Freedom is Slavery

Brown University. You know, the place where students are whining that they are failing their classes because they are protesting so much…

Fall 2015: “The right to free speech is a protection against the abuse of power, not a guarantee of a platform for all ideas,” a group of students wrote in an op-ed for the Brown Daily Herald.

We are taught to extol the virtues of free speech. White people in particular are taught that our voices are always worth being heard. When we believe in free speech, we do so because it works in our favor. The problem is that freedom of speech is not a universal reality. Free speech assumes a level playing field among speakers that does not exist. Power always affects interactions and what people can and do say in the context of a given relationship, institution or society. In this case, at an elite, predominantly white university, race and class are inseparable from any social interaction, let alone the curation of content in an established campus publication.

These arguments for free speech are often deployed to silence voices of color. Colonial histories of civility aside, calling for “civil discourse” implies that expressions of pain and anger by people of color are not civil and have no place in the conversation.

Censorship is the exercise of power to suppress challenges to the status quo. People of color calling attention to racism does not constitute an overbearing power structure that will limit free speech. The oppressed by definition cannot censor their oppressor. (Brown U)

This is your future. Idiocy as “sensitive” “moral” “standards”. Ignorance as Strength.

Isn’t it just grand. 🙂

Far more pernicious is the self-censorship that is promoted at many campuses that may fear ending up in the media spotlight should students protest. For instance, after Brown University students prevented former New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly from speaking, many other campuses may simply decide that it is not worth the trouble to bring a speaker to campus who is associated with controversial police practices (in Kelly’s case, “stop and frisk”). This silent fear is potentially crippling free speech.

“Free expression for me but not for you” is simple hypocrisy. However, deeper forces are also at work. (USA Today)

Last fall, the student groups held an outdoor event displaying posters with examples of expression that had been censored on campuses across the country. Three other students filed formal complaints, claiming that some of the posters were “offensive” and “triggering.” In response, USC served Abbott with a “Notice of Charge” letter and launched an investigation for “discrimination,” threatening him with punishment up to and including expulsion for his protected speech.

Abbott and the campus chapters of YAL and the College Libertarians are now suing USC for violating their free speech rights.

The University of South Carolina is so intolerant of free speech that students can’t even talk about free speech,” said Catherine Sevcenko, FIRE’s director of litigation. “Ironically, the university’s current marketing campaign features the slogan ‘No Limits.’ But as Ross and his fellow students learned, that does not extend to their free speech rights.”.

The Futures so Bright I have to wear a muzzle. 🙂

DUKEing It out

Fed up with the politically correct orthodoxy they claim has created a “climate of fear” on campus, students at Duke University are banding together to call for the restoration of academic freedom.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

DIVERSITY IS SEGREGATION 🙂

ORTHODOXY IS DIVERSITY

“We seek to invigorate the Duke community’s commitment to supporting an open intellectual climate on campus,” the Duke Open Campus Coalition (OCC) declares in an open letter addressed to University President Richard Brodhead published in The Duke Chronicle Wednesday.

“All people should feel ‘safe’ when expressing their opinions on campus in an academic environment.”   

Hell NO! That’s politically incorrect and “insensitive” . 🙂

 

“During our time here at Duke, we have encountered a community that values identity politics over reasoned discussion and debate when confronting real—and at times misperceived—instances of injustice,” the students explain. “Actions taken that emphasize identity politics create a climate of fear on campus whereby people who publicly dissent from the policies being proposed are afraid of being personally attacked and slandered.”

They should be, because the Politically Correct will. The Ministry of Truth is all powerful, didn’t you know ? 🙂

The letter was signed by 12 students representing every class year, who say they were inspired by a similar group at Princeton University that was established in November after Princeton capitulated to an ultimatum from a group calling themselves the “Black Justice League,” particularly the university’s endorsement of a demand to create “safe spaces” for students based on race.

Malcontents and radicals… 🙂

The Princeton OCC acknowledged the Duke chapter’s formation on its Facebook page, applauding the Duke students for following Princeton’s lead and encouraging students at other schools to do the same.

Yet while the Duke group is reacting to issues that have arisen at colleges and universities across the country, the students feel that the climate of fear “has a particular character on Duke’s campus” that threatens to stifle open discussion.

Not only do “some students consider it morally acceptable to remove copies of The Chronicle from campus when they disagree with its content,” the letter claims, but “select members of Duke Student Government’s Executive Board have taken to intimidating first-year student government representatives to affirm ‘politically correct’ views regardless of whether they agree with them.”

CONFORMITY IS DIVERSE. 🙂

“With grave concern about the tactics of some protestors and the substantive demands they are making, we call for an open and inclusive campus—a campus where all members of the Duke community can communicate openly as Blue Devils without fear that they will be censored if their views differ from, or even offend, other people,” the letter states before outlining the group’s specific objections.

INCLUSION IS EXCLUSION

“First, while we are disturbed by acts of racism, homophobia, and bigotry on this campus, and agree that more can be done to combat intolerance, we do not believe that acts of bigotry committed by individuals implicate Duke as an institution,” they say. “We share the goals of increasing tolerance and punishing individual students who engage in behavior that harms other people, but we do not think these goals are best served by the policies some protesters have prescribed to advance them.”

One such policy involves expanding the university’s definition of hate speech to include “speech that offends or insults,” which the OCC describes as “a slippery slope to censorship.”

FREE SPEECH IS CENSORSHIP

The students likewise object to the demand that Duke introduce mandatory diversity and bias training, predicting the effort “will amount to mandatory reeducation classes” and further discourage faculty and students from expressing dissenting opinions.

They also contend that the activists’ demand that faculty demographic makeup be made consistent with that of the student body, arguing that “Instituting a quota system on staff members based on a student population that changes every year is not only unfeasible, but is wrong,” because it necessarily reduces quality to a secondary consideration in hiring decisions.

“Moreover, mandating minimum or maximum thresholds on employment or student enrollment on the basis of skin color or gender reduces people to immutable characteristics of their identity,” the students add, saying they “strongly denounce the idea that our interactions with one another should be defined by demographic traits like race and gender.”

QUOTAS ARE DIVERSITY.

The group also takes issue with the methods employed by student activists, claiming that “students from across the political spectrum were unsettled that protesters would vandalize Duke property, refuse to allow Duke administrators to ask questions during a community conversation, and seek to remove students on the Chronicle staff with whom they disagree politically.”

[RELATED: Duke students petition to ‘fire’ opinion editor for ‘inflammatory’ column]

{The change.org petition castigates Zhao’s alleged furthering of “racist stereotypes” and “misinformation about an entire group of people–a group of people to which the writer does not even belong.”

Zhao, who is a rising senior at Duke, came under fire after arguing in his column that the hurdles in the way of advancement for “black America” is no longer racism or social injustice.

“Instead of paving a road to prosperity,” Zhao wrote, “the self-defeating economic policies advocated for by the black community are shackles of poverty and disillusionment, miring blacks in a cycle of underachievement and social immobility.”}

“All people should feel ‘safe’ when expressing their opinions on campus in an academic environment,” the letter contends, calling attention to the contradictions in the activists’ demands. “The administration should not institutionalize a space where any member of this community, student or faculty, is protected from having even their most core values challenged and scrutinized.”

The OCC concludes the letter by commending the administration for taking steps to “methodically study bias and hate issues,” but counsels “creating an administrative channel to scrutinize policy proposals and streamline deliverables [to] help ensure all parties have a stake in ensuring we can combat bigotry.” (Campus Reform)

That’s what they have done. It’s called The Ministry of Truth.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

FEAR IS HOPE

CENSORSHIP IS FREE SPEECH

 

If They Say Something,See Them Reported

At Pennsylvania State University, no hurt feeling is too small, no slight too inconsequential, no unintentionally biased statement too unimportant.

Administrators want to know it all.

“Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”
― George Orwell, 1984

The public university is in the midst of a massive campaign that encourages students not only to watch what they say, lest they offend someone, but also to report any and all biased statements to campus officials.

“There is no place for hate, overt or subtle, at Penn State – such actions do not represent our mutually held values,” Eric Barron, president of Penn State, stated in a recent message to the campus community.

I hate Liberals! 🙂  I hate Political Correctness! 🙂

1984: Everywhere Winston goes, even his own home, the Party watches him through telescreens; everywhere he looks he sees the face of the Party’s seemingly omniscient leader, a figure known only as Big Brother. The Party controls everything in Oceania, even the people’s history and language. Currently, the Party is forcing the implementation of an invented language called Newspeak, which attempts to prevent political rebellion by eliminating all words related to it. Even thinking rebellious thoughts is illegal. Such thoughtcrime is, in fact, the worst of all crimes.

Now it’s MICROAGRESSION time again!

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”
― George Orwell, 1984

With cameras and spies everywhere to catch you if you should slip and offend.

PennPoster-258x400

Big Brother is Watching you! And So you Should watch everyone else too. 🙂

As a part of the campaign, the university is using posters and magnets to emphasize its Report Bias system set up under the Office of the Vice Provost for Educational Equity.

Educational Equity. Hilariously Orwellian, don’t you think? Oh, right thinking is bad. 🙂

More than 1,000 images of a stop sign in the form of posters and magnets have been distributed at Penn State. They tell students to “be the difference” and “take a stand for a positive campus climate.” The posters classify a wide array of situations as a “bias incident” including cases of discrimination, bigotry, inequity, sexual assault, injustice, and much more.

Barron, in his message to the campus, stated that students should report acts of “hate or intolerance.”

Lisa Powers, director of Penn State’s strategic communications office, said in an email to The College Fix that an act of intolerance includes microaggressions.

“An act of intolerance can be identified as any forms of microaggressions, verbal assaults, and/or racial subjugation,” Powers said.

Powers said the bias reporting acts as a catharsis of sorts for students, acknowledging the public university has no right to hinder students’ First Amendment rights.

“Penn State stands firmly behind free speech and free expression, even in those instances when the views being expressed are disturbing or insulting, or the actions hurtful,” Powers told The College Fix. “The First Amendment doesn’t just apply to those who express ideas with which we agree. It also applies to those whose ideas we may find challenging, repugnant or even appalling. By providing an outlet for individuals to report bias they have seen or experienced, we are giving them an equal right to express their thoughts and feelings on the matter.”

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
― George Orwell, 1984

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
― George Orwell, 1984.

We can’t censor you (per se), so we’ll get you to censor you. 🙂

In the HuffPost poll, a majority of people — 53 percent — said that colleges should sanction students who make racially offensive statements. Black, Hispanic and Democratic respondents were more likely to agree with this idea than whites, Republicans or independents. (People in the Midwest were also more likely to agree with this sentiment than people in the Northeast, the West or the South.) Among white people in the poll, 48 percent said a student should be punished for racist statements, compared to 33 percent arguing they should not.

The poll also asked whether colleges and universities should prioritize for their students “an absolute right to free speech, even if that means allowing offensive or racist comments,” or if it’s more important that “students have an environment free from discrimination, even if that means placing some limits on what students can say.”

Thirty-eight percent responded that an absolute right to free speech was more important, but 43 percent said an environment free from discrimination was more valuable.

Just 4 percent of black respondents said that an absolute right to free speech was their top concern, compared to 69 percent who said they valued an environment free from discrimination.

Lastly, two-thirds of Democrats believe universities should teach about racial bias, while almost the same percentage of Republicans say the opposite.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, of course, considering the political make-up of college faculty.

“Forty-four percent of Republicans in the poll said colleges should not sanction students for making racist statements, while 71 percent of Democrats said they should.”

Back in October of 2014, a You.gov poll revealed that 51% of Democrats supported restricting free speech if it is “hateful.” (College Fix)

FREEDOM  IS SLAVERY!

“The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better.”
― George Orwell, 1984

“Orthodoxy means not thinking–not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”
― George Orwell, 1984

“For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?”
― George Orwell, 1984

 

 

Free Speech Lesson

First Amendment, US Constitution: 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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You’d think a law professor would know that the First Amendment, by its very nature, protects speech that is deeply unpopular.

But the interim vice chancellor for inclusion, diversity and equity at the University of Missouri has apparently not brushed up on the Bill of Rights since he took his position this fall.

Amid the racial tensions on the University of Missouri’s campus that culminated last semester, a school administrator is promoting “inclusive terminology” and stating that the First Amendment does not give people the right to say whatever they wish.

In an interview with the Economist published over the weekend, Mizzou Interim Vice-Chancellor for Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity Chuck Henson criticized defenders of the First Amendment for leading the backlash against the recent changes at the school — including the resignation of President Tim Wolfe, who is white. Henson also asserted that the First Amendment does not give people the right to say “hateful things.”

It most certainly does, Mr. “LAW” Professor.

The Economist reported:

Yet the First Amendment does not give people a free pass to go round saying hateful things, points out Mr. Henson. To help students and faculty realise this, Mizzou has developed a new guide to ‘inclusive terminology’ which ensures a healthy level of respect for all minority groups. It includes terms such as ‘adultism’ (prejudice against the young), ‘minoritised’ (when under-represented groups are made to feel inferior) and intersextionality (obscure). Some will see this stuff as movement in the right direction. But it is also likely to increase the ire of those who watched the protests and thought they saw a group of privileged college students complaining about how terrible their lot is.

Henson, who is also a law professor, received immediate criticism.

“The idea that the First Amendment does not give a ‘free pass’ to say ‘hateful things’ is demonstrably incorrect,” Ari Cohn, a lawyer with the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education, told TheBlaze Monday. “Speech that might be considered ‘hateful’ is entitled to full First Amendment protection unless it falls under one of the very narrow categories of unprotected speech defined by the Supreme Court.”

“History has taught us that the right to free speech is an essential tool for oppressed minorities,” Cohn continued. “It would be tragically ironic to curtail free speech in the pursuit of remedying oppression.”

FIRE, a nonprofit organization that focuses on civil liberties in academia, has assigned the University of Missouri a “red light” speech code rating. According to the organization, that rating means the public school has a least one policy that clearly restricts speech.

Henson told the Economist that he has received multiple death threats since assuming his leadership position at the university.

Cohn said that death threats do fall under the narrow definition of what constitutes a “true threat” and would be subject to disciplinary action or prosecution.

“But Mizzou may not, consistent with the First Amendment and decades of legal precedent, ban merely hateful speech, or mandate respectfulness and civility,” he said. “The university may certainly encourage students to be respectful and nice to one another by using its own speech and educating students, but it may not enforce such values at the expense of students’ rights.”

Prior to winter break, the university published a series of posts to its website that reaffirmed the school’s commitment to fostering a free exchange of ideas and its support of civil liberties, including free expression.

As Long as it’s politically correct, that is. 🙂

University officials declined to comment to TheBlaze on Henson’s allegations of death threats he has received. A Mizzou police department spokesperson told TheBlaze that the local police department would typically conduct a criminal investigation into any death threats brought to its attention. If the threat was found to have been made by university personnel or a student, then punishment would be handed down through the “proper channels.”

But “hate speech”, especially to a Progressive is more than just “death threats” it usually just involves disagreeing with their Agenda or being Politically incorrect. 🙂

Unfortunately, the Department of Education under the Obama administration has been much more aggressive, granting itself new powers and redefining harassment in such broad language that virtually any offensive speech could be considered a matter of federal oversight.

The biggest and most noticeable change in campus censorship in recent years has been the shift in student attitudes. Today, students often demand freedom from speech rather than freedom of speech.

The Liberals got beat in court on Speech Codes years ago so they just decided that teaching self-censorship to the Crybaby Generation was more effective because them THEY would demand it and they have.

These troubling results were echoed by a November 2015 global survey from Pew Research Center finding that a whopping 40 percent of U.S. millennials [ages 18–34] believe the government should be able to punish speech offensive to minority groups (as compared to only 12 percent of the Silent generation [70–87 year-olds], 24 percent of the Boomer generation [51–69 year-olds], and 27 percent of Gen Xers [35–50 year-olds]).

So welcome to Orwell’s 1984 where the idiot students are demanding limits to free speech without even understanding “free speech” to begin with.

But I’m just and white guy, after all.

I am a right wing Bigot, misogynist, hater and a racist for even opposing it. 🙂

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

FREE SPEECH IS ONLY FREE WHEN IT’S NOT “HATEFUL”.

🙂

 

 

 

 

Support Censorship It’s Less Offensive that Way

Let’s start with the good news about Pew Research’s latest findings on the incredibly annoying delicate snowflake epidemic sweeping American higher education: these people aren’t the majority. It’s not even close. Sixty-seven percent of Americans support free speech (in keeping with past polling), while 28 percent think “government should be able to prevent” people from saying offensive things about minorities. Supermajorities of men, women, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, high school graduates, and college graduates all support free speech principles. Non-whites don’t have supermajority support, breaking 57/38 in favor of free speech. To no one’s surprise, Millennials are the generation where the largest proportion feels that government should curtail free speech rights (via Pew):

Four-in-ten Millennials say the government should be able to prevent people publicly making statements that are offensive to minority groups, while 58% said such speech is OK.Even though a larger share of Millennials favor allowing offensive speech against minorities, the 40% who oppose it is striking given that only around a quarter of Gen Xers (27%) and Boomers (24%) and roughly one-in-ten Silents (12%) say the government should be able to prevent such speech.

Compared with people we surveyed in dozens of nations, Americans as a whole are less likely to favor the government being able to prevent speech of any kind

I guess another silver lining (remember 40 percent is high, but it’s nowhere near a majority) is that we’re not becoming like Europe, even if Millennials in college are eating up this political correctness/safe space nonsense at the moment, which does actively seek to end discussions on certain issues.

At the same time, while it’s easy to classify all Millennials as hopeless, please watch Editor-in-Chief of DailyWire Ben Shapiro talk to Mizzou students, the ones who are rational, about the current climate on college campuses, especially the fiasco that has embroiled their institution to the point where their president and chancellor both resigned for pretty much being Caucasian. Young America’s Foundation hosted the event.

Katie added that Shapiro made clear that he doesn’t care about your feelings, and that students need to stop whining and grow up.

In light of the recent and absurd calls from University of Missouri students to self-segregate based on race, demands for “safe spaces,” the attempts to boot reporters from covering public protests, claims of a poop swastika and more, Young America’s Foundation decided to send Harvard Law Graduate and Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro to Mizzou to debunk false, progressive narratives swirling on campus and being promoted through national media.

The words “toughen up spoiled children” were written in chalk outside of the hall where he spoke and during his speech, Shapiro took protesters and the leftists who support them to task in epic fashion. The title of his lecture was, “Truth is a Microaggression.”

“I don’t care about your feelings. Lets make something perfectly clear, I care nothing about your feelings,” Shapiro said.

The entire speech is worth your time to watch.

 

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 

 

 

Missouri Misery

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

What is going on at the University of Missouri?  Their president, Tom Wolfe resigned after protest erupted because he didn’t respond decisively enough to various racist incidents on campus.  (In a dramatic flourish, the school’s football team even went on a hunger strike.)

Or at least this is what the news is reporting.  David French, on National Review, takes umbrage at this explanation, because it “collapses under the slightest scrutiny.”

He writes:

The idea that Wolfe presided over a racially insensitive educational empire is a sad joke. A timeline of racial outrages in Columbia is sparse indeed, showing two allegations of racial name-calling (on a campus with 35,000 students) and one disturbing incident in which a swastika was drawn on a dorm wall with human waste. No rational, sentient human being believes system presidents can be responsible for what lunatics do with their own feces, or that they can prevent any given student from shouting racial slurs. Not even the worst communist dictatorships could control the speech of all their subjects. Wolfe couldn’t stop drunk undergraduates from hurling insensitive insults even if he established his own gulag and deployed commissars across campus.”

Oh but they are:

The Missouri University Police Department (MUPD) sent an email to students Tuesday morning urging them to call them and report any hurtful speech they encounter on the campus.

In an email that was flagged by several Missouri-based journalists, the MUPD asked “individuals who witness incidents of hateful and/or hurtful speech or actions” to call the department’s general phone line “to continue to ensure that the University of Missouri campus remains safe.” They suggest that students provide a detailed description of the offender, their location or license plate number, and even to take a picture if possible.

In the email, MUPD readily admits that hurtful or hateful speech is not against the law. But, they write, “if the individuals identified are students, MU’s Office of Student Conduct can take disciplinary action.”

In a statement to Mediaite, the MUPD confirmed that the email was real. When asked about the potential First Amendment implications, a spokesman responded simply, “We are simply asking them to report what they feel is hurtful and/or hateful speech.”

Aka, not politically correct and not what the little cherubs of easily offended social justice didn’t want to hear.

He added that the police did not consider the hateful speech “a criminal matter.” However, “We also work for the University and uphold the Universities Rules and Regulations.”

Fortunately for the radicals, our universities are populated by the craven and the cowardly. Push a professor, even slightly, and it’s likely he’ll fold. Demand faculty support for your protest, and dozens will rush to join, self-righteously advancing their own false oppression narratives even as they enjoy lives billions of others would covet. There is nothing brave about these people. They are not “elite.” They don’t deserve a single dime of taxpayer money or one cent of student tuition. They dishonor their schools and their country.

A Mizzou professor almost resigned his position at the school after he said a scheduled exam would take place, despite his class raising security concerns due to the growing tension on campus. They felt “unsafe.”

Campus Reform reported that Dr. Dale Brigham received the ire of the news media for “shaming” minority students for being worried about death threats, one man was arrested for posting such threats earlier this morning. Yet, MU police have increased security, they’re confident that the campus remains safe, and the administration has not placed the school on lockdown or sent anybody home. This situation is being overblown (shocker), though it wouldn’t be a social justice warrior sideshow without things being egregiously exaggerated. The fact that a professor almost checked out for doing his job is ridiculous, especially since he wasn’t the personification of evil.

In the end, the school did not accept Brigham’s resignation.

The University of Missouri has become a subject of debate, given that both the university’s president and chancellor resigned after the student body felt they failed to address alleged instances of racism on campus. Yet, that story seems to be evaporating in the ether. The story is now about the protestors’ horrific violation and disrespect for First Amendment rights; a textbook example of petulance from a group of kids absorbed by political correctness.

According to a social media message being circulated among social justice student groups at the University of Missouri, better known as Mizzou, students are being encouraged to carry pepper spray and tasers to protect their “safe spaces” and blacks.

The University of Missouri’s student body vice president did not mince words when she used an appearance on MSNBC Wednesday to say journalists who claim to be exercising their First Amendment rights while reporting on the Mizzou protests are actually creating a “hostile” and “unsafe” environment.

When asked about complaints from professors that universities are becoming “places of censor and prohibition,” Smith-Lezama said people are using the First Amendment to create a “hostile and unsafe learning environment.”

“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 for other students here,” Smith-Lezama said. “I think that it’s important for us to create that distinction and create a space where we can all learn from one another and start to create a place of healing rather than a place where we are experiencing a lot of hate like we have in the past.”

“Sensitive and confidential info: We’re (black students and our closest allies) gonna occupy the bcc from 9am until. We don’t want them to feel in control. So we’ll hold study hall in our safe place all day and escort ppl wherever they need to be. But don’t put this info on any public platform. Let ppl know thru TEXT & DMs only please. Have pepper spray, taser, whatever non-lethal weapon if possible. Help protect our safe space and spread the word so blacks can be protected,” the message reads.

In other words, everyday events that are bearable for anyone with a scintilla of rational thought are considered apocalyptic to these students.

Social Justice Warriors Unite! Don’t Let them “offend” you. Crush them! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler
Political Correctness Gone Wild's photo.
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

2015 – The Year Everything Became “Offensive”

Crowder:

I know, I know, some of you are already mad just from having clicked the title. You’re thinking, “This is going to be another insensitive, anti-authoritarian, right-wing screed as to why we needn’t be so sensitive to everyone’s needs, justifying the mocking or humiliation of unprotected minorities!”

Nailed it.

There’s no doubt political correctness has been with us for quite some time. It’s nothing new. Developed as a political weapon for German Marxists in the 1920’s (video coming soon), silencing dissent for political power or cultural influence has appealed to leftists for decades. To some degree, we’ve all grown up with it. To some degree, we all agree it sucks. Badly.

But recently, there’s been an acceleration of PC culture the likes of which we haven’t seen before. More and more words and topics of discussion are being blacklisted, as the ever-prevalent, oppressed minority acronyms get longer.

 

Remember the “LGB” movement? Well it’s not even the “LGBT” movement anymore. No, it’s not even “LGBTQ” anymore. It’s actually “LGBTQAI” or depending on the circles you run in, “LGBTQAA” or “LGBTQAAP.” No I’m not kidding. The “A” is for “Asexual” or “Allies” depending on who you ask, while the “I” is for “Intersex” and the proposed “P” is for “Pansexual.” Not “Pedophile.” That would be ridiculous. Don’t be ridiculous.

If it sounds frivolous to even mention, well here’s why it’s so important; every single one of those letters is now a “protected” class. That not only means (to the left) they must be free from scrutiny and critical discussion, but from any kind of mockery or source of humor whatsoever.

“So a tranny walks into a bar…”

You’re now guilty of hate-speech. It may sound inconsequential enough. Sticks and stones, right? Wrong. Because as seen across nearly all of Western Europe, leftists are actively marching toward the end of free speech as we know it. Of course, that’s not what they’ll tell you. They’ll actually tell you the opposite. That they love free speech, they support free speech, but for there to be true freedom of speech, your free speech just has to be limited. For the feels.

Doublethink is your friend! 🙂

Don’t worry! Not all of your speech. Only your hate-speech. And your intolerant speech. (anything they disagree with) And your offensive speech (when you disagree with them). And your insensitive speech (when you assert real tolerance and diversity that isn’t on The Agenda). Also your “mansplaining.” But seriously, stop worrying, most of your speech is safe. And nobody wants to take your guns.

Much…. 🙂

The truth is a lot of today’s SJW minions don’t realize they’ve been manipulated by politically correct, social engineering.

“In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell

They’re blissfully unaware of the systematic cultural censorship taking place. Most of them believe they’re simply doing the right thing. I mean, why would you even want to engage in hate-speech anyway?

Such is the insidious, Orwellian nature of it all.

Thoughtcrime:  attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects. To entertain unacceptable thoughts is known as crimethink in Newspeak, the ideologically purified dialect of the party. “Crimestop” is a way to avoid crimethink by immediately purging dangerous thoughts from the mind.

Language makes humans easy to control—control their language and you control the people.

I’ll tell you why. Because the goalposts on what constitutes “hate speech” are constantly moving. Sometimes today’s hate-speech is merely yesterday’s “damn funny joke.” Even worse than the #SJW’s who push for the cultural Marxism, are the silly pretenders who feign offense in an attempt to appease the leftist lynch mob. You know the type. The kind of people who act like an off-color joke is equivalent to a mortal wounding, the people who act like they would never even think of laughing at a risqué joke because it’s at someone else’s expense. The kind of people who act like they don’t still laugh at Blazing Saddles behind closed doors. The kind of people who now release an audible tisk tisk when Some Like it Hot comes on for fear of being labeled “transphobic.”

For the love of all that’s holy, stop. Please stop. You’re embarrassing yourselves. It doesn’t matter how “progressive” or “down” you try to present yourself. Appeasing the leftist lynch mob is futile. They’ll eventually turn on you. They always do.

Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.

Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

That’s the Progressive Left. They are coming for all of us.

See Matt Damon, Amy Schumer, Chris Rock and Raven Symone. All once darlings of the left, have all recently felt their wrath simply for holding the wrong opinion on one issue. You may get away with it for a while, but eventually, the SJW lynch mob comes for you. So don’t start skipping down that yellow-brick-crap-road in the first place.

2015’s list of bannable speech items is longer than ever and what do we have to show for it? Do we really feel more united than ever? Do we feel more enlightened than we did twenty years ago? Can we pat ourselves on the back yet?

But it makes the Leftists feel better about themselves. 🙂

In trying to create a tolerant, leftist utopia, we’ve fractured America more than ever before. I don’t know about you, but I’m through caring. Yep, there’s some comedy out there that could be considered racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or Islamaphobic – those last two don’t even show up as words in my auto-correct – and yes, I still laugh at it. Sometimes I don’t. But taking offense doesn’t even enter into my thought process. The only difference between you and me is that I freely admit it publicly.

Want to join me, or shall we keep this silly charade alive a little while longer?

Live Free or Die!

29c34-11george-orwell-9 Agree with me or else!