Joe Rogan Claims That Controversy Has Offered Him 2 Million In Subscriber Growth – Daily Music Roll

The Joe Rogan Experience host Joe Rogan is claiming that the n-word controversy has offered him a hike of more than 2 million followers on his Spotify profile.

Previously, Joe Rogan got involved in a controversy regarding his usage of the n-word and his personal opinion of COVID-19. However, it did not make him lose any subscribers instead boosted his online follower base on Spotify.

Rogan has gained much popularity through his podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience on Spotify. The host claimed that he has claimed a huge number of followers during the controversy.

The controversies occurred on Fridays episode that featured Douglas Murray, a renowned British political commentator. Murray said to Rogan, You have been put through the wringer since we last met, with reference to the netizens protest and trying to cancel Rogan and his show. He said, They did a number on you. Wow.

Rogan responded, Its interesting, my subscriptions went up massively thats whats crazy. He was quite excited about the fact that the controversy did not defame him and instead offered more monthly listeners for his podcast.

He further said, During the height of it all, I gained two million subscribers Yeah, [the media] went for it. Its also fortunate that the people who went for it were CNN. Theyre so untrustworthy and people know how biased they are and socially weird their anchors are.

However, Spotify does not reveal the number of hikes in listener base and so experts are suggesting that it might be just a normal growth due to Spotify listeners base and its not a surge.

In a recent video posted on Rogans Instagram profile, Joe expresses his thoughts about the compilation of using the N-word that Arie posted was the most regretful and shameful thing that Ive ever had to talk about publicly. However, he said that it was taken out of context.

Joe further said, Its not my word to use. I am well aware of that now, but for years I used it in that manner, but he assured his intentions multiple times by saying I never used it to be racist because Im not racist.

In regard to his comments on the Covid situation, he said, this is so baffling to me, since he was a standup comedian and he talks on various topics on his show. He exclaimed, If youre taking vaccine advice from me, is that really my fault?

Surely, Rogan is quite frustrated with the political correctness and said, If you want my advice, dont take my advice. Notably, a lot of black music artists and even Neil Young are taking down their music from Spotify in protest of Rogans words.

Spotify has taken down more than 70 episodes of his podcast yet the controversy is on. Stay tuned to know more!

The Joe Rogan Experience:

Follow him on Instagram:

https://www.instagram.com/joerogan/

Alicia Parker is a fashion enthusiast studying at the University of California. She contributes to Daily Music Roll as a music blogger and writes a review of various music on a daily basis

Read the original here:

Joe Rogan Claims That Controversy Has Offered Him 2 Million In Subscriber Growth - Daily Music Roll

The problem with Netflix isn’t wokeness – TechRadar

If youve ventured onto the internet this past week, youll know that Netflix discourse is flavor of the month.

News of the companys massive subscriber losses has sent shockwaves through the entertainment industry, with many including those on Wall Street heralding the end of Netflixs decade-long reign as the streaming service supreme.

Netflix itself has blamed the downturn on a handful of factors, including its failure (and subsequent need) to both crack down on password sharing and diversify its subscription packages in light of increased competition from rival platforms like Disney Plus and HBO Max but social media commentators have thrown their own reasoning into the mix.

According to some, Netflix has fallen victim to so-called wokeness or, in other words, a supposed over-commitment to politicized programming. Critics are bemoaning the streamers peddling of forced diversity, its fondness for social justice, and uniformly boring new movies and TV shows. As Tesla CEO (and new Twitter owner) Elon Musk put it in a recent tweet: The woke mind virus is making Netflix unwatchable.

Naturally, Musks 83 million-plus Twitter followers responded in kind. At the time of writing, his tweet has garnered more than 300,000 likes, with many users echoing his criticism of the streamers obvious social and political agenda in a lengthy string of replies.

You mean you don't enjoy Viking shows where the biggest/baddest warrior is a woman (eye-roll -- no, those didn't actually exist); or horror films that turn out to be actually be social justice commentary; or shows that make 'cutesy' references to devil (Sabrina)?, one account replied sarcastically.

I have been waiting for this moment for a while. Every single thing on Netflix thats recent is just propaganda. Its unwatchable at this point, another wrote (of course, this roster of unwatchable new Netflix content must include its recent documentary on Musk and his space program, right?).

The point being, a fair few folk arent happy with Netflix and its uniquely politicized approach to modern storytelling. Even though it doesn't exist.

Lets be clear: Netflix does have a content problem. For starters, too many of its recent movies and TV series have been caught in the style over substance trap.

Genuinely interesting shows like Squid Game and Stranger Things have become outnumbered by melodramatic soap operas dressed up in HBO-quality clothing (looking at you, Anatomy of a Scandal), while many of the streamers recent movie offerings (consider the starry emptiness of Dont Look Up) have likewise failed to live up to their billing.

Netflix has also become a cesspit of mindless reality television. The relentless addition of series in the Sexy Beasts and Is It Cake? mold suggests the companys annual $14 billion content budget no longer provides the quality assurance we once thought it did. And to make matters worse, these trashy, overproduced game shows seem less likely to face the chopping block than many of the genuinely genre-pushing projects that Netflix occasionally strikes gold with (the likes of Archive 81, Sense8 and The OA have all fallen victim to the streamers now-infamous cancel culture in recent years).

Following news of the companys subscriber losses, CEO Ted Hastings did admit a need to improve the quality of the platforms programming a process that has already begun with the stripping back of several upcoming projects though Netflix has a long way to go if it hopes to compete with the IP-heavy offerings of its burgeoning competitors.

But none of the above is a consequence of wokeness. Is Netflix any more woke than Disney Plus or HBO Max? The latest Marvel movies and TV shows propping up the former have been equally lambasted by the same critics, while two of the most popular series on the latter Euphoria and Our Flag Means Death revolve around queer teens and gay pirates, respectively.

Heck, the most popular English-speaking Netflix show of all time, Bridgerton, is a standard bearer of wokeness if ever there was one (and the same goes for the equally brilliant Sex Education).

Its abundantly clear, then, that Netflix hasnt suffered because of a penchant for political correctness and even if it had, we wouldnt be seeing its biggest rivals profit from fishing in the same woke-filled pond.

Instead, the reasons behind Netflixs woes are much more obvious.

Just three years ago, the streamer stood alone as the world's foremost on-demand entertainment platform, with only Amazons Prime Video service for company (and, by extension, competition). In 2022, though, that competition has increased tenfold. The aggressive expansion of the IP-rich Disney Plus and HBO Max is well-documented the former is projected to overtake Netflix for subscriber numbers by 2024 but the likes of Apple TV Plus, Hulu, Showtime, and Paramount Plus have also begun to eat into Netflixs pie.

With such a wealth of options across the board, its no wonder that Netflix no longer boasts the same one-stop-shop appeal to subscribers as it once did. Consider the most talked-about TV shows of the past year: Squid Game and Bridgerton notwithstanding, the likes of Euphoria, Yellowjackets, The Mandalorian, Succession, and Severance have dominated the online conversation. Sure, Netflix still has its golden geese but the platform has never faced such high-quality competition in its decade-long stint as the streaming king.

Whats more, that competition heated up at the same time Netflix began flirting with unwelcome price increases for its customers across the globe. As the cost of living continues to rise and interest in streaming wanes following the steady lifting of Covid-19 restrictions, consumers have proven themselves unwilling to sit back and accept higher tariffs for lower-quality products.

Netflix has expressed an intention to mitigate these price increases by offering a wider range of subscription options which look set to include a cheaper, ad-supported tier akin to that which is already available on HBO Max but the internet has misread this strategy as yet more proof of the streamers fall from grace (If I see ads on Netflix I'm canceling, seems to be the current Twitter consensus).

For Netflix to recover its status, then, it will need to battle against factors beyond its control. The competition from rival streamers will only increase in the years to come, and company bosses must pull together an attractive range of bespoke subscription packages unlike any others available elsewhere to rebuild customers faith in the once-indomitable Netflix machine.

Yes, the platforms content must improve but it certainly doesnt need to become less woke.

Originally posted here:

The problem with Netflix isn't wokeness - TechRadar

Demystifying Political Correctness and its use in the age of alt-right trolls and finger-wagging liberals – Brock Press

The meaning of political correctness has been bungled by online discourse in an attempt to gain points in a culture war; a demystification of its use today is important for mapping current trends in our political discourse.

The term gained currency in the 1980s, being used mostly by the left to make fun of the rigid use of language and manners exclusive to politicians at the time. Today, the use of the word has become even more pejorative and isnt nearly as exclusive to political figures and spaces.

It seems like forever ago that the controversy surrounding Bill C-16 in Canada which enacted the proper use of individuals preferred pronouns into law, it being potentially considered a hate crime to protest against an individuals preferred pronouns caused a huge public debate on political correctness and identity politics. Indeed, the self-help guru and former University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson essentially made a whole career out of this instance, claiming the bill was a slippery slope that would lead to forms of totalitarianism. The law was ratified back in 2016 and to the surprise of no one, it appears the law hasnt taken us closer to totalitarianism.

What was made clear from the public outrage surrounding Bill C-16 was the way partisan goggles had started to influence the term political correctness to further ideological motives. Todays new right, the bowels of which can be observed on sites like 4Chan and in various Reddit forums and comment sections, attack establishment liberals for being too soft, and for being normies.

They see political correctness as a tool used by the mainstream left to virtue-signal, to posture about their egalitarian values while hiding a resentment for the better-abled, the more driven, etc., all the while destabilizing natural categories such as the distinctions between men and women.

In her book Kill All Normies, sociologist Angela Nagle describes the alt-rights emergence on the internet as such:

What seemed to hold them all together in their obscurity was a love of mocking the earnestness and moral self-flattery of what felt like a tired liberal intellectual conformity running right through from establishment liberal politics to the more militant enforcers of new sensitivities from the wackiest corners of Tumblr to campus politics.

The irony of this rebellion against liberal conformity is that the anti-conformity expected in these online spaces has become a rite of passage. To be a contrarian is the status quo for the online right, and of course when one steps over the line they can retreat into the idea that it was all for the memes, just one big joke.

Trumpism can largely be pinned down to this sense of being more genuine or real on account of being obscene and amoral while holding the opinion that running our societies coldly and calculated, like a business, is the best course of action to ensure the greatest level of (private) happiness. The interesting thing to note is that back in 2016, nearly 80 Silicon Valley executives, including Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Apple CEO Tim Cook, signed a letter that protested a law in North Carolina that barred transgender individuals from using public spaces designated for the opposite sex, claiming it was bad for business.

While the law was obviously backwards in its intentions, whats interesting is that the kind of politically correct, over-sensitive attitude that the alt-right opposes has continuously been absorbed by big tech and the likes relatively easily. Yet, the online right continue to aim their reactionary attack against political correctness at the establishment types. Meanwhile, they tend to be either indifferent to or pro-capital, despite the corporate world taking on the LGBTQ+ ideologies and the saintly image of corporate inclusivity with open arms in order to not be publicly ostracized and lose business.

Whats made clear by this false consciousness on behalf of the alt-right is that the internet has, in large part, misguided individuals engaged in political discourse online due to the closed circuits of niche forums, battlefields of ad hom back and fourths in comment sections and a lack of genuine face-to-face contact.

As Nagle argues later in her book, its as if this new online right are committing a kind of anachronism of the 68 youth rebellion; however, their object of resistance is muddled by the impersonal structures of capitalism as it pervades our private lives today, right down to the cellphone. As a result they are left doing a kind of puppeteering of old forms of rebellion on anyone who appears like a moral authority while keeping enough of a self-conscious, ironic distance to what they say and do online so as not to take full responsibility for their actions.

So what should one do to combat the gordian knot of issues like identity politics and political correctness as they present themselves in the ways Ive laid out here? One way is to remind folks that they can still remain decent and polite while rebelling meaningfully in the struggle for things such as pushing for further market regulation, some form of global cooperation to combat the threat of climate change, as well as attacking the systemic causes of mass immigration (climate change being one of the major ones).

Trumpism and the alt-right, whether online or not, is in part a reaction to the perception that the ability to transgress a certain level of cosmopolitan politeness is being taken by the left-leaning establishment types. Of course, there is a truth to this perception. The nominal left has largely preoccupied itself with policing the proper use of terms alongside being suspiciously fascinated with figures like Trump. All the while, liberals continue safeguarding the notion that all identities are rich, wonderful and deserve expression to divert from coming together on substantive policy to alleviate the causes of mass immigration in the first place so we dont have to argue the often circular reasons why we need to be more tolerant of other cultures.

To be clear, we do need to be tolerant. Putting immigrant children in cages that fail to reach federal standards of humane conduct, as seen during the Trump administration, is unacceptable. However, suspicion should arise when a liberals whole political project thrives on the gotcha moment of revealing that people still have prejudices towards immigrants differing ways of life; tolerance in this case becomes a form of intolerance.

If embracing different cultures amounts to a safe, spectatorial distance that is taken in order to not get too close to feeling a genuine difference in values collide with your own to gain political identity points, its no wonder the online right has seemingly infinite fuel to point out liberal hypocrisy.

Growing up with half my family coming from an immigrant background and the other coming from Canada, my house was an extremely confusing space in this regard. It was a space consisting of attempts to preserve the values from my Southeast Asian background in the midst of Western values that simultaneously denied fully embracing those forms of cultural expression that is, beyond the privacy of the home and designated foriegn cultural spaces while also claiming that this background should be celebrated as a product of Canadas openness to diversity. The message became clear: we like your identity, but dont get too close.

Here in Canada, Justin Trudeau has used this rhetorical strategy for years, worrying about being inoffensive and collecting identity points all the while undermining existentially charged initiatives like the 2030 carbon emission target of being 30 per cent below our 2005 emission levels when a 2019 Environment and Climate Change Canada report suggested it would only be 19 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

Whats important to remember is that, at bottom, the driving force behind the online rights dominant mode of thinking (and the hypersensitive left) is that its a reactionary attempt to form a coherent worldview in the endemically fractured, disconnected and hostile spaces of social media and online forums. The resulting hostility is then taken to be the way we all operate deep down even though its largely a result of overexposure to these online spaces.

Hence, liberal political correctness appears laughably performative to the right, which it is, in many respects. The right feels that a fake mask of politeness is necessary for any kind of politico-ethical stance, given that some kind of mask is needed to hide our ugly sides which comes to bear in all its reality in online spaces.

The fundamental issue with this logic, however, is that the hyper-moralizing left also believes that this politically correct mask is necessary; they just disavow it. They too, on an implicit level, are increasingly becoming amoralists, best exemplified in the kind of spectatorial distance to immigrants cultures I mentioned earlier. The hypersensitivities found in the wackiest corners of Tumblr to campus politics, in Nagles words, belies any good intentions because of its incessant need to appear open to all ways of life, to all cultural differences.

Because of this deadlock, the online rights reliable tactic will always be using ironic obscenities and desperate edginess to feel like a moral hypocrisy in mainstream political discourse is being effectively undermined via their buffoonery. All the while, this part of the right has easily bought into the increasing acceleration and commodification of culture, especially through the internet, which is ironically at the root of the liberal hypocrisy in the first place.

All of this, of course, comes as a result of the increasing privatization of our attention and interactions. The more corporations and big tech are left off the hook, the more our political landscape will continue to reflect a harsh comment section.

See the original post here:

Demystifying Political Correctness and its use in the age of alt-right trolls and finger-wagging liberals - Brock Press

Has the nation that produced the fiery oratory of Daniel O’Connell succumbed to tongue-tied political correctness? – Independent.ie

I saw Daniel OConnell last Sunday, rising majestically out of a foggy Dublin dawn, wrapped in his cloak, eyes boring into mine. At least thats how it felt, the pair of us alone in the deserted main thoroughfare of the capital.

hat do you think of the country you died for?I whispered to the bronze likeness. Have we honoured the legacy you gave so much for? His reply drifted silently on the breeze.

The man forever honoured as The Liberator was no stranger to controversy, and would likely raise an amused eyebrow at the current wrangling on whether a monument to him should grace Dil ireann during this decade of centenaries.

Doubtless the champion of Catholic Emancipation would throw a dismissive Kerry yerra at todays petty politics his heart, as always, geared toward more critical issues.

What would assuredly cause him righteous anger from his loftyplinth are the legions of homelesshuddled in frozen doorways on the street that bears his name.

Such was his commitment to the cause of human dignity it even echoed across the oceans, with former slave Fredrick Douglass crediting The Liberators glorious rhetoric in directly hastening Abraham Lincolns act of emancipation in 1863.

He defined me not as a colour, but as a man, and strengthened the campaign I was dedicated to wage.

OConnells fiery oratory was particularly directed at his own countrymen, the bastard Irishmen who turned a blind eye to slavery. How can the noble emotions of the Celtic heart have become extinct amongst you? he raged. It was not in Ireland that you learned this cruelty.

No stranger to the compromises of politics, when fellow MPs in the House of Commons offered him their support on Irish independence in return for his silence of slavery, OConnell was not for turning: May my right hand forget its cunning and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth before, to help Ireland, I keep silent on slavery.

Yet, while Ireland in 2022 is not short of caring public servants, all too often the limelight is taken by those Yeats excoriated as fumbling in a greasy till.

Wandering down the quays as Dublin slowly awoke from its slumber, I wondered where are todays great orators modern-day Liberators whose magnificent rhetoric would rouse us to be better than we are?

Has the nation that produced the exhilarating eloquence of Grattan, Burke, Redmond and Connolly succumbed to the dreary tongue-tied measurement of political correctness?

On hearing of OConnells death in 1847, Douglass said: The fire of freedom burned brightly within his mighty heart, with words that shook the world.

We need that fire again today desperately.

Visit link:

Has the nation that produced the fiery oratory of Daniel O'Connell succumbed to tongue-tied political correctness? - Independent.ie

Opinion: Comedy is losing its charm with censorship – Utahstatesman

on January 24, 2022 at 8:00 am

As modern America becomes more adamant on censoring media with any vulgar language, casual stereotypes (Apu on the Simpsons) and anything containing controversial opinions (YouTubedemonetization), comedy has beenlosingits charm and impact.

Film has become more progressive in the past decade about the removal of negative depictions and stereotypes in their products. For instance, according to the Hollywood Reporter, certain episodes of The Muppet Shownowhave disclaimers cautioning views about negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people or cultures.

The show was produced in a time where such depictions were appropriate. Now, awareness on the discrimination has increased, making it inappropriate in our modern day. However, it remains available for streaming with precautionary messages.

Other films such asBreakfast at Tiffanysare also under scrutiny from a 21stcentury perspective because of the racial slurs towards Japanese culture made for comedic purposes.Precautionarymessagesshould be added, but the film should not be banned or removed.

This is an approach that should be taken to past and previous films, including that of works of comedy. The type of comedy I am talking about is standup comedians and movie/television productions. Comedy should not be removed or purged for what is interpreted as but instead include cautionaries as to not offend those that do not wish to watch such material.

When asked if censorship was socially progressive or retroactive, sophomore Brynn Francis had much to say. As an acting major at Utah State University, she sees what is considered appropriate or not throughout her history in theater.

Pure censorship is retroactive, she said, What is progressive is awareness. Human nature, history and issues that are currently happening are acknowledge in comedy. Material that could be considered traumatic should be given trigger warnings like we do for dark comedies in plays.

Sydney Lehenbauer, a junior history major at USU, when asked the same question, answered with historical context.

Lehenbauer said in famous Shakespeare plays, he would make jokes about higher wealthy individuals and real-life political figures, in his community in this play. He would change the names of course, but everyone watching knew who he was talking about. This in and of itself is a political stance, looking at those who believe there are superior and taking them down. We wouldnt rid the world of Shakespeare for its use comedy as commentary on the upper class.

Lehenbauer also said comedy releases the tension on certain aspects of life not openly talked about: race, the economy, current events. Take the 2020 elections for instance. Jokes made about either candidate are found funny by both sides of the political spectrum. Your stance doesnt matter for it to be funny. Comedy is the stuff youre not supposed to laugh at.

In 2017, a documentary film titledThe Problem is ApubyHariKondaboludiscussed the negative and racial stereotypes aboutthe Simpsons characterApuNahasapeemapetilon, an Indian grocery store worker. He made several good points about how Apu was one of the only Indian characters on television when he was young,but was constantly being stereotypedby his actions,familyand other characteristics.

In the film,Kondaboluquoted his mother saying,You can criticize something you love because you expect more from it.

Shows like the Simpson should not be canceled, nor should previous episode be removed from the air.The shows depiction does not incite violence(which is grounds for removal or cancelation), but it does incite narrowmindedness and discrimination against Indian heritage.

Itis the stations right for the show to go on as isjust as much of a right as it is forKondabolu, a viewer,to create this documentary and voice is concerns against it.

Freedomof speech works both ways in the world of censorship. It means if you believe the material should be censored you can say you dont agree with it, but you cant take the comedians right away to say those jokes. Its your choice to be offended, even your right. But it also their right to offendyou.

If you start to remove certain aspects of comedy, start to interpret what should and should not be aired you come to a controlling aspect of media. Who gets to decide was is appropriate or not?

YouTubes demonetization believes it can. YouTube decides what is advertiser-friendly content that is content that the creator on YouTube can make a profit off. Sensitive events (such as negative traumatic events) and controversial issues fall into the no category.

While it is ultimately YouTube right as a private organization to make that decision, it is the fact that swearing and jokes in certain topics gain profit. Only certain comedy is deemed appropriate now, as this was not always YouTubes stance on the matter.

Comedy is subjective. Comedy is full of quips towards strategies in the economy and coronavirus, to making jokes about different types of ethnicities, gender, sexuality and life trauma.

Comedy is also complicated. What is said needs to be contextualized, both to the time and current pollical climate. Comedy is not meant to be censored by censoring it loses its charm.

Making jokes about the negative traumatic events is a way for comedians to relate to their audience andrelievethe tension.Jo Koymaking jokes aboutFilipinostereotypes as aFilipinomakes the jokes relatable in the audience of the same ethnicity, makes the stereotypes more like common ground.The charm of his comedy, the relatability,would be lost if it were censored.

Chris Rocksaid he will not perform at colleges because of political correctness in modern undergraduate culture.

This is not as much fun as it used to be, Rock said.

Jerry Seinfeld said he wouldnt either.

The sensitive nature towards comedy is acceptable and, in many ways, even welcomed but not to the effect of removing the comedic piece altogether.

TheHuffpostsaiditbest:Youcannot cater to everyone, and everyone is offended by something.

Sara Prettyman is a Maryland-bord-and-raised sophomore majoring in applied mathematics. She loves drawing, running and reading. A02342348@usu.edu

Follow this link:

Opinion: Comedy is losing its charm with censorship - Utahstatesman

Peter Dinklage Has Strong Words About This Upcoming Live-Action Disney Remake – Looper

Appearing on Marc Maron's "WTF" podcast, "Game of Thrones" actor Peter Dinklage brought up the subject of political correctness in politics and offensive comedy (via WTF with Marc Maron). When Maron asked whether Dinklage was offended by anything himself, the actor had venom at the ready, calling out Disney for what he sees as poor representation. "They were very proud to cast a Latino actress as Snow White," Dinklage said, "but you're still telling the story of 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarves'. Take a step back and look at what you're doing there."

The "Avengers: Infinity War" actor clarified what he sees as "hypocrisy" on the part of Disney, saying, "It makes no sense to me because you're progressive in one way and you're still making that f***ing backward story about seven dwarves living in a cave."

"Have I done nothing to advance the cause from my soapbox?" Dinklage mused. "I guess I'm not loud enough." He clarified that he didn't intend for his words to be construed as hate for the people involved with the remake of Disney's classic film. "All love and respect to the actress and the people who thought they were doing the right thing, but I'm just like, 'What are you doing?'"

Follow this link:

Peter Dinklage Has Strong Words About This Upcoming Live-Action Disney Remake - Looper

Sundance: Jesse Eisenberg’s Directorial Debut ‘When You Finish Saving the World’ is a Touching Exploration of Self-Worth – Daily Utah Chronicle

Finn Wolfhard and Julianne Moore in When You Finish Saving the World. (Courtesy Sundance.org)

In 2002, Jesse Eisenberg made his cinematic acting debut in Roger Dodger.His quick-witted, razor-sharp quirky style quickly became adored and his career began to skyrocket. With a range of acclaimed roles from the deviously brilliant Lex Luthor to the real-life supervillain Mark Zuckerberg, Eisenberg is a force to be reckoned with. Twenty years later, Eisenberg has taken his talents behind the camera in his directorial debut When You Finish Saving the World.

Based on Eisenbergs original audiobook of the same name, When You Finish Saving the World is an intimate and touching exploration of the troubled relationship between mother Evelyn Katz (Julianne Moore) and her teenage son Ziggy (Finn Wolfhard) as they navigate the minefield of finding personal worth.

In Indiana, Evelyn runs a womens shelter and pines to assist those down on their luck. Ziggy on the other hand is a top musical performer on a fictitious TikTok facsimile called HiHat. Both characters are aspiring to do the right thing in their respective fields, but find that this desire only distracts from their overwhelming internal emptiness. This emptiness is emphasized by the severely dysfunctional home life they share. They exist in a world of false faces and invulnerability one where the question how are you doing? is only asked when prompted by a fascinating scholarly article on teen suicide.

When You Finish Saving the World touches on our hindered ability to serve others when we are not addressing our own personal infirmities. It explores themes of narcissism, self-worth, understanding and the gatekeeping that comes with political correctness. Moore gives a brilliant performance that grasped me and brought many of these themes to life. Her physicality, delivery and expressions are marvelously thought out and calculated. While her performance was breathtaking, the film, left something to be wanted. The themes it centers are inherently interesting, but they are not explored in a particularly deep or memorable way.

The film is unabashedly Jesse Eisenberg. His token fast-talking, intelligent wit are around every corner. It was interesting to see how well Eisenberg translated his style from acting to directing. For some, this style is frustrating, alienating and abrasive. As a fan of Eisenberg, however, I found it implicitly charming. Due to his divisive nature, my guess is that if you dont like Eisenberg, you wont like When You Finish Saving the World.

As the credits rolled, I was left with the realization that we often dont give each other enough credit. I was reminded of a quote by the great Fred Rodgers who said, You dont have to do anything sensational for people to love you. While this quote may be a touch lovey-dovey, When You Finish Saving the World, though a little clumsily, embodied this message.

Constantly we each strive to match our ideals and constantly we fail to do so. There is so much going on in the world without enough people asking the questions When You Finish Saving the World highlights. How are you doing? Are you happy? Are you okay? Eisenberg seems to think that we need more of that in the world. Honestly, while his directorial debut may not knock it out of the park, I think he is right.

So, sincerely, how are you doing? Are you happy? Are you okay?

[emailprotected]

@__lukejackson

Originally posted here:

Sundance: Jesse Eisenberg's Directorial Debut 'When You Finish Saving the World' is a Touching Exploration of Self-Worth - Daily Utah Chronicle

Microsoft AI will help make your writing more politically …

Microsoft will soon preview a version of Word that will use artificial intelligence to make your writing not just grammatically but politically correct.

Microsoft doesnt call it a political correctness check, but thats essentially what it is. Not that theres anything wrong with that.

Actually Microsoft calls it Ideas in Word, which refers to a series of AI-driven features that help you format your document and write better.

For instance, Word will decode acronyms for you, and tell you how long itll take to read a given document. Itll also underline words or phrases that sound insensitive, and suggest corrections.

Say you write, We need to get some fresh blood in here. The AI is likely to underline fresh blood and suggest new employees instead.

It might underline places where your writing exhibited gender bias. If you tend to say mailman or Congressman in the generic, it might suggest you use mailperson or Congressperson. If you use the term gentlemens agreement, it may suggest you use unspoken agreement instead.

Ideas in Word. [Image: courtesy of Microsoft]If you describe someone as a disabled person the AI would suggest person with a disability. Person-first terminology is preferred because it portrays the person as more important than the disability.

The inclusiveness checks are part of a larger group of Refine My Writing tools that also include clarity, conciseness, punctuation, and sensitive geopolitical terms. For that last one, the AIs models look for phrases that may be hard to understand by, or that might be offensive to, someone in another country or culture, Microsoft says.

Were a long way from spell check here, folks.

Spelling and grammar checks check the users words against a fairly agreed-upon set of spellings or usage rules. Correcting words for their correctness in the cultural or political sense seems like a more subjective and slippery exercise. Actually, Microsoft hasnt completely settled on the full list of correctness checks the AI will run on the text.

For the various new checks, Microsoft assembled a team of linguists and other experts to anticipate the poor word choices people might make, and assemble lists of terms that would work better, Office Intelligence product manager Malavika Rewari tells me. The AIs training data also includes Wikipedia pages, which are constantly being updated and corrected.

The good news is that just as you can ask Word not to give you grammar suggestions, you can go into the settings and tell it not to monitor the correctness or sensitivity of your words.

Personally, I dont think I would turn off the suggestions, at least not at first. I worry about unknowingly or accidentally inserting terms or references in my writing that convey value judgements that I dont really mean. Regardless of how I feel about political incorrectness, it must be better to at least know when Im writing something that might offend. Whether I use the Microsoft AIs suggestion for improvement is my choice.

Microsoft says it will begin offering a preview of Ideas in Word in June. Im eager to try it out. Maybe with Words new AI superpowers, the review will write itself.

Originally posted here:

Microsoft AI will help make your writing more politically ...

How on earth has Family Guy survived for 20 seasons in the supposed era of political correctness? – The Independent

Remember Family Guy? Fifteen-odd years ago, the Seth MacFarlane-created animated sitcom seemed to be everywhere. After The Simpsons had revolutionised the possibilities of TV animation in the 1990s, Family Guy went one step further. This was The Simpsons grubby little brother. The animation was cheap-looking, the storytelling flimsy and artless, and the jokes were loudly, proudly crass. Racist jokes, homophobic jokes, transphobic jokes, ablist jokes, jokes about rape, about paedophilia; nothing was off the table. It won plenty of fans especially within the young male demographic but plenty of detractors, too, inciting numerous controversies with its shock-factor material. In many ways, Family Guy represented the worst impulses of an era when pushing back against PC culture was considered a cutting-edge comic sensibility.

But there comes a time when every provocateur must meet a reckoning, when every enfant terrible must face trial as a terrible adult. The needle of consensus swings, and jokes that once were hailed as edgy, or outspoken, are found to be, on closer reinspection, offensive, or ill-informed, or simply unfunny. Some series get off with a rap on the knuckles Friends penchant for homophobia hasnt put a dent in its popularity while others have been yeeted into total exile, such as Family Guys erstwhile bad-taste contemporary Little Britain. And yet, next Wednesday, on Disney Plus in the UK, Family Guy begins its 20th season, with a 21st already in the pipeline. You cant help but ask: how has it managed to survive so long in an era of supposedly enforced political correctness?

Well, to some extent, Family Guy has changed with the times, making certain concessions to our changing social standards of acceptability. The role of Peter Griffins Black friend Cleveland Brown was recently recast, for instance, with Arif Zahir stepping in to replace white actor Mike Henry. The character of Quagmire, depicted throughout much of the shows run as a lascivious sex offender, was tweaked in recent seasons, accentuating his other, somewhat less problematic characteristics. The 2019 episode Trump Guy made headlines not just for its bullish attack on then-president Donald Trump featuring a scene in which he sexually assaults the Griffins daughter, Meg but also for the suggestion that it was dialling back homophobic jokes. Many children have learnt their favourite Jewish, Black, and gay jokes by watching your show over the years, the cartoon Trump tells Peter in the episode. In fairness, weve been trying to phase out the gay stuff, he replies, an utterance that was celebrated in the press as a statement of tolerant intent.

Family Guy didnt phase out the gay stuff, not really (Peter even admits in a later episode: That quote was taken out of context and widely misunderstood). Nor did it particularly phase out the racism, ableism, and sexism that make up such a large part of the show. But itd be wrong to suggest it has learnt nothing. Exec-producer Alec Sulkin told TV Line two years ago: If you look at a show from 2005 or 2006 and put it side-by-side with a show from 2018 or 2019, theyre going to have a few differences. Some of the things we felt comfortable saying and joking about back then, we now understand is not acceptable.

Still, some of the jokes that the show feels comfortable about making now still feel like reactionary outrage-baiting. The 2019 episode Bri-da featured a number of crass jokes about transgender people; the 2017 episode Trans-fat, which saw Peter Griffin pretend to be trans to gain social advantages, contained similarly objectionable jokes.

One of the arguments used to defend the politically incorrect humour in Family Guy, and in other bad taste comedies, is that it is satirical: depiction is not endorsement. Of course, this argument never really holds up in Family Guys case; the satire here is usually paper-thin. Even if the character of Mort Goldstein is in fact satirising antisemitism, the satire is indistinguishable from antisemitism itself. Besides, even if the show itself isnt fundamentally approaching its material from a right-wing viewpoint MacFarlane is a major donor to the Democratic Party, and some of the shows writers are vocally liberal a good amount of its viewers are. When Trans-fat first aired, a subset of Family Guy fans lambasted the series on social media for supposedly capitulating to PC culture, thanks to an ending in which Peter Griffin apologises for mocking trans people.

Family Guys enduring survival could be down to a gradual maturation in other areas. The animation, a full-blown eyesore in its early days, has improved ten-fold. Increasingly, the humour has scaled back the frenzied, puerile cutaway gags, and increasingly takes a more self-aware tone. More risks are taken, too, with its format, such as an entire episode devoted to a fake in-universe DVD commentary, or a triptych emulating the filmmaking aesthetics of Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson and Michael Bay. This long-term creative stamina is nothing to be scoffed at: by its own 20th season, The Simpsons was over a decade past its peak and had already lost all trace of what made it such a monumental piece of TV. Regardless, Family Guys viewing figures have declined substantially over the years, at least on traditional TV. In 2000, and 2002, Family Guy was twice cancelled by Fox for low viewership ratings, before being revived due to high DVD sales and the popularity of Adult Swim re-runs. Now, it draws less than half of what it did at its lowest pre-cancellation ebb. Maybe there just arent enough people still watching to really cultivate much offence.

Glenn Quagmires transgender parent, Ida, has been the subject of numerous offensive jokes on the series

(Fox/Disney)

All of these factors may be overlooking the obvious answer. Family Guy hasnt been hogtied by the PC police, run out of town on a rail, because the PC brigade doesnt really exist. For all the talk of being unable to say anything anymore, the fact is that you can, by and large, say whatever the hell you want. Dave Chappelle complains about being cancelled for his jokes about trans people, but hes still given high-profile Netflix specials. Theres a place in the market for bad-taste comedy, and Family Guy is dutifully filling that hole. Its a show that prides itself on saying the unsayable. Thankfully for most people, what its really saying is the easily ignorable.

Family Guy season 20 begins on Disney Plus in the UK and Ireland on 3 November

Read the original here:

How on earth has Family Guy survived for 20 seasons in the supposed era of political correctness? - The Independent

The Board of Ed Elephant in the Room and Other Passaic Elections Nuggets – InsiderNJ

When one thinks of a Board of Education election, or boards of education in general, it is not common to associate them with political drama.But the 2021 election cycle has shown that no assumption is safe.

In Randolph, the culture war bubbled up when Columbus Day was taken off the school calendar, only to be met with a backlash from the public.This, in turn, led to the knee-jerk reaction where all school holidays were erased, replaced with a simple day off.Another uproar followed and when all was settled, Columbus and all the other holiday names were returned as before.

The Randolph school kerfuffle was picked up by Jack Ciattarellis campaign as an example of political correctness run amok.The Passaic County Republican commissioner campaign even used the decision of the Paterson School Board to swap Columbus Day out as a sign that Democrats were out of control. The Democrats later fired back on social media, saying the county government does not have anything to do with what the schools choose to call their holidays.

Columbus, however, has been stirring controversy for several years.More recent, and more imperative, is the matter of COVID-19 defense and policies which best serve childrens health and education.To keep the focus on Passaic County, the Wayne school board meetings have been a manifest microcosm of the bigger debate on masking. Tensions have run high between those in support of and against keeping kids masked in school. Parents have also raised concerns regarding the content of what they describe as inappropriate, explicit literature in the schools with respect to sex education.

In the summer, the governor issued an executive order requiring all pre-school through high school personnel to be vaccinated or undergo COVID testing every week.Executive Order 251 required all personnel as well as students to wear masks while in school for the 2021-2022 school year.The NJEA, the powerful teachers union, supported the governors decision.

The messaging on mask requirements coming from Trenton has changed over the course of the year, with the government often saying that decisions are determined by the data, reserving the right to issue such executive orders as he deems the coronavirus situation requires.Not everyone agrees, however, with requiring students to wear masks in school.Executive orders from the governor bind the school boards, but there are other areas where the board can exercise control.A group of parents opposed to mask mandates wanted the board to send a letter to the governor, asking that school districts be allowed to set this policy on their own.Initially, the suggestion was taken up, passing by one vote.Then, the decision to send the letter was reversed.

The drama continued when a raucous school board meeting in early October saw a woman condemning certain books in the schoolillustrated books which demonstrated particular sex acts.Parents cheered for her as the board turned off the microphone and a man approached the board itself, being escorted away by police.

Former New Jersey State Senator Norman Robertson (R) took an interest in the developments in Wayne, getting to know many of the parents opposed to the controversial literature.Wayne is a harbinger of things to come in New Jersey, Robertson said.With virtual learning required during most of the pandemic, parents at home were privy to the details of their childrens educational experience in ways that they had not been before.For some, this sparked their concerns and brought them out in large numbers to protest to the school board.Parents became involved because of the things that they saw being taught to the children online, Robertson said.He was unhappy, however, with the way some of the board members have handled the parents concerns.

Matters came to a head in Wayne most recently when the Board of Education meeting was not held because there were an insufficient number of board members to constitute a quorum.A sizable gathering of people had met to make themselves heard, and were angry no meeting would take place.This, of course, with Election Day right around the corner.According to local news, the absent board members all offered reasons they could not attend, but some parents felt it was a deliberate act designed to silence them.

What I would say is, unfortunately, it appears that some people believe in public education, Robertson said, as long as the public has nothing to do with it.

The election, according to the veteran senator, will not put the matter to bed in Wayne, however, and he expects more conflicts between school boards, school administrations, and families going forward.Wayne, in a sense, is the canary in the mineshaft.

THE MUNICIPALITY HAWTHORNE

Elsewhere in Passaic County, the borough of Hawthorne represents one of the battlegrounds of the county with respect to the mayor and council race.Hawthorne is also the only municipality with a Green Party candidate running for local election.Craig Cayetano is running an independent campaign to capture one of the three council-at-large seats.Madelyn Hoffman is the Green Party candidate for governor.

Hawthorne is politically famous for the forty-year reign of Republican Mayor Louis Bay II, whose administration stretched from 1948-1988.Afterward, the borough changed to a Faulkner Act strong-mayor municipal government.All mayors since Bay have been Republican and the council has also reflected a majority of Republican control.However, for the first time, Hawthorne now sees a slight advantage in registered Democrats than Republicans and the Democratic party has new municipal leadership.Hawthorne in the 21stCentury has not been able to return more than 1 Democrat to the council which comprises 4 ward councilmen and 3 at-large seats. A largely ineffectual Democratic Party in Hawthorne, combined with the historic majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning unaffiliated voters meant that the former grew stagnant and the latter became complacent after easy victories, with re-elections a near certainty.

Mayor Richard Goldberg, with some 13 years in the mayors seat, is a distant second to Louis Bays record, but nevertheless is the longest serving mayor the town has seen since 1988.Under his watch, he has appointed a number of Democrats to posts within the town, including the Municipal Alliance, the borough administrator, and the recently-formed Hawthorne Pride Alliance to address matters related to the LGBT community.Goldberg has strong bipartisan chops.

Hawthorne is also the home of former NJ State Senator John Girgenti (pictured, top), a man who, in the past, would have been the strongest Democrat to run against Goldberg, although he did not run.With no other meaningfully competitive Democrat, Goldberggenerally popular and noted for his sense of humorwas able to handily win re-elections that the opposition put in his way.In this cycle, however, he has decided not to seek re-election and a competitive mayoral race began.

Councilman Joseph Wojtecki, the Democrats only voice on the council, threw his hat into the ring.This is his third time running and Paterson Mayor Andre Sayegh at a recent fundraiser dinner lauded his effort, saying, This is your time.Sayegh noted that he won the mayors seat on his third try, and was confident his Hawthorne counterpart would do the same before hoisting his fist into the air like a champion pugilist.

The Republican candidate seeking to succeed Goldberg is Council Vice President John Lane, a man who has served on the council for the better part of two decades and made an unsuccessful primary bid against former Mayor Fred Criscitelli in the past.

Both Lane and Council President Frank Matthews sought to run for mayor, but rather than risk a divisive primary election, they agreed to allow the County Committee to decide which of the two would be the mayoral candidate.Lane prevailed.

The incumbents united, the Republicans nevertheless still faced a primary in June, where former school board member Michael Doyle and tavern-owner Jay Shortway ran as a ticket, while a third Republican, Phil Speulda, ran his own campaign.

The incumbents were solidly victorious in the primary and moved toward the general election.The defeated Shortway, however, filed to run for one of the school board seats, running on a policy of maintaining the status quo.

The Hawthorne race has attracted the attention of county as well as state operatives looking to see whether or not the red borough will have become so purple that it might, in fact, turn blue.If it did, it could well serve as another feather in the cap of former state chairman (and still Passaic County chairman) John Currie.Curries tenure as Democratic chair saw the establishment of Democratic dominion on the county level where Republicans have consistently been frustrated in their attempts to gain freeholder seats.

If Wojtecki does not win he will still remain on the council since he represents Ward 1, and only the at-large council seats are up for grabs.The stakes are higher for Lane who, as a councilman-at-large, would no longer serve as a public official should he lose.

Hawthorne, a sleepy suburb which seldom makes headlines in the Garden State, has become one of Passaic Countys must-watch races.

DISTRICT 39

Senator Holly Schepisi, representing the 39thDistrict of Bergen and Passaic Counties, is running with Robert Auth andDeAnne C. DeFuccio on the assembly ticket.Given the bloodbath which marred the relationship between Auth and Schepisi after the passing of Senator Gerald Cardinale, their names together validate the late-great Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli.The PM is said to have told Queen Victoria that Great Britain had no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests.In this case, a demonstration of party unity must prove somewhat astounding to insiders, given the bitterness of the Schepisi/Auth break.

LD39 Democrats looking to displace the incumbents are senate candidate Ruth Dugan, who served on the Saddle River Board of Ed and is the wife of former state senator James Dugan, while Demarest Mayor Melinda Iannuzzi and Senator Loretta Weinberg aide Karlito Almeda try to dislodge Auth and DeFuccio.

The district is very close in terms of Democratic and Republican voters, and the unaffiliated voters will fundamentally make the difference either way.Schepisi, seen at several Ciattarelli rallies in North Jersey, demonstrated her tenacity and iron will.This was shown when she overcame her former assembly partner Auth, beating him out for Cardinales seat, but also in the highly charged 2019 election where she beat Democrat John Birkner by some 5,800 votes.

Auth, a longtime Cardinale acolyte, brings local name recognition through his incumbency, and DeFuccio a new face and fresh perspective.The Republican and Democratic assembly tickets are, in a way, reflective of each other.Iannuzzi, as a mayor and with her own local name recognition, represents the executive experience and political establishment to give balance to Alemda, a 26-year-old Filippino-American who has served Senator Weinberg, reflecting the growing diversity of the districts constituents generationally and culturally.

District 39 represents a unique palette of experience and continuity along with varied perspectives, all served up with a hefty-dose of New Jersey political diner booth chatter to make the raceand its consequenceswell worth monitoring.

(Visited 73 times, 42 visits today)

See original here:

The Board of Ed Elephant in the Room and Other Passaic Elections Nuggets - InsiderNJ

What Will Journalists Do With France’s Trump? – The Atlantic

Stop me if youve heard this one before: A television star eyes a presidential run as an outsider ready to take on the political establishment. Unlike his competitors, he doesnt shy away from religious or racial provocation, nor does he hide his penchant for conspiracies. He is a vocal opponent of immigration, political correctness, and feminism. To his supporters, he is a familiar face who isnt afraid to tell it like it is. To detractors, hes an inflammatory populist set on dividing the country. The medias wall-to-wall coverage makes him an inescapable presence.

This isnt Donald Trump, though it might be Frances version of him. ric Zemmour, a far-right pundit who has gained ground in recent polls ahead of the countrys presidential election next year, has yet to descend from his proverbial golden escalator to announce his candidacy. But the overwhelming coverage of him in the French media, as well as his increasing presence in the international press, suggests that its only a matter of time before he does.

That Zemmour has managed to attract outsize attention relative to the rest of Frances presidential hopefuls is a testament to his ability to remain provocativea skill that he has honed over the course of his career. Like Trump, he has vexed his way onto front pages and prime-time news broadcasts simply by being the most outrageous voice in the room. The goal, it would appear, is to drum up enough momentum to bolster his anticipated candidacy. And so far, the French press has proved happy to oblige.

The media have been here before. Although the American media did not create Trump (like Zemmour, he was a household name long before he was ever a candidate), they did grant him a disproportionate level of coverage, bestowing upon him more attention and legitimacy than theyve given any of his competitors. With six months left until election day (still a long way away, by French standards), Frances contest has scarcely begun. Yet by over-indexing on a single candidateor, in Zemmours case, a potential candidateFrench journalists look doomed to repeat the mistakes of their counterparts on the other side of the Atlantic.

Much of the medias fascination with Zemmour seems to be excited by his similarities with Trump, a comparison that the 63-year-old Frenchman appears all too happy to embrace. In an interview with The New York Times, he claimed that the cover of his latest book, France Has Not Yet Said Its Last Word, was modeled after the former American presidents book Great Again, which, like Zemmours, was published in the run-up to a presidential election. He also played up some of their other apparent commonalities: their status as political outsiders, as well as their shared concerns over immigration and trade.

Zemmour isnt quite the outsider he claims to be, though. Born in the suburbs of Paris to a Berber Jewish family from Algeria, he studied at Sciences Po, a training ground for the French political class, before becoming a journalist. During his decades-long career, he worked for Le Figaro, Frances center-right newspaper of record, and CNews, the countrys equivalent of Fox News.

What separates him from much of the rest of the French elite is his radical worldview. In addition to his incendiary comments about immigrants and Muslims (he has twice been convicted of inciting racial hatred), he also peddles in historical revisionism (falsely claiming that Frances wartime Vichy government, which openly collaborated with Nazi Germany, saved French Jews) and conspiracy theories (he is a proponent of the great replacement, an ethno-nationalist theory popularized by the French writer Renaud Camus that claims that indigenous white Europeans are being replaced by nonwhite immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa).

Having witnessed the rise of Trump, the French press knows the perils of turning Zemmour into some kind of political spectacle or, worse yet, normalizing his extreme views. Should we start asking ourselves some questions, or do we continue to be manipulated? the French journalist Salhia Brakhlia quizzed her colleagues in response to a tweet by Zemmour, which included a photo of him being swarmed by reporters that he captioned, My friends, the journalists.

Weve been having big debates within the newspaper about how we should cover him, a senior editor at one of Frances center-left dailies, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, told me. Part of the calculus comes down to the fact that Zemmour isnt technically a candidate (he still needs to secure the support of at least 500 mayors across the country in order to be eligible). The other factor is the growing buzz around his campaign. According to the French media watchdog Acrimed, there were 4,167 mentions of Zemmour in the French press in September alonethe equivalent of 139 mentions a day. During the same period, Zemmour received more than 11 hours of airtime, Robin Andraca, a journalist based in Paris who tracks Zemmours television appearances relative to those of rivals, told me. By comparison, Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo received two hours of airtime. Marine Le Pen, Zemmours main competitor for far-right votes, got even less, at a little more than an hour.

The way Andraca sees it, the media cannot resist divisive figures such as Zemmour, because they make for compelling television and good stories. You are pretty sure that hes going to say something very racist, very problematic, but then its okay because you can talk about that thing for two days, Andraca surmised. Thats magical for journalists.

James Fallows: The media learned nothing from 2016

In this way, French journalists are falling into the same trap as their American counterparts. By rewarding Zemmours extremism with more airtime, as the U.S. press did with Trump ahead of the 2016 election, they send the implicit, if unintentional, message that only the most radical rhetoric is worthy of being reported on. The consequences of this when Trump ran were twofold: Not only did it overrepresent more extreme views in the public debate, but it also encouraged politicians to be more outlandish. Even today, people like Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Josh Hawley of Missouri, and Ted Cruz of Texas get much more attention in the media than more moderate senators who actually make up the majority of the Republican Party in the Senate, Tom Rosenstiel, a press critic who teaches journalism at the University of Maryland, told me. Its a lesson we know but havent learned.

Zemmour isnt simply attracting the lions share of media attention. He is effectively setting the terms of Frances presidential debate, much like Trump did. By overwhelming journalists with a seemingly endless stream of news (or, as the former presidents one-time chief strategist Steve Bannon crudely put it, by endeavoring to flood the zone with shit) and by exhausting public attention, Trump succeeded in turning the press into a kind of pulpit. The agenda of Zemmour is what were talking about in France today: immigration, security, Islam, Thomas Sngaroff, a Paris-based journalist and historian, told me, noting that even in many interviews that dont include Zemmour, his opponents are asked to react to things hes said.

Not all coverage of Zemmour is complimentary, of course. In fact, much of what is written about him is critical, especially as it relates to his more incendiary views. But if theres one lesson that the press ought to have taken from the Trump era, its that whether coverage is critical hardly matters. Were accustomed to the idea that bad coverage is bad for the president, but in the way that Trump operated, it reversed itself, and negative coverage became for him proof with his base that these people are critical of me because they hate you, Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New York University and the author of the PressThink blog, told me. What I would say to the French is, as soon as you see that happening, where the very criticism that you try to level against this candidate gets incorporated into his pitch, you are in the danger zone and youve got to reconsider your practices.

Here lies the fundamental tension facing the French press right now. To dedicate too much time and space to Zemmour would be to give him the clout that he no doubt craves, and signal to audiences that he is more deserving of their attention than other potential candidates. To ignore him, however, would be to risk falling short of its journalistic duty to report on and scrutinize a viable contender for the French presidency: Two recent polls showed Zemmour winning anywhere from 16 to 17 percent of the national vote, second only to President Emmanuel Macron and, crucially, outflanking Le Pen. (One of the surveys also found that more than six in 10 French voters think the media spend too much time on Zemmour.)

Other factors drive the French medias editorial decision making. For one thing, someone who is seemingly everywhere is difficult to ignore. As the countrys minister of justice bemoaned last week, Zemmour is like a weather forecastevery day there is something new. Whats more, coverage of him is lucrative: A recent issue of Paris Match, which featured a photo of Zemmour embracing his 28-year-old political adviser and alleged mistress on its cover, reportedly became one of the weekly magazines recent best sellers.

But perhaps the main reason that the French media are so saturated with Zemmour coverage is because, out of the dozen or so candidates vying for the presidency (including notable figures such as Hidalgo and the former Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier), he is the most contentious. He knows how to control the media agenda, Benjamin Haddad, the senior director of the Europe Center at the Atlantic Council think tank, in Washington, D.C., and, like Zemmour, a graduate of Sciences Po, told me. He says something horrible and then everyone talks about it Its this vicious cycle that is very difficult to break.

Zemmours latest stunt, which drew widespread coverage and condemnation, was to point a sniper rifle at journalists while attending an arms fair in Paris, laughing and telling reporters to back off. More instructive is another controversy: Zemmour recently pledged that, if elected, he would seek to reimpose a 19th-century ban on foreign names such as Mohammed (no such restrictions currently exist, barring a few exceptions). It was reaction-inducing, perhaps by design. But it wasnt new. In fact, the topic of French names has long been a pet issue of his. In 2016, he publicly criticized a government minister for naming her child Zohra, after her mother, rather than choosing a traditionally French Christian name. He leveled a similar diatribe two years later against a fellow journalist, purportedly telling her that her Senegalese name was an insult to France.

Read: How to discuss the far right without empowering it

Some news outlets, in France and around the world, published stories on Zemmours name comments. Others, however, made the decision not to. That is something we didnt cover, the editor at the center-left newspaper told me, on the grounds that it was not new and was, instead, ridiculous.

How the French media cover Zemmour will ultimately come down to these kinds of editorial choices, whether he declares his candidacy, and how long he retains his position in the polls. But these factors are related. The more incendiary Zemmour is, the more likely he is to draw media attention, and the more likely he is to remain in the public debate.

The way some journalists see it, Zemmour might already be too big to ignore. If we dont talk about Zemmour today, we will be accused of not talking about something we dont like, Sngaroff said, and likened the French medias relationship with Zemmour to that of Frankenstein and his monster. He was made in large part by us, and now hes here. So what do we do?

Read more from the original source:

What Will Journalists Do With France's Trump? - The Atlantic

Larry Summers slams Democrats for failing to tax the wealthy – Salon

When Lawrence Summers tweeted on Sunday that he is "certainly no left wing ideologue," it wasn't a Halloween joke.

Summers is a famous academic who served as Chief Economist of the World Bank and President of Harvard University. Hewas influential in crafting the economic policies for two center-leftDemocratic presidents Bill Clinton (serving in various Treasury Department roles) and Barack Obama (serving as Director of the National Economic Council). Summers' resume is what makes his recent remarksso noteworthy.

"I think something wrong when taxpayers like me, well into the top .1 percent of income distribution, are getting a significant tax cut in a Democrats only tax bill as now looks likely to happen," Summers explained on Twitter. He went on to criticize President Joe Biden's current legislative package for "no rate increases below $10 million, no capital gains increases, no estate tax increases, no major reform of loopholes like carried interest and real estate exchanges but restoration of the state and local deduction explain it."

He added, "We don't need radical new ideas, just determination to implement old good ones." Summers then included a link to a paper he co-authored last year with University of Pennsylvania professor of law Natasha Sarin and research assistant Joe Kupferberg. It calls for stronger measures to make it harder for people to legally avoid taxes and to crack down on illegal tax evasion, which could generate hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Biden's bill is currently being criticized by progressivesbecause in order to win support from moderate senators likeJoe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, as well as many moderate House Democrats the president has agreed to remove a number of tax increases that would have compelled the wealthy to pay a fairer share. They protected President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts, kept in a loophole that helps wealthy heirs avoid taxes on their inheritances andjettisoned a proposed tax increase on income accrued from wealth that would have taxed it like ordinary income. They also refused to raise taxes on corporations or eliminate a tax break that mainly helps private equity firm managers and hedge fund managers.

This is not the first time that Summer has openly disagreed with Biden and the Democratic Party, even though he continues to characterize himself as a supporter. What makes this public dissent notable, though, is that Summers is approaching his criticism from the left this time rather than from the right.

When it was revealed last year that Summers was advising Biden's campaign, progressive groups protested until he promised that he would not work for a future Biden administration.In June, The New York Times reported that Summers' political clout remains so significant that the Biden administration felt compelled to address Summers' claim that the president's March stimulus bill would overheat the economy and cause a spike in inflation. At the time Summers described it as "the least responsible macroeconomic policy we've had in the last 40 years," blaming both the Democratic Party's left wing and the entire Republican Party.

The concern about rising inflation coming from excess spending would seem to put Summers more in the Manchin/Sinema wing of the Democratic Party than the more progressive one. This makes his recent policy statement all the more striking, as it potentially signifies that moderates as well as progressives are unhappy with some of the changes to the original proposed legislation.

Summers has also attracted headlines for reasons unrelated to economic policy and not always in flattering ways. He stepped down as President of Harvard University in 2006 partially because of comments he made about women in STEM fields that were criticized as sexist. He has been broadly critical of political correctness, referring to it as a "creeping totalitarianism."

See the original post:

Larry Summers slams Democrats for failing to tax the wealthy - Salon

Mrs Browns Boys star Brendan OCarroll says the show was woke before woke was invented… – The Sun

WITH its old-school gags and stereotyping, Mrs Browns Boys is often viewed as the nemesis of woke culture.

But creator Brendan O'Carroll, who also plays the shows matriarch Agnes Brown, insists theyve blazed a trail for political correctness.

8

And as the BBC1 sitcom marks its tenth year on our screens with a Halloween special tonight, he says thats never changed.

He said: At the time I wrote the character of Agness gay son, it was a radio series, and it was illegal in Ireland to be gay. So I actually wanted to buck the system.

And I dont know where and how you use the pronouns them and they - but Agnes Brown is gender fluid after all.

But in all seriousness, its very hard to do a comedy show without offending somebody.

He isnt too worried about becoming the latest victim of cancel culture, spurred on by snowflakes on social media.

He said: I must admit I almost want to get cancelled because with all these other things going, I feel a bit left out.

But if the BBC write their policy on what goes on TV based on whats said on social media then the BBC have lost a sense of their own being.

Its the audience that makes the call - and the best device for cancelling something is the remote control .

But viewers arent switching channels, even after all these years. Millions still tune in for the shows - particularly the Christmas Specials which are ratings hits every festive season.

And Brendan has attracted some surprising fans.

Live Blog

Exclusive

Exclusive

8

He said: We had Tyler Perry making a guest appearance and we were sitting together having a coffee and he said in an offhand way: I showed some clips of this to Beyonce and she thought it was hilarious. And Oprah thinks its brilliant too.

And of course in the UK the palace asked for advanced copies of the show. The Queen gets it, and given the last two years shes had if we can make her smile this year Ill be very happy.

With the seal of approval from rock royalty and real royalty, Id like to see the woke brigade cancel it now...

8

MOST HAUNTED hostess Yvette Fielding wont need to look far for a successor if she ever decides to put an end to spook spotting.

Her daughter Mary Beattie seems to be just as fascinated by the afterlife and putting the wind up people.

On the My Mate Bought A Toaster podcast, former Blue Peter presenter Yvette said: We live in a very old, creepy house and the earliest foundations date back to the 1400s.

What Mary does is she likes to dress up in scary stuff and hide and then jump out at me when Ive just come back from a Most Haunted investigation.

Oh, shes a nightmare.

8

8

MAYA JAMA still manages to look scarily good as she gets in the spirit for Celebrity Juices Halloween spooktacular this weekend dressed as the Bride of Frankenstein.

Im A Celebrity runner-up and Radio 1 DJ Jordan North is almost unrecognisable as a mummy as is the former Breakfast Show host Nick Grimshaw as the Grim Reaper. And you can bethost Keith Lemon goes all out for the ITV2 special on Sunday.

8

8

PARALYMPIC gold medallist Ellie Simmonds is to present a new BBC documentary on the subject of dwarfism.

The swimmer will examine a pioneering drug that promises to increase the rate of growth in children born with Achondroplasia the genetic condition behind most cases.

And she is looking into the debate about whether cutting-edge medicine that can stop disability should even be used.

Ellie will also meet families who are involved in the drug trials to explore both sides of the argument.

She said: Growing up, these drugs werent available to me.

Had they been, I dont know what my parents would have done. But I wouldnt change myself.

I love who I am and I am glad that I have dwarfism because I think my body is strong and beautiful.

8

A SPOONFUL of good old stardust is a welcome ingredient for almost every telly show.

And thats especially true of the Great British Bake Off.

Its celebrity specials are always a must-watch and the latest line-up preparing to hit our screens wont disappoint.

Laura Whitmore, Emma Willis, Ed Gamble and The Inbetweeners Blake Harrison will join from the world of television.

Meanwhile, representing the musical side of showbiz, Ellie Goulding, Annie Mac and Example will be dropping in to the famous tent for its culinary challenges.

But after all the success they have racked up between them, will they be bothered about a Hollywood handshake?

See more here:

Mrs Browns Boys star Brendan OCarroll says the show was woke before woke was invented... - The Sun

The 10 US states with the most hate groups | TheHill – The Hill

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which defines a hate group as an organization that attacks or maligns an entire class of people, tracks the number of active hate groups in the country each year.

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

According to the civil rights organization's estimations, the top 10 states with the most hate groups in 2020 per capita are: Montana, Tennessee, Nebraska, Arkansas, New Hampshire, Alabama, Virginia, South Carolina, Idaho, and Nevada.

Montana has six hate groups, including two anti-Muslim groups, two white nationalist groups, a racist skinhead organization, and a chapter of the Proud Boys a self-described brotherhood of Western chauvinism that spreads anti-political correctness and anti-white guilt agenda, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Without breaking down the groups per capita, California has the most hate groups with 74. The state is followed by Florida, 68, Texas, 54, New York, 37, Pennsylvania, 36, Tennessee, 34, Virginia, 33, Georgia, 29, North Carolina, 29, and Arizona, 26.

With a population of a little more than 1 million, Montana hassix hate groups per million civilians in the state, whereas no other state hasfive per group per million civilians.

Almost 85 percent of Montanas population is white, according to the U.S. Census.

In total, there are 838 hate groups in the country. Compared to 2018, which had 1,020 active hate groups, there has been a decrease. However, groups are communicating online through encrypted platforms making it more difficult to trace.

READ MORE STORIES FROM CHANGING AMERICA

UNVACCINATED PEOPLE SHOULD EXPECT TO CATCH COVID-19 EVERY 16 MONTHS

TOP HEALTH EXPERT CALLS FOR URGENT RESEARCH ON NEW UK VARIANT THAT MIGHT BE MORE CONTAGIOUS THAN DELTA

FLORIDA SCHOOL QUARANTINES STUDENTS WHO GET VACCINATED FOR 30 DAYS

US CITIES AT WAR WITH THEIR OWN POLICE DEPARTMENTS OVER VACCINE MANDATES

45 STATES ARE DOING BETTER WITH COVID-19, BUT THESE 5 ARE SURGING

View post:

The 10 US states with the most hate groups | TheHill - The Hill

How the Word ‘Woke’ Was Co-Opted And Weaponized – WDET

Modern conservative use of the word woke taps into a larger societal backlash againstsocial justice movements and efforts to confront racism. Its a word that means something very different now than it did just a few years ago in the Blackcommunity.

Woke initially came out of the Black community It meant that, if you were saying stay woke or be woke there was a kind of seriousness and playfulness, that you need to be aware of the social conditions of America to surviveit. Joshua Adams,journalist

Broader attitudes toward wokeness invoke similarly co-opted and weaponized concepts such as cancel culture and political correctness. But when we dig deeper into the meaning of the word and how it is used by conservatives and most white Americans, it becomes clear that the wordhas lost all of its original meanings in order to create a new slur to be leveled against progressives and AfricanAmericans.

Joshua Adams is ajournalist whowrote a piece for Colorlines in May titled How Woke Became a Slur.

He says that language is incredibly important in the Black community.African American vernacular English comes out of the slave experience, he says. Black people couldnt learn the language formally We had to learn it through the ear. He also notes the necessity for slaves to be able to communicate in ways that slave owners couldntunderstand.

Woke initially came out of the Black community, says Adams. It meant that, if you were saying stay woke or be woke there was a kind of seriousness and playfulness, that you need to be aware of the social conditions of America to surviveit.

Damon Youngis co-founder of Very Smart Brothas, author of the memoir What Doesnt Kill You Makes You Blacker.He wrote a piece in The New York Times in 2019 titled, In Defense ofWoke.

Hesays, although the meaning of the word has changed for people who arent Black, the meaning hasnt changed as much for AfricanAmericans.

For Black people, woke still has the same connotation as someone who has consciousness, but maybe takes that consciousness too far, Youngexplains, someone who maybe believes conspiracy theories, who maybe shows a more performativeBlackness.

Young says conservatives like toco-optand weaponizeterms that begin in the Blackcommunity.

They are very effective at distilling these complex ideas around a single word and galvanizing support around the use of that single word, he says.Its easier to rail against something than to createsomething.

WDET strives to make our journalism accessible to everyone. As a public media institution, we maintain our journalistic integrity through independent support from readers like you. If you value WDET as your source of news, music and conversation, please make a gift today.

Donate today

Read the original post:

How the Word 'Woke' Was Co-Opted And Weaponized - WDET

Lincicome: What’s in a name? Quite a bit when it comes to sports teams – Daily Herald

Today's lesson in semantics is prompted by the World Series, a misnamed event that offends no one even though the world is much larger than the two semi-southern cities where it is taking place.

I notice no protests from, say, Cameroon or Latvia, insulted that, though they are certainly a part of the world, it is not a series to which they are invited or even thought about.

But that's another column. In this one I would like to address a serious issue about one of the World Series teams and its complete disregard for correctness and propriety, the team whose nickname is a slur against an entire community, marginalized and disrespected.

I speak, of course, of the 11th grade English teacher trying to keep his class from getting restless when he explains that "Astro" is not a noun. "Astro" is a prefix. "Astros" is a plural of a prefix. Prefixes do not have plurals.

Yo, Mary, wake up David, there in the back row. This will be on the test later.

Oh, sure, you will find indignant essays moaning about sports nicknames that denigrate Native Americans and insult their heritage. You'll find those everywhere when a team like the Atlanta Braves gets on the big stage with their fans chanting and tomahawk chopping.

While this is certainly bad behavior it is typical of sports fans who routinely harass not only the visiting team but lately even the President of the United States, most notably with a short four-letter verb followed by his name, bleep Biden, alerting networks to keep a finger on the mute button.

Disrespect is endemic, or maybe pandemic, in sports. One of the more opaque chants comes from Arkansas where fans shout "Wooo, pig sooie," meaning what is not clear nor just exactly who is being insulted.

The tomahawk chop is clear, it mocks Native Americans. It can be interpreted no other way. There are other hand signals that may be used, some requiring more than one digit, a tradition that goes back to thumbs-up or thumbs-down in the arena. Now even the helpful OK sign has taken on a hateful quality.

If all of this was just trash talk, a way to intimidate an opponent, that would be one thing, not acceptable but one thing. But this is another thing. The chop is an organized emblem of community hate, participated in by politicians and celebrities as well as ordinary Walmart shoppers.

Caring folks get upset about those things. The Washington Redskins have dropped their nickname altogether. The team is anonymous now, much like the Native Americans it demeaned, known only as WFT, a dangerous sequence of initials in these times. One slip or autocorrect and you have a whole new meaning.

Of course "Redskins" is a racist trope and should be banished. There is no defending that. Same with the Indians in Cleveland. They are now the Guardians. Rather grand are Guardians, usually safeguarding an entire galaxy but valid, too, for a city, even a county, considering the limited reach of Cleveland's baseball team.

No matter. The most noticeable casualty in that adjustment is Chief Wahoo, a childhood pal and easy to draw. So long, you bucktoothed goof. As for the Guardians, it may still be possible to use Tribe, I suppose, there being no collective noun for Cleveland's new team nickname.

Tricky business this political correctness, and full of defenders of the one right way. Solutions are easy.

For Atlanta, simply drop off the "s" and "Braves," a noun, becomes "Brave," an adjective and a fine quality. This would work for Kansas City as well. "Chiefs" become "Chief," though the arrowheads have to go.

As for Washington, why not "Wind?" You know, hot air. Or "Government," since the two are interchangeable anyhow.

There is no rule that says a team's nickname must end in "s." Chicago, to keep it local, has had a run of singulars, from the Fire, the Sky, the Sting, the Blitz.

I hope this has been of some help in understanding the obligation sports teams have of representing themselves without offending anyone.

Houston started out as the politically incorrect Colt 45s, stayed that way until fake grass was invented. Then they became the Astros. I'll say it one more time, class. Astro is a prefix.

Pop quiz at any time.

See the article here:

Lincicome: What's in a name? Quite a bit when it comes to sports teams - Daily Herald

The Head-Turning Gesture Donald And Melania Trump Made At The World Series – The List

The Trumps were also captured joining in the Braves' signature "tomahawk chop" before the game, which didn't go unnoticed in the press. The cheer, which originated in 1991, has come under fire from Native communities who say it promotes racist stereotypes (viaKCRA). However, it's not likely that Donald Trump was too worried about the implications of the war cry; he once stated, "[T]his political correctness is just absolutely killing us as a country. You can't say anything. Anything you say, they'll find a reason why it's not good" (via CNN).

The gesture was greeted with roaring approval by Trump fans who saw it as a slap in the face to "woke liberals." Others felt differently. Keith Olbermann commented on Twitter, "Well, it IS a cousin of the Nazi salute so."

What really got people's attention, though, was Melania Trump's face. In a clip now circulating on social media (and seen here on MSN), the former first lady smiled broadly for the cameras as she faced her husband. A second later, turning away from him, her smile faded into an expression that looked positively disgusted.

Naturally, Twitter exploded with comments and jokes. Writer and pastor John Pavlovitz quipped, "Melania despises him as much as decent people do" (via Twitter). Humorist Paul Rudnickadded on Twitter, "Melania can maintain a smile for three seconds and then even rubbing the krugerrand she keeps in her pocket can't control the nausea."

The rest is here:

The Head-Turning Gesture Donald And Melania Trump Made At The World Series - The List

Lowell High, Alison Collins and the Sunset’s rage against diversity – San Francisco Chronicle

The temperature in the Outer Sunset is around 5 degrees lower than the rest of San Francisco, but it always feels much colder. There, the sun struggles to penetrate overcast skies and the wind seeps through row after row of single-family town houses, unhindered by skyscrapers or housing complexes. It is a place where people live, an uncharming expanse of mid-century architecture built on what was once miles of sand, the suburbs, the Outside Lands and where most of my Chinese American friends grew up. And at its edge lies the oldest school west of the Mississippi, my alma mater, Lowell High School.

Founded in 1856 as a boys-only grammar school, Lowell migrated from downtown to the Panhandle in 1913 and then to its current location in 1962. The campus is a short descending staircase from Eucalyptus Drive and from there it sprawls out and downward, until it nudges Lake Merced and the Stonestown Galleria. For four years, Id ride the M or K Muni line from my home in the Mission and walk through the schools front doors; the Sunset kids would hop off the 29 and face an uphill trek to Lowells backside.

Chinese Americans comprise about 21% of San Franciscos population and are the citys largest ethnic minority group. Some families have deep roots the children of railroad workers, the laundromat owners and shopkeepers who built Chinatown but most immigrated here after the Hart-Celler Act was passed in 1965, which opened the U.S. to more immigration from Asia. Chinese immigrants came to San Francisco from Hong Kong or Guangdong Province and worked tough blue-collar jobs, even though many were well educated. They sent their kids to college and bought houses in the Sunset, replacing the Irish and Italian Americans who fled to the suburbs in the 1970s.

At the risk of courting Asian Americas oldest albatross the idea that were all the same its the Sunset that sees Lowell High School as its to lose.

For those who grew up in the San Francisco Unified School District system, Lowell is synonymous with achievement. The school has produced three Nobel Prize winners, one U.S. Supreme Court Justice and a handful of minor celebrities. While Lowell athletics range from unbeatable (track and field) to abysmal (football), its equipment and facilities are top of the line, thanks to a loyal alumni network and generous endowment the Lowell Alumni Association holds over $6 million in assets and that grew by $865,000 in 2020 alone. Lowell is the largest feeder school to the University of California system and offers the most Advanced Placement classes in the San Francisco school district.

Until recently, Lowell was one of only two city public high schools the Ruth Asawa School of the Arts being the other that used a merit-based admissions policy rather than a semi-random lottery. Ambitious students tested into Lowell and were rewarded with well-funded programs, academic rigor and sleepless nights, leaving their lower performing peers in the dust.

Because Lowell grounds itself in elitism, its culture is one of exclusion and tends to recapitulate existing inequities. Like the Sunset, Lowells demographics have shifted from predominantly white to mostly Asian American over the past few decades, but the school has also become notorious for admitting fewer and fewer students from other ethnic and racial minority groups. Last year, it counted just 52 Black students out of around 2,900; Asian Americans, who make up over 50% of the student body, outnumbered them nearly 32 to 1. For comparison, district-wide enrollment is about 8% Black and 33% Asian American.

In 2016, the Lowell Black Student Union staged a walkout after a student had put up a racist poster parodying Black History Month in the school library. The Black students called the incident typical of their Lowell experience, marked by daily microaggressions, snide references to affirmative action and lack of social support. While systemic racism is a truism, the water we swim in, a snake eating its own tail, here at Lowell you see its clear emergence not by design but from design, in a cold place where peers and parents revere success, where its taken for granted that half of the student body looks the same.

Last October, in the midst of Black Lives Matter protests and shrinking student enrollment, the San Francisco Board of Education suspended Lowells selective admissions process for the coming school year, citing the difficulty of collecting grades and standardized test scores during a global pandemic. Though positioned as an interim solution to logistical issues, the change quickly garnered controversy. Parents of Lowell students decried the move as anti-Asian racism; right-wing publications latched onto the story as political correctness gone wild; someone photoshopped swastikas on pictures of board members Alison Collins and Gabriela Lopez and posted them on social media; the head of the Lowell Black Student Union received death threats. A few months later, after yet another incident an anonymous troll posted pornography and spammed anti-Black slurs to an online anti-racism class the board voted 5-2 to make the admissions change permanent.

There are legitimate grievances to be had with the current Board of Education. Their failed proposal to push racial equity by renaming 44 public schools was reactionary, poorly researched and expensive; the Lowell decision also felt hasty and ill-timed. But if not now, then when? The board has the impossible task of making diversity a priority, and the Sunset is impossible to please and quick to retaliate.

In April, the newly formed Friends of Lowell Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to reversing the change, filed a lawsuit against the district. The suit claims that procedural issues void the admissions decision, which was made without the input of the Lowell community. However, considering that Lowell has failed to prioritize racial diversity for decades, its hard not to see this legalistic, middle of the road argument as another bid to keep out the rabble. Even though the school years already begun, the foundation is still trying to revert to the old system: In September, it filed another injunction against the change.

A second legal threat comes from Harmeet Dhillon, a San Francisco attorney, top Republican National Committee official, Trump legal adviser and regular Fox News guest. She claims that the lottery is rigged because it prioritizes students from the underperforming and majority Black and Hispanic Willie Brown Middle School, and that the change will encourage racist acts against Asian American students.

My social media feeds feature a stream of otherwise apolitical friends reposting videos depicting violence against Asian Americans, Chinatown elders shoved to the ground, stabbed in the face and so on, an endless scroll of viral, harrowing content mainlined into the lizard brain. Its often impossible to disentangle racial animus from systemic poverty. But when the assailants in these viral videos happen to be other people of color, Dhillon and her ilk push a narrative that resonates with the latent racism in the Asian American community. Its the easy explanation, the big grift: the implication that race in America has always been a zero-sum game and this time the Asians are losing.

And then theres the controversy around Collins, the Board of Educations only Black female member. Earlier this year, Diane Yap, the Friends of Lowell Foundation vice president, unearthed a 2016 tweet thread from Collins. After recounting a racist incident that her daughter faced at Ruth Asawa High School, she wrote, Many Asian Am. believe they benefit from the model minority BS ... They use white supremacy to assimilate and get ahead. She continued, Where are the vocal Asians speaking up about Trump?

During her tenure on the board, Collins has done solid work with groups like the Chinese Progressive Association in 2019, she co-sponsored its Our Healing in Our Hands Resolution, which led to increased mental health resources for students of color in the citys public schools. Yap, meanwhile, has been caught dog whistling for white supremacy: On Facebook, shes rallied against critical race theory, asserted that systemic racism does not have a consistent or causal effect on academic performance and joked that a Black person would beat you up if you called them a colored person.

Nevertheless, Collins tweets, which were posted years before she took office, ignore the work of Asian American activists and address us as a monolith. Even worse, she hasnt taken her cancellation on the chin. After being stripped of her titles and committee seats, Collins, who is married to a wealthy real estate developer, attempted to sue the struggling school district for a whopping $87 million before withdrawing the suit last month.

The same adage applies to Collins and her detractors alike: Dont hate the player, hate the game. Collins lawsuit is frivolous and self-aggrandizing; her tweets were borderline racist, generalizing and hurtful. But shes essentially correct, at least about the Sunset.

Historically, Chinese Americans have been among the biggest opponents of the school districts desegregation efforts. In the 1970s and 1980s, they advocated for plans that let them opt out of busing, putting the onus on students in Black neighborhoods like the Bayview to commute across the city if they wanted to attend better schools. In the 1990s, the Asian American Legal Foundation and the Chinese American Democratic Club sued the school district to end the use of racial caps, which dictated that no racial group could exceed 45% of any schools student body, and won.

Since then, the districts diet-diversity initiatives the diversity index, a composite of socioeconomic factors as a stand-in for race; and from 2011 on, a system that prioritizes school choice have led to resegregation. More than a quarter of the citys public schools enroll greater than 60% of a single racial group, and Black and Latino families, who generally submit their paperwork later than white or Asian American ones, end up with lower priority for contested schools.

Many of my friends in the Sunset remain loyal to a gilded ideal of American meritocracy. They oppose affirmative action, diversity initiatives or anything that would threaten their edge in the game of capital. Unlike many of their immigrant parents, theyre not anti-Black on principle, but generally advocate for conservative policies to the same effect. By design, the Sunset is disconnected from the rest of San Francisco. Its restrictive single-family zoning laws were conceived as a vehicle for segregation, and its residents consistently block new housing developments, choosing clean streets and homogeneity over the needs of the city. About 20% of voters in the Sunset went for Trump in the 2016 election, a significantly higher percentage than most city neighborhoods.

Its ironic that the de facto moniker for people of Asian descent, Asian American, was radical before it was descriptive. In the late 1960s, student activists at San Francisco State and UC Berkeley intended to create a pan-Asian coalition, a political group critical of white supremacy and standing in solidarity with Black, Latino and indigenous power. But here we are, half a century later, more fractured than ever, the label stretched to its breaking point. Asian America was always too broad and too unwieldy to comfortably house all of us.

In the stony sleep of leftist solidarity the death of organized labor, the birth of the neoliberal beast the Chinese immigrants who came to San Francisco in the 1970s and onward found shelter in higher education. Insulated by wealth and the Sunsets de facto racist housing policy, they traded an Asian America founded on collective resistance for one based on identity politics. We have representation Crazy Rich Asians and a Marvel superhero and a flourishing literary scene even as the old dream of self-determination recedes into the past.

The incoming freshman class at Lowell is roughly 5% Black and 22% Latino, double the proportion of the previous class. In turn, the proportion of Asian American freshmen has decreased from 42% to 38%, a mere 4% for the chance to iterate on, or even revolutionize, Lowells values.

I remember my tenure at Lowell as a bleary-eyed dash to the finish line. My competitive, college-bound peers constantly compared grades and accolades and wore sleep deprivation as a badge of pride. I had good teachers and bad ones, who coasted on the assumption that most Lowellites would teach themselves while the rest would fail. I opted for classes that gave easy As and gravitated toward friends who let me copy their homework. By Lowell standards, I thrived; I graduated with a high grade point average and matriculated to the UC system. And yet my high school experience failed to uplift me. It mostly reinforced what I already knew: I had tested into Lowell because my parents had taught me how to chase success. I would keep succeeding because of that gift and those without it would continue to struggle without help.

Curiosity, kindness and grace I would learn only later and elsewhere.

I have visited Lowell only once since I graduated my high school friends prefer to come to me, since the Mission has better weather and more expensive bars in 2017, when the Obama years had already curdled into a quaint and distant disappointment. The buildings facade had been repainted, from red and white (our school colors) to a vaguely Soviet shade of green. From a distance, I had trouble distinguishing its silhouette from the relentless gray engulfing it. As I entered, I got lost in once familiar hallways, said hello to the teachers who still remembered me, and left, realizing that time had made me a stranger to the place.

Lowell High School stands for many things academic achievement, racial inequities, Asian America but it also stands for itself, the physical space it occupies. With its generational wealth and storied history, Lowell is responsible for transforming that tract of the Sunset into a place of public good, one that prioritizes the needs of its people above all else. Set Asian America, the grifters and Alison Collins aside for a moment, and picture a revelation peeking through the fog, way out west where the country meets the sea. Imagine a community of students in Lowells cradle gathered from all across San Francisco, dedicated to each other and the city they share, seeing themselves reflected in that oft-forgotten corner of the Sunset, their hour come round at last.

Justin Lai is a San Francisco native and freelance writer. You can find him at http://www.torwards.com. A version of this piece was originally published in the Potrero View.

Continue reading here:

Lowell High, Alison Collins and the Sunset's rage against diversity - San Francisco Chronicle

The Culture War Must Go On – The Wall Street Journal

I happened to mention the phrase culture war in a 1996 conversation with Irving Kristol, who was a contributor to these pages and always a penetrating observer of contemporary American life. The culture war is over, Irving said, then paused and added: We lost. Alive today, Irving would have been sadly reaffirmed in his declaration, surprised perhaps only at the extent of the loss and the cost it has entailed.

His we would include those people who believe in the rewards owed to effort and merit, the value of tradition, and the crucial significance of liberty. We would distinctly not include those who believe in the importance of spreading diversity, inclusion and equity as conceived by present-day universities. Nor would it include those whose sense of virtue derives from their putative hunger for social justice and their willingness to make severe judgments of others based on lapses from political correctness. These people are they, the woke, who have, as Kristol had it, won the culture war.

The extent of the woke victory is perhaps best demonstrated by the long list of cultural institutions they have captured and now control. Two of the countrys important newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post, are unashamedly woke. The New Yorker and the Atlantic have ceased to be general-interest magazines and are now specific-interest publicationsthat interest being the spread of woke ideas. The major television networks early fell in line without a fight.

Universities, in their humanities and social-sciences divisions, are not merely devoted to the propagation of woke ideas but initiate most of them. In turning away from the ideals of authority and objectivity in favor of clearly partisan views, these institutions have lost their former prestige yet are apparently sustained by the confidence that preaching woke doctrine is a higher calling.

Under the deep division in the country, certain prizesPulitzers, MacArthur grants, honorary degreesgo almost exclusively to people whose views are woke. (Presidential medalsin the humanities, in the arts, for freedomare dictated by whether the president in office is woke or not.) Under political correctness, one of the main planks in the woke platform, freedom in the arts is vastly curtailed owing to strictures against what is known as appropriation, which disapproves of whites writing about blacks, men about women, heterosexuals about homosexuals. Under woke culture, art is vastly inhibited; humor, because so much of comedy is politically incorrect, largely excluded.

Here is the original post:

The Culture War Must Go On - The Wall Street Journal

Co-Opted And Weaponized, ‘Cancel Culture’ Is Just Today’s ‘Politically Correct’ : Consider This from NPR – NPR

'Cancelling' is a term that originated in young and progressive circles, where it was used to mean 'boycott,' University of Pennsylvania linguist Nicole Holliday tells NPR. Now the term 'cancel' has been co-opted and weaponized by some conservative media and politicians.

Something similar happened in the 1990s with the term 'politically correct.' John K. Wilson wrote about that time in a book called The Myth Of Political Correctness.

And just like 'politically correct' 'cancelling' and 'cancel culture' have been co-opted and weaponized to attack the left today. Social media has made that easier, says Jon Ronson, author of So You've Been Publicly Shamed.

In participating regions, you'll also hear a local news segment that will help you make sense of what's going on in your community.

Email us at considerthis@npr.org.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., goes back to her office after speaking on the floor of the House Chamber on Capitol Hill on Feb. 4. Andrew Harnik/AP hide caption

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., goes back to her office after speaking on the floor of the House Chamber on Capitol Hill on Feb. 4.

This episode was produced by Mia Venkat and Noah Caldwell with help from Brent Baughman. It was edited by Patrick Jarenwattananon, Alejandra Marquez Janse, and Sami Yenigun. Our executive producer is Cara Tallo.

Here is the original post:

Co-Opted And Weaponized, 'Cancel Culture' Is Just Today's 'Politically Correct' : Consider This from NPR - NPR