campaign. Put the latter on the former and it's called campaign rhetoric about policies. 

For the record, no fan of McCain.


----------



## EclecticSr. (Sep 21, 2014)

derum said:


> I'm a bad person, making all of those assumptions, without any intent on your part.


I have no idea how bad or good a person you are. You made the assumptions based on what is commonly understood. You knew the connection yet tried to spin it. I just put it out there.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

EclecticSr. said:


> I have no idea how bad or good a person you are. You made the assumptions based on what is commonly understood. You knew the connection yet tried to spin it. I just put it out there.


I'm not the one spinning, or propounding an internet hoax.


----------



## EclecticSr. (Sep 21, 2014)

Lucido said:


> You mentioned a 'white female' being compared to a pig by a former POTUS. I remember at the time Obama making the statement referencing McCain's policies and the Republican campaign trying to make it into an insult to Sarah Palin based on her gender. Interestingly, both McCain and Dick Cheney have both used the same turn of phrase themselves.
> 
> Re Starbucks - I've never been so I can't comment on their coffee but even I (non-American, not remotely interested in armed forces) know that the refusing to provide coffee to the troops is an urban myth.


Okay what brand is provided/ donated. If not interested in our armed forces don't offer comment to an American. Again another spin on what most understood as an insult. Put your lipstick on your post and I'll interpret it with my spin.


----------



## EclecticSr. (Sep 21, 2014)

derum said:


> I'm not the one spinning, or propounding an internet hoax.


I'm propounding, love that word, an internet hoax? Least not an internet huckster, shill.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Lucido said:


> It's not a double-standard. You cannot compare roasting a political figure vs literally comparing a black person to an ape. You may not like the former but Michelle Wolfe's speech didn't contain hate speech or racism.


Is there some hierarchy of poor, boorish behavior that you're proposing?

So as long as one stays away from racist comments it's game on?

I'm no apologist for Roseanne Barr and I've never been a particular fan. As far as I'm concerned, it's a matter between her and her employer. Let her go to court if she thinks she was wronged.

But if we're going to clutch our pearls whenever someone does something like that, let's at least, as a society call out all instances of it.

During her confirmation hearings for the 7th circuit court of appeals, Amy Barrett was asked repeatedly if she was an " orthodox catholic" and told that "the dogma lives loudly within you". Is this bordering on genteel hate speech?

Imagine if an African American judicial nominee were asked about such matters his ethnicity and how that may color his judgement in cases where another African American is on trial or before his bench on appeal? Perhaps a Jewish nominee and whether he could give Muslims a fair trial.

There's plenty of this nonesense to go around. What about Hillary Clinton joking about CP time? Or Joe Biden referring to BHO as clean and articulate. Or Harry Reid saying that BHO didn't have a "***** dialect" if I recall correctly. 
I recall not too long ago Bill Maher stated that he was not a "house N....r". Did any of these folks get flamed or taken down?

The truth is that one's politics matters more in the popular culture, of which the news media is just another denizen, than what one says. If you're on the right side of the political debate, most anything goes. If you're on the wrong side, any transgression will result in instant decapitation.


----------



## Cassadine (Aug 22, 2017)

Western Civilization is seemingly imploding by the minute. If a backlash occurs, I'm fearful it will be barbaric. I suppose "backlash" could be offensive to an number of persons.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Cassadine said:


> Western Civilization is seemingly imploding by the minute. If a backlash occurs, I'm fearful it will be barbaric. I suppose "backlash" could be offensive to an number of persons.


This is when you back away from social media and TV news, and look around you: you'll probably find nearly everything to be "business as usual".

I mean, I live in a very wealthy, very left-leaning neighborhood. My daughter attends a famously leftist prep school. My office is in a building full of bearded millennial creatives; the parking lot looks like a Tesla dealership. Yet everyone's daily life marches on, going to yoga classes, eating keto breakfasts, wondering if their kids are in the right ballet class, going to meetings and meeting for coffee (my office hosted a "coffee cupping" this morning, one of the most pretentious things I've yet witnessed). Yes, these folks all complain about Trump and The Patriarchy on Facebook, but in the real world they're booking client meetings and doing CrossFit, not "resisting" or "punching Nazis".

Not that there isn't unrest here and there on occasion, but media (both professional and social) selectively magnify it. I mean, maybe it's just me, but I have yet to have my car blocked by protestors, or to see rioting Antifa breaking storefront windows (and my office has a good view). Western Civilization, Christendom, the whole works is pretty safe; for now, at least.

DH


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Dhaller said:


> This is when you back away from social media and TV news, and look around you: you'll probably find nearly everything to be "business as usual".
> 
> I mean, I live in a very wealthy, very left-leaning neighborhood. My daughter attends a famously leftist prep school. My office is in a building full of bearded millennial creatives; the parking lot looks like a Tesla dealership. Yet everyone's daily life marches on, going to yoga classes, eating keto breakfasts, wondering if their kids are in the right ballet class, going to meetings and meeting for coffee (my office hosted a "coffee cupping" this morning, one of the most pretentious things I've yet witnessed). Yes, these folks all complain about Trump and The Patriarchy on Facebook, but in the real world they're booking client meetings and doing CrossFit, not "resisting" or "punching Nazis".
> 
> ...


This claimed benign and tranquil sagacity would be more credible if provided by a member who was able to participate in robust exchanges without censoring via the 'ignore' function and then repeatedly mewling his frailty to all and sundry.


----------



## Winhes2 (Jun 29, 2011)

The anarchists threat is a straw man fallacy. They are a small number of nut jobs.

The threads title names the greater threat which is that the self appointed, or, as Thomas Sowell called them, the anointed, have successfully acquired control not only of academia and the public sector, but also Human Resources departments thriughout society. So now they get to make the hiring and firing policies. That is a signicant barrier to free speech and behavior in the workplace and exchanges of views. Say the wrong thing now or be known as someone with opinions other than those of the sheeple and they will police the peson out of a job.

I'm not a historian, and may be corrected on this point, but didn't Stalin rise to power after first gainig control of HR and putting his people in place so that eventually he had outflanked is opponents? I fear the sheep part of sheeple, other than their following prescribed doctrine uncritically, is their clothing.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

'Therefore all those who devour you shall be devoured; And all your adversaries, every one of them, shall go into captivity; Those who plunder you shall become plunder, And all who prey upon you I will make a prey.'
- Jeremiah 30:16-17 NKJV

Feminism vs Transexuality or The Schism of the Wooly Minded.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/










https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...-how-internet-buzzword-became-mainstream-slur


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Lucido said:


> It's not a double-standard. You cannot compare roasting a political figure vs literally comparing a black person to an ape. You may not like the former but Michelle Wolfe's speech didn't contain hate speech or racism.


Not let's see if I understand this. In the first instance we have a white woman directing decidedly boorish and outrageously offensive comments towards a black woman and the white woman's TV series gets summarily cancelled. In the second instance we have a black woman directing decidedly boorish and outrageously offensive comments towards a white woman and she is rewarded with a new TV comedy show of her very own. Indeed there is discrimination showcased in these examples, but it is surely not limited to your take on the matter! There is a double standard being played out here. I suggest you might take the time to carefully listen to Michele Wolfs comments at the Correspondents Dinner


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

There is an unwritten rule within the news media and popular culture at large; if you are a woman and a conservative, it’s open season. 

If you are a minority man or woman, and a conservative, it is likewise open season. It’s fine to call a black conservative an Uncle Tom though the term itself is probably as racially charged and insensitive as using the N word. 

There have been any number of slurs used against Sarah Huckabee Sanders over her tenure as press secretary. Most centering on her looks and overall appearance. But I suppose it’s all in the name of “roasting” so it’s ok.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Beware! Here be Sea Lions.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Lucido said:


> What Roseanne Barr said was racist. She literally compared a black person to an ape.
> 
> Michelle Wolf's comments were not racist. Mean spirited and caustic - yes. Not racist.
> 
> ...


The definition of racism (in the dictionary) is discrimination and or antagonism against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. Given your own history of intellectual intransigence, your apparent inability to recognize that yours is not the only opinion with any merit or worth consideration, I suspect you, Lucido, and I will just have to agree to disagree on the points you cite above. You hang onto your opinions and I will do likewise.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ Shaver, If I recall correctly you do not care for the "Like" feature. I do not know where you came across this strip but it is precious.

You kill me brother!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I don’t think anyone is arguing that what she said was not racist. Of course it was. Does it make her a racist? I don’t know. People do and say all sorts of stupid things. 

Is Bill Maher a racist? Is HRC a racist for suggesting that “colored people” keep time differently? 

Are people allowed to make mistakes and say stupid things but be forgiven?


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

SG_67 said:


> I don't think anyone is arguing that what she said was not racist. Of course it was. Does it make her a racist? I don't know. People do and say all sorts of stupid things.
> 
> Is Bill Maher a racist? Is HRC a racist for suggesting that "colored people" keep time differently?
> 
> Are people allowed to make mistakes and say stupid things but be forgiven?


I assume your question is purely rhetorical? 
America used to be the country of second chances/acts. Now we pigeon hole certain types and make them social outcasts for expressing ideas which must not be expressed publicly under any circumstance. Except Farrakhan for some reason. He is the most free speaker in America.

In a modern version of "The Emperors Clothes" the offending child would be stoned to death by the mob and left for the ravens.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> I don't think anyone is arguing that what she said was not racist. Of course it was.


I realize a great many people will refuse to believe Roseanne, but was her comment racist if she really didn't think that Ms. Jarrett was black, and was simply making a crude joke about her looks? As Michelle Wolf recently did about Ms. Huckabee Sanders.

I ask this for two reasons:

1) Those who know Roseanne best contend that she's opposed racism for as long as they've known her, and,

2) A public figure like Roseanne would have to be beyond stupid to compare a black person to an ape in a public forum and expect, in this day and age, anything less than what has transpired (show cancellation, etc.). Even for Roseanne, this one surprised me (unless she really thought VJ was white).


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

FLMike said:


> I realize a great many people will refuse to believe Roseanne, but was her comment racist if she really didn't think that Ms. Jarrett was black, and was simply making a crude joke about her looks? As Michelle Wolf recently did about Ms. Huckabee Sanders.
> 
> I ask this for two reasons:
> 
> ...


She was under the influence. 100%.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Beware! Here be Sea Lions.


The lady in the cartoon represents either:
a. POTUS
b. Roseanne Barr
c. Cornell Belcher

I Think thats covered every PC/Racist/sexist stereotype.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Lucido said:


> As Sanofi-Aventis made clear, the side effects of Ambien (or any other substance for that matter) do not include racism.


They do impair judgement. One shouldn't tweet, drive or use heavy machinery while on Ambien.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Beware! Here be Sea Lions.


Priceless!! :beer:

And by the bye, sea lions aren't necessarily cute, cuddly, little critters. If you happen to moor your boat in the Monterey Ca. marina they can be 300+ lb sharp-tooted piles of vicious nastiness who may decide to commandeer your boat for the season, something over which you are by statute powerless!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ABC abruptly canceled “Roseanne” hours after Ms. Barr, the show’s star and co-creator, posted a racist tweet about Valerie Jarrett, an African-American woman who was a senior adviser to Barack Obama throughout his presidency and considered one of his most influential aides. Ms. Barr wrote if the “muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj.”

I don't see racism in her tweet at all. The left media has people believing they see and hear racism when there isn't. I find to many people don't think anymore. They are told what to think and that they are told that they are thinking without analyzing what they are told. 

The muslim brotherhood is not a bunch of black people. They are driven by a different race. Add in planet of the apes, which is comedy, what do you have? A joke that should not offend any thinking person! There is no racism in her joke. 

All of you who said it is racist are believers of what you have been told to believe have failed in thinking. College students are being shoved out the door this way. Anita education.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Lucido said:


> You tell 'em WA. Don't you find the tinfoil hat gets a little warm this time of year though?


You should take your tinfoil hat off. Without it on you will actually think. A new experience for you.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

WA said:


> ABC abruptly canceled "Roseanne" hours after Ms. Barr, the show's star and co-creator, posted a racist tweet about Valerie Jarrett, an African-American woman who was a senior adviser to Barack Obama throughout his presidency and considered one of his most influential aides. Ms. Barr wrote if the "muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj."
> 
> I don't see racism in her tweet at all. The left media has people believing they see and hear racism when there isn't. I find to many people don't think anymore. They are told what to think and that they are told that they are thinking without analyzing what they are told.
> 
> ...


You reference "thinking" 3 times. It's ironic that none was actually done before posting.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Another way to think about her tweet is that she complimented every black person who disagrees with the muslim brotherhood. Which would mean most black people around the world. How many Muslims agree with the muslim brotherhood? In a way she complimented them to. So, how is she racist when says something nice about them? The left media says you are supposed to think how they want you to. The fact is Your Not Supposed to think as the left demands.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

derum said:


> You reference "thinking" 3 times. It's ironic that none was actually done before posting.


Some were thinking and some were not. Surely you read the many post above?


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

It will be interesting to watch the fire grow around the Samantha Bee comment.


----------



## Winhes2 (Jun 29, 2011)

The news just reported that Britain may ban Sugar Bear, Tony the Tiger, Snap, Crackle and Pop, and Toucan Sam from cereal boxes.

We've seen how these campains are waged incrementally.

Eventually, the only pictures of snazzy combinations we will be able to post here will have models resembling most of us and nobody should want that.

It will also remove one the small pleasure of looking for outfits for our wives and girlfriends. I, for one, can confidently predict that me in a dress will not be a pretty picture.

Sometimes one's fears were not a slippery slope when history is viewed from the bottom.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

Winhes2 said:


> The news just reported that Britain may ban Sugar Bear, Tony the Tiger, Snap, Crackle and Pop, and Toucan Sam from cereal boxes.
> 
> We've seen how these campains are waged incrementally.
> 
> ...


It's another Jaimie Oliver "initiative". It's nothing that parliament is even considering. FYI: Sugar Bear and Toucan Sam don't appear on the shelves in the UK, the products they represent are not for sale there.


----------



## Winhes2 (Jun 29, 2011)

derum said:


> It's another Jaimie Oliver "initiative". It's nothing that parliament is even considering. FYI: Sugar Bear and Toucan Sam don't appear on the shelves in the UK, the products they represent are not for sale there.


Thank you Derum. I type corrected. Although, with no less of an authority than a celebrity chef behind it, who knows? Some people are following thought leaders with less credibility than that.


----------



## Fraser Tartan (May 12, 2010)

I am stumped as to how "ladies' lingerie" would be offensive. Is the issue one of needing to be gender neutral?

Even surrounded by PC and LGBT people, I would not hesitate to use that phrase because it would not occur to me that it would cause offense.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

WA said:


> Another way to think about her tweet is that she complimented every black person who disagrees with the muslim brotherhood. Which would mean most black people around the world. How many Muslims agree with the muslim brotherhood? In a way she complimented them to. So, how is she racist when says something nice about them? The left media says you are supposed to think how they want you to. The fact is Your Not Supposed to think as the left demands.


Do you actually believe any of the garbage that you post, or is it some sort of attempt to attract attention to yourself? The only thing missing from this post is your usual derision of education...of which you've obviously experienced little as clearly evidenced by your posts.


----------



## Fraser Tartan (May 12, 2010)

Public figures like Roseanne Barr should have someone on the payroll to screen their tweets. It doesn't make business sense to be risking millions of dollars and possibly one's career over something that could be checked over by somebody first with a little time delay.

While I think her use of "ape" was racist, I don't think her intent was to express a racist thought. I think she likely looked for something derogatory and hurtful to say and unintentionally used a word also loaded with racist meaning. She has a history of poor judgment. Remember her national anthem controversy? I don't think her desire was to be unpatriotic. She was just stupid.

ABC canned her over the almighty dollar. Business is business. Management decided that she represented more downside than upside to their future bottom line. Anything else they said about it is spin.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Lucido said:


> Yep, that's racism alright.
> 
> Do you not agree that Roseanne Barr's comments were racist?
> 
> ...


I asked the question upthread and no one answered it. Was her comment racist if she didn't think/know that Ms. Jarrett is black? If she were just rudely comparing her looks to that of an ape without knowledge of her African American heritage?


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^You're a brave man Mike. You have asked an interesting question. I do believe that I could reply to anyone who does answer the question you have posed and point out that their reply shows racist tendencies.

In the world the PC Sheeple have created there is no way you, (assuming that you are a person "Not of color.") can comment in ANY WAY about race without leaving yourself open to being labeled a racist or as having racist leanings. (Even if your racist tendencies are as a result of the "White privilege" you have enjoyed throughout your life!)

Not one thing you can say in your defense that will suspend your conviction of being racist or having racists leanings,....Even if you are not aware of the hate in your soul!

This thread is a perfect example,....


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

127.72 MHz said:


> ^^You're a brave man Mike. You have asked an interesting question. I do believe that I could reply to anyone who does answer the question your have posed and point out that their reply shows racist tendencies.
> 
> In the world the PC Sheeple have created there is no way you, (assuming that you are a person "Not of color.") can comment in ANY WAY about race without being leaving yourself open to being labeled a racist or as having racist leanings. (Even if your racist tendencies are as a result of the "White privilege" you have enjoyed throughout your life!)
> 
> ...


Ignorantia juris non excusat.

Find the racism in that.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

As loathsome as I find Roseanne Barr to be - and I always have, since her advent on the scene decades ago - the idea that a careless or even stupid *comment* can result in such thorough undoing is, well... frightening.

Was the comment racist?... that's hard to answer, because we still don't really have a good, agreed-upon operational definition for what "racism" actually is. I'd say the comment was prejudiced, but in my personal lexicon, I consider *racism* to carry an actionable quality: it has tangible consequences for the targeted party in the real world (for example, firing someone because you've discovered they're part black or whatever). But of course, that's just *my* operational definition; folks may or may not agree with me.

So, is prejudice bad? Yes, but I can't really argue that it should be criminalized (again, to me, only actions should be criminal, not notions or opinions). Did ABC fire Roseanne for financial reasons?... I don't think so, or at least not directly. The new Roseanne show opened to huge ratings numbers, and promised to be a hit show; they cancelled it because Roseanne became a hot potato, and they just wanted to distance themselves from it, since the current climate has granted popular opinion with the power to ruin utterly. It was a risk management, not a directly financial, decision.

I give comedy, as a published genre, maybe five more years before it's simply too risky to practice in any capacity. Actual people will continue to satirize and joke within the confines of daily life, but any media lensed by The Watchmen will probably become dull stuff.

DH


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

derum said:


> Ignorantia juris non excusat.
> 
> Find the racism in that.


Yes indeed, ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.

Except the "Law" of political correctness does not allow for discovery or rules of evidence. *The "Law" of political correctness does not allow for due process at all. (It is much easier to win a conviction that way!)*

The political correct movement is a disease on our society.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I believe someone is guilty of cultural appropriation.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Dhaller said:


> As loathsome as I find Roseanne Barr to be - and I always have, since her advent on the scene decades ago - the idea that a careless or even stupid *comment* can result in such thorough undoing is, well... frightening.
> 
> Was the comment racist?... that's hard to answer, because we still don't really have a good, agreed-upon operational definition for what "racism" actually is. I'd say the comment was prejudiced, but in my personal lexicon, I consider *racism* to carry an actionable quality: it has tangible consequences for the targeted party in the real world (for example, firing someone because you've discovered they're part black or whatever). But of course, that's just *my* operational definition; folks may or may not agree with me.
> 
> ...


Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock have been on record as saying they won't perform at colleges anymore because too many kids get bent out of shape over some of the jokes.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Now we have Samantha Bee saying things about Ivanka Trump on her show. “She apologized, that was the right thing to do” was the response from her network.

The lady on ESPN who tweeted that critics of the anthem protests and the response to it should take it up with the NFL’s advertisers was suspended for two weeks.

There’s no consistency.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Miket61 said:


> Now we have Samantha Bee saying things about Ivanka Trump on her show. "She apologized, that was the right thing to do" was the response from her network.
> 
> The lady on ESPN who tweeted that critics of the anthem protests and the response to it should take it up with the NFL's advertisers was suspended for two weeks.
> 
> There's no consistency.


That's because such things are purely business decisions. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

127.72 MHz said:


> Yes indeed, ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.
> 
> Except the "Law" of political correctness does not allow for discovery or rules of evidence. *The "Law" of political correctness does not allow for due process at all. (It is much easier to win a conviction that way!)*
> 
> The political correct movement is a disease on our society.


I agree. The point was to show the poster quoted that not every comment could be found to be racist.
However, there may be a valid point within that statement, i.e. ignorance is no excuse (not referencing the full legal context I quoted).

......and whose culture is being appropriated?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> ......and whose culture is being appropriated?


Take your pick.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> Take your pick.


That is the best possible answer anyone could have given.


----------



## Cassadine (Aug 22, 2017)

Dhaller said:


> This is when you back away from social media and TV news, and look around you: you'll probably find nearly everything to be "business as usual".
> 
> I mean, I live in a very wealthy, very left-leaning neighborhood. My daughter attends a famously leftist prep school. My office is in a building full of bearded millennial creatives; the parking lot looks like a Tesla dealership. Yet everyone's daily life marches on, going to yoga classes, eating keto breakfasts, wondering if their kids are in the right ballet class, going to meetings and meeting for coffee (my office hosted a "coffee cupping" this morning, one of the most pretentious things I've yet witnessed). Yes, these folks all complain about Trump and The Patriarchy on Facebook, but in the real world they're booking client meetings and doing CrossFit, not "resisting" or "punching Nazis".
> 
> ...


I was including Europe. Frankly, if Germany and Hungary get overwhelmed by more refugees (some whose plight is genuine), then history has a way of repeating itself. As for the USA, the cultural undercurrent has changed rapidly in the 21st century, and 18 years isn't a lengthy historical span. I'll just say this, I voted "against Ms. Clinton", but to see a demographic that I normally am comfortable being aligned with bend over backwards to excuse Mr. Trump's abysmal personal character and style is horrifying. I wouldn't let him within 20 yards of any woman I cared about.


----------



## Cassadine (Aug 22, 2017)

Shaver said:


> 'Therefore all those who devour you shall be devoured; And all your adversaries, every one of them, shall go into captivity; Those who plunder you shall become plunder, And all who prey upon you I will make a prey.'
> - Jeremiah 30:16-17 NKJV
> 
> Feminism vs Transexuality or The Schism of the Wooly Minded.
> ...


This. The current idiocy regarding language would even make Derrida or Foucault weep.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

She was born in 1952. How many children and young people called each other an ape back then? Calling someone an ape has nothing to do with racism. I get tired of people, who are incompetent, making up rules and demanding the rest of us follow them. 

Racism is a problem some places. How many times have I seen the "rules" broken without racism? Blanket rules don't work.


----------



## Cassadine (Aug 22, 2017)

Fraser Tartan said:


> I am stumped as to how "ladies' lingerie" would be offensive. Is the issue one of needing to be gender neutral?
> 
> Even surrounded by PC and LGBT people, I would not hesitate to use that phrase because it would not occur to me that it would cause offense.


It was the original context. He wasn't asking a department store clerk for directions to "ladies lingerie"; he wasn't implying that he wanted to purchase said product for his wife/lover/self/mail carrier et al. The context warrants the inference that the offended party thought he was making a sexually charged innuendo. I'll agree his comment would've been better left unspoken. I'll also agree that the offended professor (is that a male enabling term?) should have had the maturity to laugh it off. But she jumped at the chance for press. "Publish or perish" is the academy's motto in the USA. In lieu of publishing in a peer reviewed journal, she rolled with the temper of the times and went berserk in the public forum. It's simply that simple in this case.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Cassadine said:


> I was including Europe. Frankly, if Germany and Hungary get overwhelmed by more refugees (some whose plight is genuine), then history has a way of repeating itself. As for the USA, the cultural undercurrent has changed rapidly in the 21st century, and 18 years isn't a lengthy historical span. I'll just say this, I voted "against Ms. Clinton", but to see a demographic that I normally am comfortable being aligned with bend over backwards to excuse Mr. Trump's abysmal personal character and style is horrifying. I wouldn't let him within 20 yards of any woman I cared about.


Trump is disappointing about some of his behavior. And there is no excuse. Clinton is far worse. Some terrible people have a very smooth style, so style means nothing to me. His personal character seems rather simple and when it is going in the right direction I'll take that any day than a person with a polished character who is heading in the wrong direction. History shows that good looks don't always pay off.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Cassadine said:


> It was the original context. He wasn't asking a department store clerk for directions to "ladies lingerie"; he wasn't implying that he wanted to purchase said product for his wife/lover/self/mail carrier et al. The context warrants the inference that the offended party thought he was making a sexually charged innuendo. I'll agree his comment would've been better left unspoken. I'll also agree that the offended professor (is that a male enabling term?) should have had the maturity to laugh it off. But she jumped at the chance for press. "Publish or perish" is the academy's motto in the USA. In lieu of publishing in a peer reviewed journal, she rolled with the temper of the times and went berserk in the public forum. It's simply that simple in this case.


She sounds lower than Trump, and should be fired.


----------



## Cassadine (Aug 22, 2017)

derum said:


> Ignorantia juris non excusat.
> 
> Find the racism in that.


Exactly. Her tweet, above all else, shows a blatant disregard for her own well being. She was fired because ABC doesn't want to risk losing viewers. I cannot find fault in their logic. Why risk it? Another lesson in "Twitter lee-dee will prove will Twitteringly dumb.". She's a public person, and she lost it in a public forum. Now she pays the price. I'm not mourning for her. BTW I disagree with almost everything Ms. Jarrett has espoused.


----------



## Cassadine (Aug 22, 2017)

WA said:


> She sounds lower than Trump, and should be fired.


Why? I doubt she violated her contract. Does she have tenure? If anything she brought press to an unknown institution. I agree she's being trite. If she was genuinely offended she should've spoken to the man privately. That would've been appropriate. But today's cultural climate is an historical anomaly. The victim as heroic figure has no precedent that I can discover; and she's certainly not a victim.


----------



## Cassadine (Aug 22, 2017)

WA said:


> Trump is disappointing about some of his behavior. And there is no excuse. Clinton is far worse. Some terrible people have a very smooth style, so style means nothing to me. His personal character seems rather simple and when it is going in the right direction I'll take that any day than a person with a polished character who is heading in the wrong direction. History shows that good looks don't always pay off.


But isn't AAAC inherently about "style"? Wink, Wink. As I mentioned I voted against her, and frankly the last 5 presidential elections have been horrid affairs. I'll take substance without style any day, over and against style without substance.


----------



## Cassadine (Aug 22, 2017)

Cassadine said:


> But isn't AAAC inherently about "style"? Wink, Wink. As I mentioned I voted against her, and frankly the last 5 presidential elections have been horrid affairs. I'll take substance without style any day, over and against style without substance.


But I will add that the best option is "substance expressed with style and civility". The USA has become a crass, coarse, callous society. Both Clintons possess all three qualities in spades (oops is that racist?). Sadly, our Commander in Chief does, too. I find his "twittering" demeaning to the Office. But if he achieves ANYTHING worthwhile on the Korean issue(s), then everyone should applaud. Except, perhaps, the Chinese.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Cassadine said:


> Except, perhaps, the Chinese.


I would think they should be delighted! A PIA neighbor on the mooch that you have to keep pouring aid into even though your own people need it, and that threatens to start throwing nukes around in your backyard. I think they might stand up and cheer!


----------



## Cassadine (Aug 22, 2017)

Flanderian said:


> I would think they should be delighted! A PIA neighbor on the mooch that you have to keep pouring aid into even though your own people need it, and that threatens to start throwing nukes around in your backyard. I think they might stand up and cheer!


They might. But they might deal from the bottom of the deck on this one. They can always play the "We'll keep Kim in line if you do XYZ." card.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Cassadine said:


> She was fired because ABC doesn't want to risk losing *advertisers*.


Fixed it for you.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Fraser Tartan said:


> I am stumped as to how "ladies' lingerie" would be offensive. Is the issue one of needing to be gender neutral?
> 
> Even surrounded by PC and LGBT people, I would not hesitate to use that phrase because it would not occur to me that it would cause offense.


When asked, in a crowded elevator, which floor was required he quipped 'ladies lingerie' apropos of nothing. Juvenile at worst, pathetic even, but this is the type of imagined slight that *ahem* _professor _Sharoni and her Gender Studies mob are ever vigilant to exploit.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The Academy is where humor and mirth go to die.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

TBS, clean the wax out of your ears...Samantha Bee is a boorish and decidedly vulgar moron..."What's good for the goose, is good for the gander!" Cancel her show, you doggone half steppers! :angry:


----------



## Fraser Tartan (May 12, 2010)

Shaver said:


> When asked, in a crowded elevator, which floor was required he quipped 'ladies lingerie' apropos of nothing. Juvenile at worst, pathetic even, but this is the type of imagined slight that *ahem* _professor _Sharoni and her Gender Studies mob are ever vigilant to exploit.


Thanks, Shaver. A 76-year-old Englishman shopping for women's undergarments does not strike me as odd in the least (I've watched lots of Monty Python) so I missed the humor.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I honestly had never heard of her until yesterday. 

I’ve pretty much tuned out and am otherwise unfamiliar with most of these people. I’ve heard a few names but couldn’t pick them out of a line up.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

Generally, too many people are too easily offended over the language that others use, however, the reactions become far more disturbing than the events (both verbal and written), that provoked them.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Cassadine said:


> Why? I doubt she violated her contract. Does she have tenure? If anything she brought press to an unknown institution. I agree she's being trite. If she was genuinely offended she should've spoken to the man privately. That would've been appropriate. But today's cultural climate is an historical anomaly. The victim as heroic figure has no precedent that I can discover; and she's certainly not a victim.


It is okay for colleges to drop their standards? That's a big drop.

Maybe the guys wife asked him to get her these clothes. Husbands do all kinds of errands for their wife's. Whats unusual about that?

People are being taught that there is more to something than there is. The purpose of that is theft.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

WA said:


> It is okay for colleges to drop their standards? That's a big drop.
> 
> Maybe the guys wife asked him to get her these clothes. Husbands do all kinds of errands for their wife's. Whats unusual about that?
> 
> People are being taught that there is more to something than there is. The purpose of that is theft.


Were they in a department store? I had the impression they were in the event hotel.

He was making a joke about elevator operators.

Fortunately he wasn't at Saks in New York, where this is an option.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Don't know what elevator he was in.

-The story went public last week in a _Washington Post_ . "It was a lame, outmoded joke," Ruth Marcus , "the sort of thing you say in a crowded elevator to alleviate the discomfort of being jammed among strangers, an artifact of the days of fancy department stores with operators announcing the floor stops."-

But over sensitive people don't belong as professors.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WA said:


> But over sensitive people don't belong as professors.


On the contrary, it is the quintessence of the modern academic.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> On the contrary, it is the quintessence of the modern academic.


If 80% of professors sucked there thumb you would be ok with that?


----------



## Cassadine (Aug 22, 2017)

Miket61 said:


> View attachment 22147
> 
> 
> Were they in a department store? I had the impression they were in the event hotel.
> ...


Exactly.


----------



## Cassadine (Aug 22, 2017)

SG_67 said:


> Fixed it for you.


More precision. Good show!


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

WA said:


> If 80% of professors sucked there thumb you would be ok with that?


As long as it wasn't mine i'd be fine, but I don't believe there is any correlation between thumb sucking and sensitivity. It's not the worst habit a professor can have.


----------



## Cassadine (Aug 22, 2017)

"It's not the worst habit a professor can have." Especially these days.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Sensitivity often involves thinking to manage it. Shoddy thinking is heading towards thumb sucking. Shoddy thinking is anti intelligent thinking, which is what professors are not supposed to be doing. This hand holding and bawling that is going on with so many adults for the last several decades is tiresome. It is time for 21 and older to put this childesness away. The woman should be fired and some degrees yanked. Charlie Rose lost some of his degrees, so should she. She is just as bad Rose.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

WA said:


> Sensitivity often involves thinking to manage it. Shoddy thinking is heading towards thumb sucking. Shoddy thinking is anti intelligent thinking, which is what professors are not supposed to be doing. This hand holding and bawling that is going on with so many adults for the last several decades is tiresome. It is time for 21 and older to put this childesness away. The woman should be fired and some degrees yanked. Charlie Rose lost some of his degrees, so should she. She is just as bad Rose.


Charlie Rose' degrees were honorary, he didn't earn them. She reported someone, her right whether we agree or not, Charlie Rose has a string of sexual allegations against him. What the hell are you comparing?


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

What is it with these men (Harvey, Charlie) stepping out of the shower or answering their door in a towel? When my doorbell rings and I am in the shower I go into a panic. I certainly don't see it as an opportunity to score!

Sickos!

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

As a boy I used to open the front door in my skivvies. So did dad. Skivvies are about the same as swimming suits worn at the pool back in the 50s and 60s. Shouldn't freak out about that.
I've answered the door, getting out of the shower, with towel or bath robe. Bath robe is best, nowadays.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

derum said:


> Charlie Rose' degrees were honorary, he didn't earn them. She reported someone, her right whether we agree or not, Charlie Rose has a string of sexual allegations against him. What the hell are you comparing?


Charlie Rose kissing women is far from rape. Not right, but neather is she. A different category, but about the same level of stupidity, perhaps.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^+1. (in response to post #125)
A bathrobe is my minimal costume for me when answering a knock at the door.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^+1.
> A bathrobe is my minimal costume for me when answering a knock at the door.


You don't live in a nudist village, huh?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WA said:


> As a boy I used to open the front door in my skivvies. So did dad. Skivvies are about the same as swimming suits worn at the pool back in the 50s and 60s. Shouldn't freak out about that.
> I've answered the door, getting out of the shower, with towel or bath robe. Bath robe is best, nowadays.


This front door - it wasn't attached to a trailer, was it?


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

My mother would have a heart attack if I answered the door in my y-fronts. 

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

WA said:


> As a boy I used to open the front door in my skivvies. So did dad. Skivvies are about the same as swimming suits worn at the pool back in the 50s and 60s. Shouldn't freak out about that.
> I've answered the door, getting out of the shower, with towel or bath robe. Bath robe is best, nowadays.


I'd be pretty annoyed if I visited a house and someone answered the door in underwear or a towel. I mean, folks should have the courtesy to throw something on!

(I'd probably put it in the same category as those men who "accidentally" forget to lock public bathroom doors, so that you'll stumble in on them. I appreciate an exhibitionist only when she's a young, attractive woman, alas - I freely admit my bias in this.)

DH


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Shaver said:


> This front door - it wasn't attached to a trailer, was it?


No.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> My mother would have a heart attack if I answered the door in my y-fronts.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


Briefs


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Dhaller said:


> I'd be pretty annoyed if I visited a house and someone answered the door in underwear or a towel. I mean, folks should have the courtesy to throw something on!
> 
> (I'd probably put it in the same category as those men who "accidentally" forget to lock public bathroom doors, so that you'll stumble in on them. I appreciate an exhibitionist only when she's a young, attractive woman, alas - I freely admit my bias in this.)
> 
> DH


Nothing wrong with a towel. We are not talking about sex. You don't wear a shirt when swimming do you? So that nobody see's your chest?

The second paragraph is sleezy.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

This thread has jumped the proverbial shark.


----------



## Fraser Tartan (May 12, 2010)

^ The Fonz jumping the shark.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

I have found that ones swimming costume can vary depending on circumstances, from trunks to al fresco. 

An impromptu nude swim a la "A Room With A View" can be invigorating!

Yet I have never found a need for a leather jacket (or any other leather apparel) in the water.

Aaaaaayyyy! 

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Marianne Talbot, Director of Studies in Philosophy at Oxford University's Department for Continuing Education (https://mariannetalbot.co.uk/), confronts Downs Syndrome male via Twitter resultant of imagined slight against her gender:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1009482829800116226


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

This is what professor Talbot deserves!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

And yearns for. 

Probably.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> And yearns for.
> 
> Probably.


Maybe she would be a bit less ornery.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

What would she would make of this?


----------



## Cassadine (Aug 22, 2017)

SG_67 said:


> This is what professor Talbot deserves!


I disagree. She's too elitist to make her own coffee, and too stupid not to overpay for a mocha-whappa-orange-syrup-cinnamon, whipped cream, with decaf espresso and skim milk.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

In case of bleating SJW emergency - break glass and thwart muddle headeness with the zeitgeist surfing multi-purpose withering response, in equal measure profound, corrosive and frustrating:


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Shaver said:


> In case of bleating SJW emergency - break glass and thwart muddle headeness with the zeitgeist surfing multi-purpose withering response, in equal measure profound, corrosive and frustrating:
> View attachment 22592


The zeitgeist is adding resonance to my schadenfreude.

Cheers,

BSR


----------

