The Lucille Ball Comedy Festival continued this week in Jamestown, NY, with outstanding stand-up comedy interspersed with great conversation and debate at the nearby Chautauqua Institution a summer community devoted to immersion in art, culture, creativity, and philosophy. On Friday at the Chautauqua Pavilion, Kelly Carlin continued an In Conversation series- this time sitting down with comedy historian Kliph Nesteroff and Stephen J. Morrison, Executive Producer of CNNs acclaimed History of Comedy series.

The conversation touched on a number of important subjects, including some incredible insight from Kelly about what it was like to grow up in the shadow of George Carlin which led to one of the most interesting conversations of the entire week a debate about the merits of political correctness. The conversation left people talking all day following the panel discussion- as they left the theater, over lunch and into the night.

The ability to speak freely is a precious and sacred principle to everyone who performs comedy. Any threat to that right has historically resulted in strong backlash from comedians. But in the past two years, the debate has changed a bit. In 2015, Jerry Seinfeld complained about college campuses being too-PC, but since there has been a growing minority speaking out in favor of political correctness, even in comedy.

Historian Kliph Nesteroff quickly got down to the heart of why the PC debate is changing. The phrase political correctness, he said, is being used too often, by too many people, and they dont use the phrase in the same way. Nesteroff said recent use of that phrase to justify hate has changed his opinion. The phrase politically correct has been co-opted, he explained, and colored by the fascist movement, who he argued is using the phrase to excuse bigotry. I dont want to complain about the same thing a racist group is complaining about, he said. Kliph argued that its time to stop defending the right to be politically incorrect, and suggested that perhaps the comedians who are complaining, are being too sensitive. Yes we want to preserve [free speech], but do we have a persecution complex? he asked. Comedians now are so defensive they will respond as if they are under attack. Maybe the problem is the comedians ego.

Morrison agreed that the PC debate is changing and witnessed this first hand when conducting interviews for CNNs History of Comedy. He said his opinion started to change after hearing comedians talk about their realizations about their own racially charged humor or gender slamming jokes. He gave the example of Sarah Silverman who argued that you have to listen to people on college campuses, who are often on the right side of history.

Kelly Carlin had a different take- noting that limiting speech has never been a good strategy to change behavior. She referred back to her fathers thoughts on the subject, arguing that his sentiments are still relevant today. One of the reasons he didnt like political correctness on campuses, she said, is because its a pernicious form of intolerance because it is disguised as tolerance. George Carlins full quote that Kelly referenced was this: political correctness is Americas newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control peoples language with strict codes and rigid rules. Im not sure thats the way to fight discrimination. Im not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.

Carlin also quoted her fathers material on the softening of language how the term shell shock, changed to battle fatigue which gave way to post traumatic stress disorder. Carlin said that soft language takes the life out of life.Language should be honest, she said, and real. And not hiding behind something.

The Lucille Ball Comedy Festival takes place every year in Jamestown NY, with satellite programming at the Chautauqua Institute. For more information, visitlucycomedyfest.com.

More:

Is It Time to Embrace Political Correctness? Kelly Carlin, Kliph Nesteroff and Stephen J. Morrison Take on the PC Debate - The Interrobang

A Google employee created an uproar this weekend when his manifesto about criticizing the companys diversity initiatives went viral among employees. The senior software engineer claimed the diversity programs discriminated against employees like himself by creating an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be discussed honestly.

Google staffand lots of other peopleare peeved, and its not hard to see why. The author of the document (a full version of which was posted by Gizmodo) argued that the gender gap in software engineering in part boiled down to biological differences between men and women. The ideas arent particularly well-reasoned. For instance, he wrote, Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for womens representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts. Ultimately, he contends that efforts to boost racial and gender diversity were unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

While his comments were apparently roundly rejected by most employees and Googles own diversity officer, some employees reportedly came to his defense. Vices Motherboard reported that Google employees anonymously praised the employees views on an app called Blind, where tech employees can discuss workplace problems.This is actually terrifying: if someone is not ideologically aligned with the majority then hes labeled as a poor cultural fit and would not be hired/promoted, wrote one commenter. Another said: The fella who posted that is extremely brave. We need more people standing up against the insanity. Otherwise Diversity and Inclusion which is essentially a pipeline from Womens and African Studies into Google, will ruin the company.

The internal culture clash is troubling for a company that is under investigation by the US government is for underpaying women employees, and for Silicon Valleys reputation in the wake of its sexual harassment troubles.

But it also reflects a disquieting trend across the country: Discussion about diversity and free speech is increasingly defined by people on the ideological extremes. On one side, we have the militantly politically correct leftfor instance, the students who shut down Charles Murrays speech at Middlebury College.

The liberal ideal sees free speech as a positive-sum good, enabling an open marketplace of ideas where, in the long run, reason can prevail, as Jonathan Chait recently put it, but left-wing critics of liberalism instead see the free-speech rights of the oppressed and the oppressors set in zero-sum conflict, so that the expansion of one inevitably comes at the cost of the other.

And on the other is the anti-PC backlash liberals have provoked, of which the rambling, confused tirade of the Google employee is the latest example. And hes not alone. As the election of Donald Trump has made clear, many Americans feel enslaved by political correctness. The extreme left has claimed a moral monopoly and attempted to shame dissenting views out of existence.

Dissenters are unlikely to consider the value of diversity and opportunity if they dont feel psychologically safe, as the Google author says repeatedly, in mainstream conversations. Shaming forces these perspectives onto sub-channels of the Blind app and websites like Breitbart, where these ideas tend to go unchallenged.

Neutralizing this dangerous ideological split is all the more urgent given the fact that Trump seems as enthusiastic about capitalizing on identity politics as the extreme-left zealots he rails against.

The presidents populismwhich during the campaign seemed centered on economic injusticeis proving to be far more focused on fomenting cultural clashes. Recent developments bear this out: his assimilation-driven immigration initiatives, the bizarre trans military ban, and talk of a government investigation into Harvard Universitys discrimination against Asian-American applicants. Silicon Valley wont solve its diversity problems until it both acknowledges its failures and engages in a broader dialogue about why those failures matter. Similarly, the US will only create opportunity in the face of difference when its public stops letting ideologues on both sides dominate the conversation.

See original here:

The real problem with that Google employee's viral anti-diversity memo is bigger than Silicon Valley - Quartz

jeremy traum for the boston globe

When an anti-Muslim activist group organized March Against Sharia rallies in cities across the country in June, it wasnt the first time Americans gathered to fight a suspicious religion from overseas. One August evening in 1834, a small mob gathered with torches and weapons on a dark hillside in what is now Somerville, intent on battling a grave threat: Roman Catholicism. Squinting up at the Mount Benedict Convent of the Ursuline nuns, the crowd swapped stories of outrages committed behind its walls: nuns sexually exploited, novices forced to wear painful corsets, starved, tortured.

These patriots could not understand why their Protestant leaders not only tolerated such evils, but even sent their own daughters up to the convent. The nativists understood they needed to take matters into their hands. So they did. They tore apart the convent, tossing pianos from its upper windows, smashing sculptures, damaging paintings, and scouring the compound for elusive victims. Finding none, they reduced the convent to a smoldering heap, cheered for a while, and went home.

Advertisement

Mount Benedict Convent is long gone. Americas religious tensions are not as officials in Texas showed this summer, when the state became the eighth to legislate against the infiltration and incursion of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, especially Islamic Sharia law. To Muslims, Sharia is form of canonical law meant to govern how believers interact with one another and how their society runs; while there are moderate interpretations of Sharia, American media coverage generally deploys the term in connection with the fundamentalist vision of groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda.

As a historian of 19th-century Boston, I see parallels between the anti-Sharia activists and the antebellum nativists who claimed that Irish immigrants were loyal to the pope, not the United States; who saw Catholic parochial schools as evidence of an unwillingness to assimilate; and who insisted that the Vatican was preparing to invade America via a tunnel it was digging beneath the Atlantic seabed.

Just as the rumors of abuse at Mount Benedict proved baseless, theres little evidence that American Muslims desire, let alone seek, the implementation of Sharia law. Critics have thus dismissed the anti-Sharia movement as nothing more than a thinly veiled prejudice, part of our habitual suspicion that certain ideologies, religions, and ethnicities are plotting the countrys downfall.

Global trends toward interconnection, economic growth, social progress, and stronger civil society have not completely bypassed the Islamic world.

Yet our history of conspiracy theorizing and racial paranoia doesnt fully explain the timing of all this anxiety about Sharia. Why has Sharia law has become a mainstream preoccupation now, rather than, say, after 9/11? A history of religious bigotry doesnt explain why the most feared weapon of Islamist radicals has shifted from bombings and hijackings to a theological doctrine.

While the anti-Sharia movements growing profile might suggest otherwise, only a slightly larger percentage of Americans suspect US Muslims of anti-Americanism today than in 2002.

Advertisement

The question is: What has prompted the outcry against Sharia now, nearly a generation after the attack on the World Trade Center, when public suspicions of Islam have increased but little? The case of Mount Benedict suggests that conspiracy beliefs about social minorities often propagate when social majorities themselves become divided. Catholicism became a flashpoint then, just as Islamic law is today, because rapidly evolving standards of politeness were leaving many Americans behind.

As it turns out, shifts within a community for instance, in the way middle-class, native-born citizens treat one another have profound effects on how members of that community view those on the outside.

Get This Week in Opinion in your inbox:

Globe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday.

The link between etiquette and Islamophobia comes into view in a 2016 Pew Research Center survey, conducted just as conservatives were excoriating the Obama administration for denouncing violent extremism instead of the more pointed radical Islamic terrorism. In that Pew survey, Republicans outnumbered Democrats by 17 percent in believing that religious teachings, not violent people, bear the greater blame for religious violence. However significant, this partisan gap wasnt nearly as large as that elicited by another survey question: How should the incoming president speak about terrorism carried out in the name of Islam? By a margin more than twice larger, Democrats preferred caution; Republicans, bluntness.

Taken together, the two statistics suggest that Americans dont disagree nearly as much about violence and religion as they do about manners. So what do manners have to do with nativist suspicions? Quite a lot, if we reflect on the Mount Benedict episode.

Then and now, constitutional freedoms were thought to be at risk, and fears of an insurgent foreign faith sometimes combined with reigning norms of chivalry. Nineteenth-century nativists used their version of social media, cheaply printed tracts, to swap lurid tales of oppressed young women confined in both dress and spirit by a sexually repressive faith.

Todays anti-Sharia activists attribute the appeal of a dangerous and unsavory faith to poor education and brainwashing. The 19th-century nativists similarly believed that Catholics needed to be taught to read, and think, and act for themselves, or so proclaimed the anti-Catholic Rev. Lyman Beecher before a crowd on Boston Common, shortly before the Mount Benedict incident.

A conspicuous part of the mob, and that most responsible for allowing Mount Benedict to burn, consisted of Bostons volunteer firemen. Unlike todays professional fire departments, antebellum volunteer fire companies were highly fluid and drew members from many walks of life, from successful merchants to humble laborers. What the volunteer firemen did share was a rowdy sense of culture: They felt at home in an older, rougher masculine culture that revolved around drinking, fighting, and displaying physical prowess.

By the 1830s, that culture was on a collision course with a more feminized bourgeois urban society that increasingly eschewed displays of violence, embraced temperance, and, starting that decade, consumed etiquette manuals by the dozens. As the historian Karen Halttunen has shown, the genteel conventions explained in those manuals struck many Protestants as troublingly akin to Catholic ritual. Protestants understood their own religion as one of sincerity and spontaneous feeling. Catholicism and bourgeois manners appeared the opposite: practices of formulaic incantations that impressed the simple-minded but lacked real meaning.

This helps explain why the mob that pulled apart the convent didnt just commit violence, but rudely impersonated priests and inquisitors before it tore the convent apart. Their choice of target was no accident in this regard. The fancy Ursuline Convent was where the richest Protestant Bostonians sent their daughters to learn the very refined social manners that the firefighters disdained.

Anti-Catholic and anti-Irish sentiment bear the greatest blame for the attack, but not all of it. What the Protestant nativists found so alien in the Ursuline Convent wasnt just the Catholic faith, but the affected mannerisms of so many Americans who suddenly thought themselves members of the middle class. While much of the grievance against the nuns of Convent Hill stemmed from prejudices as old as the Reformation, another crucial trigger was an identity crisis within Protestant society.

Charlestown Historical Society

A wood engraving depicts the aftermath of the riots of 1834. Anti-Catholic sentiment and resentment over changing manners had boiled over into violence.

Todays anti-Sharia movement emerges during a similar crisis of manners. In 2017, the issue is not so much dining or handshaking etiquette, but political correctness. A senior editor at The Atlantic recently offered this unflattering comparison: Political correctness requires more than ordinary courtesy: Its a ritual, like knowing which fork to use, by which superior people recognize each other. Other critics of PC culture go further, comparing its rigidity and abstruseness to a form of religious dogma Sharia law for snowflakes, as one Fox News personality memorably put it.

For its champions, political correctness isnt intended to oppress or exclude, but to encourage acceptance and inclusion. Champions of PC culture thus find its critics not only unjustified, but disingenuous and hypocritical. In their view, conservatives (along with occasional liberals such as Bill Maher) who carp about trigger warnings and tone-policing are ultimately concerned with maintaining a safe space in which to air their own retrograde views.

Yet this dismissal may be too cynical. When cultures adopt new scripts, insecurities bubble up, sometimes within social categories but often across them.

Along with a majority of whites, nearly a third of African-Americans believe that Americans are too quick to take offense at remarks made by those of other backgrounds. In Racial Paranoia: The Unintended Consequences of Political Correctness, the anthropologist John L. Jackson found African-Americans unsettled by political correctness, not because it overturns racial attitudes, but because it requires their concealment. When racism was explicit, obvious, and legal, there was little need to be paranoid about it, Jackson explains.

The backlash against political correctness has a social dimension. While popular culture would have us assume that a sense of exclusion fuels conspiracy theories, recent psychological research suggests that such theories are less likely to thrive among solitary, isolated individuals.

Instead, conspiracy beliefs are more likely to propagate when people who feel uncertain about themselves receive messages of inclusion from others with similar concerns. Our polarized society has provided both conditions of late. The specter of PC manners has engendered uncertainty among many Americans, who in turn find inclusion among the like-minded at Trump rallies and other spectacles of anti-Sharia sentiment.

We need to consider that this combination of defensiveness and acceptance may encourage conspiracy beliefs about minority groups such as Muslims, even when the original social suspicions arent especially focused on those minorities. Put simply, the targets of our insecurities arent necessarily their true source.

As one 2015 study on the subject concludes, Conspiracy beliefs actually emerge from social motives namely, a genuine concern for other people that are victimized, endangered, deceived, or otherwise threatened.

The importance of self-uncertainty may be key to understanding the spread of nativist conspiracy theories of the antebellum period and today, and not just in the way suggested by reams of articles analyzing support for President Trump. The Trump phenomenon, most analyses suggest, stems from broad class and racial insecurities: fear of what a black president means for whiteness, or of how Latino immigration threatens white communities. Group status anxiety, according to this view, drives the paranoid style.

martin draper

A period map shows the ruins on Mount Benedict in what is now Somerville.

In fact, the collective insecurity we experience in our encounters with other races may provoke less paranoia than the intimate experiences of our still largely intraracial lives. Whatever comfort racially insecure whites find within the homogeneity of their communities and churches is bound to be lost when their own once-trustworthy white acquaintances start questioning their jokes.

The antebellum experience again suggests a parallel. At the peak of anti-Catholicism, anti-Masonry, and anti-Mormonism, social and economic opportunities were not shrinking but expanding for white Protestant men. Slavery remained relatively unchallenged, and Indian removal made land cheap and readily available. In Boston, immigration did little at first to increase competition for skilled labor; the immigrant Irish took pick-and-shovel jobs or worked as domestics. The relative status of non-elite whites had rarely been better.

Yet even under these rosy conditions, a significant number of white Protestants believed the pope was digging that tunnel under the Atlantic. Others believed that Masons were overthrowing the government. Still others swore that Mormons were kidnapping helpless young white women.

In August 1834, one group of these men, set apart from the mainstream of Boston society not by race, class, or religion, but by their increasingly unacceptable manners, acted out a paranoid fantasy.

None of this should encourage us to deny the reality of Islamophobia or its ultimate foundation in our religious, racial, and foreign policy history. But the recent alarm over Sharia may be more than just a knee-jerk response to unfamiliar forces. It as likely originates in the misinterpreted experience of many Americans: having their speech and behavior judged by to a new and apparently alien code.

Dealing with Islamophobia requires more than just refining our manners. It means the difficult and presently unpopular work of empathizing with those who seem to neither desire nor deserve the effort.

Excerpt from:

How political correctness led to Islamophobia - The Boston Globe

Political correctness can be like a nagging cold. Its bothersome and a little painful, but it wont put you in the hospital or kill you.

Take the recent news out of Princeton University, the elite Ivy League institution attended by Woodrow Wilson, James Madison, and Jeff Bezos, to name just a few.

Princeton has just created a new position Interpersonal Violence Clinician and Mens Engagement Manager. The job holders first task will be fitting that unwieldy title on a business card.

After that, he or she will seek out and try to eliminate toxic masculinity on campus. You know, as opposed to wholesome masculinity.

Most people just shake their heads at this college nonsense. It probably wont do much lasting damage. Unless, that is, youre a tuition-paying parent of a Princeton student.

The school estimates that it will set you back about $67,000 a year perhaps $67,150 after this latest hire.

Not to be outdone, the University of Iowas student newspaper has discovered a heretofore unknown and unfair privilege intelligence.

The paper theorizes that cognitive privilege is kind of like white privilege, conferring unearned benefits on people who were blessed by accident of birth.

Again, this is relatively innocuous, and its pretty obvious that whoever dreamed up cognitive privilege has not been affected by that particular malady.

In the adult world, at this very moment progressives are incensed at the Department of Justice. Thats because the DOJ is using the term illegal alien, which is a highly offensive expletive in some circles.

Unfortunately for the easily offended, illegal alien is the very precise and official term for people who are in this country without permission.

They are aliens, and they are here illegally.

Hence, illegal aliens.

But the Chicago Tribune, as one example, claims that the term implies that all illegal aliens are criminals. Thats one of those dog whistles that can only be heard by the Tribune writer and his fellow travelers on the far left.

So, yes, political correctness can be almost comical when it dictates which pronoun is acceptable in polite company or how an illegal alien should be described. Just hearing personhole cover can bring a smile to most of us.

But there are far too many cases where P.C. is downright deadly, as it likely was in the death of Justine Damond. As you know, the 40-year-old Australian woman was shot and killed by a cop in Minneapolis. He was the shooter, but political correctness almost surely was an accomplice.

Ultra-liberal city leaders, desperate to find and hire Somalian cops, pinned a badge on Somalia-born Mohamed Noor, who seems to have been temperamentally unsuited for the job. Noor, who killed the pajama-clad woman as she approached the squad car, has yet to explain why he opened fire.

Then there is Sergio Martinez, the illegal alien who had been deported 20 times and returned to allegedly sexually assault at least two women in Portland. The feds had asked Portland authorities to hold Martinez in jail so he could be deported once again, but that sanctuary city doesnt think much of federal law. The meth-addicted thug was released, Portland officials and many residents were able to feel virtuous, but two womens lives have been altered forever.

Of course, the poster boy for P.C. madness is Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, accused of killing Kate Steinle in the sanctuary city of San Francisco. Like his pal in Portland, Lopez-Sanchez was deported time and again before being released back to the streets of San Francisco.

People died at Fort Hood because Major Nidal Hasans colleagues were reluctant to report his erratic behavior and radical sympathies, lest they be called Islamophobic.

Similarly, Omar Mateen, who slaughtered 49 people at an Orlando nightclub, had been questioned by the FBI about his ties to terrorism. We will never be sure whether the hyper-P.C. of the Obama administration played a role in the agencys decision to remove him from the terror watch list.

The same thing has happened time and again throughout the USA and Europe, where P.C. has pretty much replaced God in the hearts and minds of the cognoscenti.

So, yes, we can enjoy a chuckle at the P.C. police, who rigidly try to enforce their laws and punish any malefactors who refuse to play along. But political correctness all too often leads to genuine human suffering.

Actor and director Clint Eastwood recently said about political correctness, We are killing ourselves. He didnt mean it literally, but in fact people have died because of this scourge.

And more will surely die unless we stop the P.C. madness. It is way beyond being a laughing matter.

See the article here:

Political Correctness Kills - BernardGoldberg.com

Imagine if Donald Trump, meeting a Kenyan for the first time, asked, You are a woman, arent you? Or, if during a recession, he muttered, Everybody was saying we must have more leisure. Now they are complaining that they are unemployed. Or to a group of Australian Aborigines: Do you still throw spears at one another?

Fortunately, these are not Trumpisms. The president has his own collection of doozies, whether in public gatherings or leaked by his oh-so-loyal administration.

FILE -- In this Oct. 26, 2011 file photo, Britain's Queen Elizabeth II, left, and her husband Prince Philip attend the opening of the new Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne, Australia. (AP Photo/Andrew Brownbill)

No, the above gaffes and hundreds more are the wit, wisdom and legacy of Prince Philip, the royal consort of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. When Philip, 96, retired from public life this week, he took with him not only a royal standard for patriotism and devotion to duty, but a scalding some might say scarlet -- streak of biting sarcasm.

He loved what Britain stood for, though even he could see its weak spots. People think theres a rigid class system here, but dukes have been known to marry chorus girls. Some have even married Americans.

Born into Greek royalty in 1921, Philip was a dashing naval officer who wooed and wed Elizabeth, the young woman who would become queen. Even before the term political correctness had been coined, Philip was politically incorrect. I would like to go to Russia very much, he said in 1967, although the bastards murdered half my family. After attending a concert by Tom Jones, Philip asked the crooner, What do you gargle with, pebbles?

He did not mellow with age. On a visit to China in 1986, he warned a group of British exchange students, If you stay here much longer, youll all be slitty-eyed. Years later, he defended his comment. The Chinese werent worried about it, so why should anyone else (be)?

FILE -- June 6, 2013: Prince Philip, center, the husband of Britain's Queen Elizabeth II attends a garden party at Buckingham Palace in London. (AP/Pool)

It wasnt just foreigners he offended. He once asked a driving instructor in Scotland (home of scotch whiskey), How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the test?

Some of his witticisms damaged not only his reputation, but his wifes popularity. Imagine being at the dinner table at Buckingham Palace after some of his comments became public. Yet to the outside world, the queen and Philip presented a rock-solid image of unity.

FILE -- June 17, 2013: Britain's Prince Philip leaves the London Clinic in central London. (AP)

As he removes himself from the glare of publicity, Philip will be remembered not only for his caustic wit, but his unfaltering loyalty to the crown, and the traditions of Great Britain. He loved what Britain stood for, though even he could see its weak spots. People think theres a rigid class system here, but dukes have been known to marry chorus girls. Some have even married Americans.

Enjoy your rest, your royal highness. Youve earned it.

John Moody is Executive Vice President, Executive Editor for Fox News. A former Rome bureau chief for Time magazine, he is the author of four books including "Pope John Paul II : Biography."

Read this article:

Prince Philip, the grandfather of political incorrectness - Fox News

Denton County, a small area north of Dallas, is host to a diverse populationofold-timers and college students. Its also home tolocal sheriff Tracy Murphree, whos been makingheadlines thanks to a history of controversial Facebook posts. Following the May terrorist attack atan Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, for example, he called for an end to political correctness and warned against an enemy with an ideology hell bent on killing you.

The post, in which he declared, The left wants to cater to the very group that would kill every group they claim to support . . . What will it take? This happening at a concert in Dallas or a school in Denton County? If we dont do something quick this country will die of political correctness, soon wentviral. Murphree then went public to defend his remarks, which he stands by, though he refused a recent request for comment. During an interview with Fox Business, hesaid that his words were on target and claimed he was simply voicing the thoughts of many others over the last few years. He also stated he wrote the post with his own children and the citizens he is sworn to protect in mind.

[The response] shocked me, said Murphree. I expected a lot of criticism from the left, from liberals, but I expected that more locally than worldwide. I dont understand why a Texas sheriffs Facebook post has gone worldwide.

But the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, issued a statement following the post calling for Murphreeto reaffirm his commitment to equal justice for all county residentsregardless of faith, ethnicity or national origin.

The guy has a serious anger management problem, and sometimes in certain combat situations thats good, but this guys walking the streets as a public safety officer and its just not good to know that something could set him off that shouldnt, said Larry Beck, an active Denton citizen who started Denton Doings, a blog that covers local events. It sets a poor example for his men, too.

Because Murphree is an elected official with a good reputation in law enforcement, there is not much to be done in the way of disciplinary action other than monitoring the behavior and hoping he does not act on his beliefs, according to Beck. However, this is not the first time Murphree has made controversialcommentstargeting minority groups. And some feel that the possibility of violenceis real, either fromMurphree himself or someone inspired by him.

The fact that hes in a reputable position, county sheriff, saying things like thatit doesnt bode well for the city and it can affect others who have the tendency to actually carry out the actions of what some people say, said Beck. That would bother me;that should bother any citizen.

Beck continued, As long as we keep a level head and keep an eye on him, I think hopefully hell either straighten his act out or hell step over that line thatll probably allow us to take legal action against him. I just hope nobody gets seriously hurt or killed in the process before it happens.

Shortly before his 2016 election, Murphree made a different Facebook post, in which he threatened to beat any transgender women unconscious whotried to use the restroom with his daughter.

This whole bathroom thing is craziness I have never seen, Murphree wrote in a post that has since been deleted. All I can say is this: If my little girl is in a public womens restroom and a man, regardless of how he may identify, goes into the bathroom, he will then identify as a John Doe until he wakes up in whatever hospital he may be taken to. Your identity does not trump my little girls safety. I identify as an overprotective father that loves his kids and would do anything to protect them.

Sharon Kremer, who has lived in Denton County her whole life and relies on Murphree as her first responder, also has concerns about the sheriffs behavior, stressing the importance of having a leader with a steady hand, and a cool head.

As an early senior aged, single female, living on a couple of acres by herself, it doesnt make us feel secure, said Kremer, who feels that Murphree could benefit greatly from counseling. Just because we have a Twitter-happy president doesnt mean that thats a model. . . . Its a piece of erratic behavior, and I think all of us would agree that nobody needs to handle firearms and be erratic in behavior, and unsound in judgment, and reactionary. The third strike must come with some kind of consequences.

Citing his right as an American citizen to weigh in on national issues, Murphree continues to speak his mind.

I think political correctness is one of the reasons that these things happen. People are afraid theyre going to be called what Ive been called: a racist, or islamophobe, or a hate mongerer, he said earlier this year. People dont speak out because they dont want to be called those things, and Im not afraid to be called those things. Im not that, I just speak the truth.

Read more here:

Texas sheriff's Facebook war on political correctness upsets residents - Salon

Submitted by mexia2010 on Wed, 08/02/2017 - 4:27pm

By Roxanne Thompson Staff Writer Some doctoral theses elicit a yawn and collect dust, but the thesis Andy Hopkins is working on may elicit sparks among those who value politically correctness. Hopkins is the son of Gwen Bartsch, who has a home at Lake Mexia and is an active member of the Mexia Lions Club. He spent 21 years in the Army, specializing as a Korean linguist, cryptographer and military intelligence officer. Now retired from the Army, Hopkins works at Wacos L3 Technologies, which provides security for military and commercial customers around the world. Hopkins already had an MBA and decided to pursue a doctorate. His thesis is on political correctness and its corrosive effects on peoples lives, freedom and national security. The United States has a history of embracing free speech, he noted, but as political correctness has grown in strength, free speech has suffered, and Americans now have to be fearful of what they say, write and think. We have to be afraid of using the wrong word; a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, racist, sexist or homophobic, he said. Weve seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this has been the case but we now have this situation in our country; and if you do any research in political correctness and where it comes from, your eyes will be opened.

To read more of this story, pick up a copy of Thursday's edition of The Mexia News. Subscribe online or call 254-562-2868.

Link:

Political correctness: The great disease in this century - Mexia Daily News

Maybe I'm getting a better perspective, or perhaps getting worn down. I don't know. But I'm pretty neutral when it comes to the state flag. If I had an ancestor who had died in the Confederate army, or one who was a slave perhaps I would feel differently. Let's review. The flag was officially adopted after the Civil War in April 1894. The referendum for a new design was soundly defeated by 64 percent of voters in 2012. There has been insufficient support to put it back on the ballot in the 2018 election, although, I understand, it could be removed by the Mississippi Legislature should they risk doing so.

Since the shooting of nine black worshipers in a South Carolina church on June 17, 2015 by a white supremacist, there has been a renewed effort to not only change the flag, but also remove other symbols of Confederate history. First the flag: Mississippi is the only state that displays such a flag. After the 2015 shooting, South Carolina removed a separate Confederate flag that they flew alongside their own state flag. Most of our state's universities have removed the state flag. A court in Clarksdale has removed the flag, as has the state Capitol in Jackson.

Next - other symbols of the Confederacy: In 2010 Colonel Reb was replaced by the Black Bear as the official symbol of Ole Miss. Ironically many believe a black man was the inspiration for the Colonel. From 1896 till his death in 1955 blind Jim Ivy attended and supported many Ole Miss athletic events. He famously said: "I have never seen Ole Miss lose!" The politically correct administration at the university has also discontinued the singing of "Dixie" at games. In New Orleans four monuments of Confederate heroes have been removed from public grounds.

Where will this end? 'Ole Miss' is the nickname for a slave owner's wife. Should that go? A building on the campus was built by slaves. Should that be destroyed? But our first President, George Washington, was a slave owner. Should the Washington Monument go? The architect of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, was a slave owner. Should it be ripped up? What about our history books - surely the Civil War needs to be edited severely we'll soon say. Let's not include Sherman's raids (he was a Yankee) when he devastated such towns as Meridian, burning most houses and stealing food (destroying what he didn't need) in the middle of winter in February 1864.

I was not born in the South. In 1957 I immigrated from England. That country too has lost a few battles. On the bank of the River Thames in London there is a statue of Queen Boadicea who ruled ancient Brits immediately before Roman times. Although flogged and her daughters raped, she led her army against the Roman invaders. Eventually she lost, but her statue remains as a reminder of past bravery and history. Shouldn't Mississippi do the same?

Peter Gilderson is a Northsider.

Read the original post:

Where will all this political correctness end? - Northside Sun

In response to the July 30 letter to the editor "Part of history lost," I agree that replacing the names of Confederate generals Robert. E. Lee, John Hood, and Nathan Bedford Forrest on local streets in Broward is carrying political coreectness way too far.

Like it or not, this country fought the Civil War, and those generals are part of our national history. George Washington had slaves, and so did seven other sitting presidents, including Thomas Jefferson, who wrote much of our historic laws and documents. Of course slavery was wrong no one disputes that. But would those local idiots wanting to replace the street names advocate removing these historic names from public places as well?

My forebearers fought in the American Revolution, and my ancestors from Pennsylvania fought with the Union in the Civil War. Many in our family are married to descendents of those who served on the Confederate side. We all love each other and respect our forebearers, who did what they believed in during that time period.

From what I have been told, these days very little American history is taught in schools, so it is doubtful that younger people even know who these generals were with the possible exception of Lee. Lincoln stressed "with malice toward none..." and respect for all. That should apply to our nation's history all of it.

In my humble opinion, the current craze of "political correctness" that is sweeping this country has gone far beyond the point of common sense. Let's honor and respect all Americans and try to focus on working together for the common good.

Kathleen Dempsey, Pompano Beach

View post:

Renaming Hollywood streets takes political correctness too far | Letters - Sun Sentinel

When theBroadway musical Natasha, Pierre & The Great Comet of 1812 had to replace former Hamilton cast member Okieriete Oak Onaodowan, the producers turned to Tony Award-winning actor Mandy Patinkin. The problem some people had with this casting decision? Onaodowan is black. Patinkin is white.

Patinkin was to join the play for a limited run from August 15 to September 3 to keep the production running after Onoadowans departure. But given the backlash from the theater community as well as social media outrage, Patinkin backed out of the play.I hear what members of the community have said, and I agree with them. I am a huge fan of Oak and I will, therefore, not be appearing in the show, the Homeland actor tweeted when he bowed out officially on Friday.

Show creator Dave Malloy tweeted an apology to those outraged, saying,We regret our mistake deeply, and wish to express our apologies to everyone who felt hurt and betrayed by these actions. Malloy had also explained that the bringing in of Patinkin was an effort to boost profits with star power, as ticket sales were catastrophically low after August 13, the date that Onaodowan is set to leave the production.

But what's most fascinating about this entire story is this: The musical is based on a portion of the Leo Tolstoy book "War and Peace," which has an entirely white cast of characters. Onoadowan had even previously replaced Josh Groban, who is white, in his role of Pierre. No one complained then. Not only that, but in the book Pierre is described as "an outcast. The awkward, illegitimate son of a dazzlingly wealthy Count, he was educated abroad but returns to Russia now [that] his father's health is in decline."

The casting of a white actor and then a black actor and then finishing with a white actor suggests the producers were doing exactly what should satisfy social justice warriors: They weren't thinking about race. They were hiring the best actors for the job. Why should the role be an exclusively black role after a black actor does a run as the character?

Most people arefamiliar with the #OscarsSoWhite debate of the past few years, a legitimate observation that the Academy Awards historically have been almost exclusively rewarding Caucasian performers. That situation is clearly improving, but the theater has always faced a tricky balancing act between available talent and available roles in plays and musicals.

Unlike cinema, however, Broadway productions have a fairly non-representational audience. Industry research published by Quartz last year showed that a full 83 percent of domestic theatergoers are white while 4.9 percent are Hispanic, 4.8 percent are black, and 3.9 percent are Asian. Almost exactly paralleling that, 84 percent of actors in Broadway plays are white 74 percent in musicals while only 11 percent of plays and 17 percent of musicals have black performers.

Related: Attacks on Trump at the Tony Awards Fall Flat

The fact of the matter is, too many people who have never actually attended a play or musical are happy to gripe from the sidelines, whatever the imagined slight or offense. And that's what torpedoed Patinkin's chance of playing Pierre in "Natasha, Pierre & The Great Comet of 1812" even though the original actor was white in the production and even though the original character in the novelthe musical's based upon is white.

Related: Social Justice Warriors Are Trying to Censor This Show

These are the times we live in, when people look at a tiny facet, a sliver, of a far larger story and make snap, knee-jerk decisions about whether it aligns with their sense of fairness and justice or not. As American humorist Mark Twain once wrote, "Never let truth get in the way of a good story." Perhaps he was ahead of his time.

Dave Taylor, based in Boulder, Colorado, has been writing about consumer electronics, technology and pop culture for many years and runs the popular site AskDaveTaylor.com.

Read more here:

How Political Correctness Doomed a Broadway Show - LifeZette

First they came for New Orleans Confederate monuments. Then they came for the Johnny Reb memorial to Confederate soldiers in Orlando, Florida. The Robert E. Lee statue in Lee Park in Charlottesville, Virginia, is slated for removal pending a court decision. Now, the forces of political correctness have their sights on the five Confederate monuments that line Richmond, Virginias famed Monument Avenue.

The citys Monument Avenue Commission, established by Mayor Levar Stoney to examine the controversy surrounding the monuments in Richmond, began its deliberations on Monday as the commissions first subcommittee the State of Confederate Memorials Group, which is tasked with reviewing how other localities are handling their Confederate monuments, met to examine the issue.

The commissions three other subcommittees are the Historians Review Group, the New Monuments and Interpretation Group tasked with answering the question if monuments are added, where can they best be erected and interpreted? and the Community Engagement Group. These other subcommittees will all have met by Thursday evening, at which time will be held the first of two public hearings on the monuments.

While the commission is an attempt to examine all sides of the monuments controversy, critics say that the fact the monuments are controversial at all is a symptom of left-wing political correctness run amok.

"Contemporary Americans have a tendency to 'forget who we are' and engage in what has become known as political correctness," said Dr. Lee Cheek, dean of East Georgia State College and a senior fellow at the Alexander Hamilton Institute, to LifeZette. "The advocates of political correctness want to corrupt history for temporary political gains more than they desire to keep or restore it, and their efforts are, sadly, a disease on the body politic."

One such advocate is a local radical left-wing group The Virginia Defenders for Freedom, Justice & Equality, which is transparently calling for the commission to manipulate the odds in favor of removal. Not only does the group wish the commission to declare publicly that it is considering the option of removing them, but it also wants to stack the commission with proponents of removal.

The area NBC affiliate, WWBT, reported: "The Virginia Defenders for Freedom, Justice & Equality are calling on the commission to ... invite Richmonders who have already called for the statues to be removed to be on the commission."

"Put these statues in a museum. Not on public land maintained by my tax dollars for a statue that represents something that I hate with every fiber of my being," Phil Wilayto of the Virginia Defenders for Freedom, Justice & Equality told WWBT. "As long as this statue is up, we are telling the rest of the world that Richmond thinks Robert E. Lee was a pretty cool fellow and the cause he fought for was noble."

"Mr. Wilayton and others want to destroy an historical consciousness that is necessary for our republic to persevere," said Cheek. "As former Secretary of State Rice argued recently, to 'sanitize' history is to do a disservice to the living and the dead. To so freely and cavalierly dismiss Robert E. Lee, for example, who was a truly great figure in American life, is [to] basically suggest the only important people are those in political favor at present."

Unfortunately, if the now fallen monuments in New Orleans and elsewhere are any indication not to mention the countless other examples of political correctness gone mad Wilayton and his allies may be successful in their anti-Confederate crusade. "The operatives of political correctness in New Orleans and Richmond and in other locales have met with some success of late," he observed.

"With Orwellian irony, they succeeded in having a U.S Navy ship named for a person who hated the Navy (Cesar Chavez) and have imposed 'speech codes' (with the actual purpose of restricting speech) on many college campuses as well as more destructive examples of assaulting First Amendment rights and redefining history," Cheekcontinued.

Ultimately, according to Cheek, an assault upon First Amendment rights is fundamentally at the heart of theLeft's assault upon Confederate monuments. "The greatest threat to Mr. Wilayton and his fellow zealots is an environment in which free and uninhibited discussion and disagreement can take place," he said.

"In fact," Cheek said, "diversity of thought is the opposite of political correctness, and is at the heart of a free society. The advocates of removal are really advocating censorship against free and diverse discussion."

(photo credit, homepage image: Billy Hathorn; photo credit, article image: Ron Cogswell)

Link:

The Fight for the Fate of Richmond's Confederate Monuments Begins - LifeZette

The scene is set. Your mark is judged as disparaging. Can the Examining Attorney reject it? Fear not, because the Supreme Court in Tam cried: Free Speech! In recent years, the delimitation between First Amendment rights and trademark protection has resulted in repeated clashes, with inconsistent applications of the disparagement clause in Section 2(A) of the Lanham Act. As a result, it was little surprise that earlier this year the Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the provision that bars registration of disparaging marks is facially unconstitutional, and to provide clearer guidelines to the US Patent and Trademark Office.

In 2011, Simon Tam filed an application with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to register the mark THE SLANTS for his rock band. Tam and his band were aware of the controversial nature of this term (slant being a derogatory epithet used to refer to persons of Asian ancestry), but they, as advocates and role models in the Asian American community, had hoped to reclaim the insult to empower their community much like other marginalized groups have done before them. Unfortunately, their hopes turned out to be in vain as the USPTO subsequently rejected their application.

In response to Tams challenge, the government advanced several reasons as to why the disparagement clause does not in their opinion - violate the protection of free speech under the First Amendment. First, it contended that trademarks constitute government speech and therefore fall outside the umbrella of the First Amendment. To persuade the justices, the government relied on the Walker v. Texas Division case, wherein a greatly divided court rendered a 5-4 decision finding constitutional a law that denied the use of confederate flags on specialty license plates. Interestingly, the dissenters in the Walker case constituted the majority in Tam, affording them an opportunity to curb the use of this doctrine, and declare that the Walker case delineates the outer bounds of the government speech doctrine, rather than its touchstone. In fact, in Tam, the court unanimously rejected the governments argument because, they found, the USPTO does not independently edit or cancel marks, lacking the intentionality and consistency of message sufficient to be considered government speech. On this, Justice Alito observed: if the federal registration of a trademark makes the mark government speech, the Federal Government is babbling prodigiously and incoherently.

The USPTO also argued that trademarks can be compared to similar government programs that subsidize speech expressing a particular viewpoint. The court noted, however, that all the cases advanced by the government involved the governments payment of cash subsidies or their equivalent, which is antithetical to the fee system in place for the registration of trademarks, where it is the applicant who pays fees to file and maintain the registration.

Finally, the government insisted that ultimately - the function of trademarks is to identify goods and services emanating from a particular commercial source, which classifies them as commercial speech and in turn grants limited First Amendment protection. True, trademarks are undoubtedly strictly intertwined with commercial activity, but even if trademarks were considered to be commercial speech - the issue is whether the disparagement clause could withstand the appropriate constitutional test. Specifically, restrictions on commercial speech must serve a substantial interest and be narrowly drawn. The USPTO contended that the first interest the clause advances is preventing underrepresented groups from exposure to demeaning messages in advertisement. The court clarified that the First Amendment however, protects speech that may be considered hateful just as strongly as any other speech. Then, the government explained that the orderly flow of commerce would be detrimentally affected by discriminatory conduct. Again, the court did not receive the argument and held that the disparagement clause is sufficiently broad to deny registration even to marks that oppose discrimination, rendering the governments argument moot.

Surprisingly, while the Court was unanimous (8-0) in reaching its decision, it was split in half as to the reasoning. Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan believed that the disparagement clause constituted viewpoint discrimination and is subject to rigorous constitutional analysis, which rendered consideration of any of the parties constitutional argument unnecessary. On the other hand, Justices Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Breyer agreed that trademark laws must at least survive Central Hudsons intermediate-scrutiny analysis. But the disparagement clause failed that test too.

By striking down the disparagement clause, the Court not only left free speech advocates and Simon Tam cheering, but also REDSKINS fans, who will see the fight against cancellation of their teams marks supported by a much stronger argument. Trademark litigants too, thanks to Tam, will now be in a better position to experiment and raise constitutional challenges to trademark law doctrines.

See more here:

Political Correctness: A 21st Century Stronghold Now Under Siege by Trademarks - Lexology (registration)

A Times article which says the governments plans to improve the process for changing gender will harm children has been slammed.

On Sunday, the government announced a move to streamline and de-medicalise the Gender Recognition Act, to allow transgender people to more easily change their legal gender.

The progressive move was welcomed by a huge number of LGBT activists.

However, it prompted a backlash from some who desperately yelped that political correctness had gone too far. Too many rights for too many people, it seems.

Today in The Times, Clare Foges, a former speechwriter for Prime Minister David Cameron, wrote that the new reforms which have not been proposed in any concrete way would create a world of confusion and anxiety for children.

She states that giving children the freedom to self-define which seems to be outside of these potential reforms would worsen mental health problems in young people.

I am no expert on children, she says.

But, she continues, seeming to express intimate knowledge on the subject, childrenare being led to believe, on social media and in schools, that gender is simply a lifestyle choice.

Foges also says all of the great legislative battles on equality have been won, which will be news to many campaigners, before going on a tirade laced with hypotheticals.

If they dont enjoy girly things like make-up are they perhaps a boy?

She then confuses the concepts of gender and sexuality, saying: If they have a crush on people of both sexes could they be agender?

Foges adds: If they simply feel different to everyone else and uncomfortable in their own skin, common enough in adolescence, might they be genderfluid?

This viewpoint was dismantled by Susie Green, the chief executive of Mermaids, a charity which campaigns for the rights of gender nonconforming children.

Once again, people who this will never affect, who have no issues around their gender and never will are attempting to dictate to a vulnerable population how they should be supported, Green told PinkNews.

Pointing to the latest Stonewall statistics, she added: Trans children have a 45 percent suicide attempt rate, and 1 in 10 young trans people receive death threats in school due to ignorance and prejudice.

Surely, she added, any moves to both educate and support these young people should be embraced.

She said that young trans people feel invalidated, and that articles like this question their identity and sense of self.

This is not political correctness, this is children dying.

On the point Foges makes about all of the great legislative battles on equality having been won, Green said: I absolutely dont think so.

Weve got a very long way to go in looking at the way trans people are treated in all walks of life.

There still needs to be far greater protections, not to mention the way theyre depicted in the media.

Essentially, we want children to grow up and be valued members of society, so we have to acknowledge and embrace the differences that are there.

She said that not doing so is not helpful, and can actually be very detrimental to those young people affected.

Mermaids provided quotes from the father of a trans child, who said that our kids and youth are scared they are being bullied in our schools, they are being demonised in our press and they are self-harming.

A Stonewall spokesperson said: Were disappointed to see another attack on trans identities this week, and these comments certainly underline the need for more education.

Its vital that all young people feel supported and know that all identities are valid and, no matter who they are, they will be loved and accepted.

Foges is not the only person who has been given the chance to object to trans people gaining more rights in a major national publication.

Helen Lewis, the deputy editor of the New Statesman, wrote in The Times that coming out as trans should be treated like changing nationalities.

And a Sunday Times article also drew criticism for the way it reported the governments proposals.

Tim Shipman and Jason Allardyce wrote: Adults will be able to change their gender legally without a doctors diagnosis under government plans that will transform British society.

Men will be able to identify themselves as women and women as men and have their birth certificates altered to record their new gender.

Women would identify as women and men as men under the new plans, which acknowledge trans rights.

Paul Embery, a Fire Brigades Union official, also came out against the governments plan, comparing gender identity to weight, height and attractiveness.

He added that forcing society to recognise someone as one gender when he/she maintains the anatomy of another is ludicrous.

The FBU has refused to condemn Emberys remarks, despite Stonewall saying that comments like this underline how much work there is still to be done to make trans equality a reality.

See the article here:

Times article on trans reforms slammed: 'This is not political ... - PinkNews

I support political correctnessnot because I come from a marginalized background, but because I am a human being. As a human being I understand the value of political correctness because I am aware of the harm that words can have on a person. I have learned the weight that words can carry.

The annual Leadership Conference for Best Buddiesa charity supporting individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilitieswas this past weekend, and I reflected on my own time there two years ago. I reveled in the amount of strength and talent that could be found in people with disabilities when given the right spaces to showcase them. After spending so much time defending the humanity of the friends I had grown to love in my school, I finally got a glimpse of the kind of world we could live in. Best Buddies goal is to run their organization out of business by creating a world so welcoming and accepting that an organization creating inclusive spaces would no longer be necessarythey would exist naturally all around us.

We tried to create this world at my high school. One important step was the Spread the Word to End the Word campaign my school participated in each year. It was meant to stop the use of the R word because, believe it or not, words hurt people.

Throughout the years, the R word has developed negative connotations. People use it in place of words like stupid, dumb, ridiculous, crazy, and countless other negative words. This implies that people with intellectual disabilities are all these things. Throughout my years in Best Buddies, I had to see my friends excluded from so many social spaces because of the hostile environment created for them through all the negative views stacked against them. I had to witness the smile fade away from one of my best friends face as he told me about the way some of my classmates made him leave their lunch table. The need for a campaign asking people to say, this person has an intellectual disability, instead of, this person is mentally r*******, became obvious.

Through Best Buddies, I was presented with more appropriate terminology, terminology that defined people by their status as a person and not their disability. Best Buddies gave me my first real introduction to political correctness. It provided me with the proper language to help ensure my friends were being treated with the respect they deserved. Never in a million years would I have thought that being in favor of it was a sign of weakness or coddling. The whole thing is quite reasonable. If something you say makes another person uncomfortable or feel less than others, why would you continue to say it?

If you suddenly saw one child hit another, you wouldnt yell at the child who was hurt for being upset. You would tell the other child to stop. The same concept applies. PC culture is about avoiding verbal abuse, just as people should avoid physical abuse.

Opponents of political correctness argue that it is an attack on free speech. They argue that, in addition to limiting the oppressor by not allowing them to attack others, it also affects the oppressed by preventing them from welcoming different opinions, therefore stunting their capability for intellectual growth.

Why should we welcome opinions that intentionally discredit who we are? Being politically correct doesnt hurt anyone. Youre not going to feel bad because there havent been enough racial slurs yelled at you this week.

It wouldnt affect a person who will never be on the receiving end of those slurs. But rejecting political correctness does hurt individuals. Its not just about not liking what we hear because we dont agree with it. These hateful words are bullets that slowly tear down at our humanity with every shot fired.

The argument that silencing hateful speech would hurt me more because I wouldnt be able to grow intellectually absolutely baffles me. Do you know what actually has a direct effect on a persons ability to perform academically? Their mental health. Emotional well-being is the real prerequisite for intellectual growth. Having to listen to hateful slurs because people dont listen to your calls to end the use of dehumanizing language is what tears it down bit by bit.

Opponents call for educated discussion by asking that all emotional attachment to the issues to be left out. We cant be objective in issues that deal with our humanity. Anything we could possibly contribute on the topic would be inherently subjective. There is no way to disconnect the two. You cant leave your identity at the door for what are thought of as purely intellectual discussions.

The disconnect here is that ideas and opinions cannot be held to the same caliber as their negative impact on human lives. Im not sorry that you feel like you cant freely express your prejudiced thoughtsnot when you want to do so at the expense of another persons existence.

Laura S. Veira-Ramirez 20 is a Crimson editorial editor in Leverett House.

`Political Correctness' Hurts Liberals

To the Editors of The Crimson: In his opinion piece titled "The Myth of `Politically Correct'" [December 11], J.D. Conner

The Good Lie

Good lies are all damned, and theyre damned for good. But youve still got to love them.

Summers Decries 'Creeping Totalitarianism' at Colleges

Former University President Lawrence H. Summers discussed recent campus discourse and protests about race at colleges across the country during an interview, criticizing excesses of political correctness on the part of students and administrators.

Students Debate Merits, Pitfalls of Political Correctness

Q&A with Walter S. Isaacson

More here:

I'm a Female Minority at Harvard, and This is Why I Support PC Culture - Harvard Crimson

The transit system that serves San Francisco is under fire for refusing to release video from surveillance cameras that captured several recent train attacks by groups of young black riders.

Assault, robbery and rape are up 41 percent over last year on the vast train system known as BART, or Bay Area Rapid Transit. But several recent attacks by groups of young men has the agency under public scrutiny. One victim is suing to warn riders of the risk they face when riding BART.

Approximately 30 of them invaded our car. They beat and robbed a number of individuals, said Rusty Stapp, who was returning home with his wife and 19-year-old daughter. They jumped on me, and began kicking me in the ribs. The individuals (police) saw on video were repeat offenders. They knew who they were. They had them in the system.

Yet BART refused to release the video, claiming several of the alleged perpetrators might be under 18.

Especially when (a crime) is involving juveniles as these last two incidents have, the police department makes the determination that there is not a public interest in sending all that information out, said BART spokesman Taylor Huckaby.

But Debora Allen, one of nine BART directors, said the agency is concealing the real reason putting political correctness over public safety.

They want to withhold the video release for fear of creating racial stereotyping, Allen told us last week.

She cited a July 7, 2017, internal memo to BART directors. The agency said it would not issue a press release on a similar mob attack in June because it would paint an inaccurate picture of the BART system as crime ridden.

It would also unfairly affect and characterize riders of color, leading to sweeping generalizations in media reports and a high level of racially insensitive commentary, the memo said.

Allen questioned BART Assistant General Manager Kerry Hamill about that explanation, saying I dont understand what role the color of ones skin plays in this issue. Can you explain?

Hamill responded that members of the media only wanted to sensationalize the story and were only interested in ratings and clicks.

If we were to regularly feed the news media video of crimes on our system that involve minority suspects, particularly when they are minors, we would certainly face questions as to why we were sensationalizing relatively minor crimes and perpetuating false stereotypes in the process, said.

Allen told Fox News she was disappointed to read the memo.

Race should play no role, she said. With respect to the video, I think it is important for the riding public to see some of the ways people steal and assault people on the trains.

Stapp appeared last week before the BART board to complain.

I think if you were truly committed to (public safety) there would be a lot more interaction with the public, like making the video available of these incidents, Stapp said.

Stapp is seeking to sue BART for $3 million for gross negligence.

Its the closest Ive ever been to feeling like I might die, he told Fox News.

Paul Justi, Stapps attorney, said BART should release the surveillance videos.

Others said there is a fine line between privacy and protecting the public.

We have a lot of videos in this district admitted Board Director Joel Keller. There is this balance between privacy and openness.

A decision on releasing crime video is expected next month.

See more here:

San Francisco transit officials accused of putting political correctness above public safety - New York Post

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Theres good sense behind President Trumps military ban on men longing to be women and on women aspiring to manhood.

First, there is no persuasive reason for taxpayers (or the Bank of Beijing) to go on financing military sex-change operations.

It also makes political sense for Mr. Trump to give a nod to religious voters. They gave him that crucial but barely-remembered boost in November, when, as first-time blue-state voters, they zipped from pew to booth for The Donald.

Evangelicals will cheer and throw their hats in the air over this Trump position on transgender individuals in the military, said evangelical powerhouse David Lane. His Pastor & Pews organization moved hundreds of thousands evangelicals to the Trump tent in states that had been written off by virtually every Republican but Mr. Trump and Mr. Lane.

Mr. Trumps drawing the line at the transgender point goes a long way to reassure conservatives and Trump Republicans that there is a reason to elect a Republican as president, doubts that sometimes even apply to Mr. Trump.

For example, Mr. Lane said, it was a little disconcerting that the Trump administration announced in February that it would honor President Obamas executive order guaranteeing LGBT workplace protections.

Whether theres a military morale or a fighting-force cohesiveness rationale behind the transgender ban is, well, a challenging question.

Congress repealed the ban on open homosexuals in the military in 2010.

So as things stand, our government allows openly homosexual men and women to wear the uniforms of our armed services but bars transgender persons (who definitionally arent homosexual or bisexual). This makes sense only to people for whom common sense is a distraction, not a desideratum.

Since the transgender ban reflects the desire of the military services chiefs and they urged the commander-in-chief to institute the ban, he has reasonable justification for issuing the order, even though it doesnt jibe with his June 14, 2016, tweet: Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs.

No big worry here. Mr. Trumps LGBT inconsistency isnt going to attract much flak from the people who voted for him. Most of them, like me, probably wince at the stridency and in-your-face intrusiveness of LGBT activists.

Besides, the left habitually combines social engineering and political correctness to skin alive anyone who disagrees, including and especially Mr. Trump.

Despite his openness to LGBTs during the campaign and at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland last summer, the left has labeled him a homophobe, a bigot, a racist, a Nazi, a fascist and, yes the lefts worst epithet a Republican.

So in going along with the recommendation of his military chiefs on the transgender thing, he risks nothing on the left and little on the right except maybe campaign-pledge consistency.

But then we and he can, in the manner of Ralph Waldo Emerson, always disdain consistency as the hobgoblin of little minds. For, as Mr. Emerson himself once said, To be great is to be misunderstood.

Read the original here:

Inconsistency aside, Trump transgender ban makes military, political sense - Washington Times

Published on: July 27, 2017 | Last Updated: July 27, 2017 10:00 AM CST

Its high time someone points out a chunk of double standard in regards to the buzz phrase political correctness, which is being increasingly bandied about in the conservative press.

I myself also take issue with political correctness when it involves speaking and behaving in a fashionable manner contrary to how a person believes to be genuinely correct, albeit short of spewing outright bigoted mean-spirited bile. However, that also goes for appeasing political correctness on the conservative end of the political spectrum, including one the most severe egg-shell-walk inducing topics of all immediately after a deadly terrorist attack on a friendly target.

The best example of such was the horrific 2013 Boston Marathon terrorist bombing, following which the new Liberal party leader Justin Trudeau quite daringly suggested to CBCs Peter Mansbridge that civilized society must look beyond a violent persons atrocious act and towards the offenders motivation for doing so and, yes, maybe even corrupted Western foreign policy therefore possibly also enabling us to learn how to prevent future offences of the kind.

It seemed too obvious to Trudeau to simply spout the scripted response, perhaps described as Well give im a fair trial then well hang im.

No other federal leader dared say anything like this, not even Elizabeth May (from whom Id expected more) nor Mulcair, who seemed to want to say what he truly believed was morally correct but instead decided to not cross the line of the alternate political correctness.

Frank Sterle Jr.

White Rock, B.C.

SHARE YOUR VIEWS

The StarPhoenix welcomes letters, which are limited to 250 words and must include the writers name, street address and phone number.

Submissions will be verified and edited before publication. We publish the names and community of all letter writers. Do not send email attachments. Writing more than one letter a month is discouraged and open letters are not accepted. Send to: 204 Fifth Ave. N., Saskatoon, Sask., S7K 2P1

Fax: 306-657-6437

Email: letters@thestarphoenix.com

Read the original:

Letter of the Day: Double standards of political correctness - Saskatoon StarPhoenix

Justine Damond, an Australian woman, was shot by Mohamed Noor, the policeman she had summoned to a possible crime scene. He is a rookie with questionable experience. Police Chief Janee Harteau, who filed discrimination lawsuits against the city in the past, has resigned while the Mayor, Betsy Hodges, refuses to.

The dead woman may have died from a gunshot, but make no mistake about it; she was killed by political correctness.

This socialist-run hell hole of political correctness is responsible for there being a young, progressive female mayor and a lesbian police chief who selected a Somali for the police force simply because he fit the ethnic and cultural profile she wanted in an attempt to demonstrate the inclusiveness their failed social experiment calls for.

Now Mayor Hodges wants to appoint a new chief, saying he "knows how to communicate," as if a lack of communication was responsible for the woman's death.

Noor was no more qualified to be a policeman than a mayor who thinks communicating with criminals is going to stop them. Officer Noor claimed that he was startled by a loud noise just before he shot Damond. If that's how well unqualified candidates are trained, remind me to never call the Minneapolis police during a thunderstorm.

How many more American cities must the progressive socialists destroy?

Tony Bauer

Nisswa

Link:

Reader Opinion: Political correctness - Brainerd Dispatch

We've all seen those silly trolls who cry 'political correctness gone mad!' at every instance of ethnic diversity.

'A black James Bond? That's political correctness gone mad!'

'A cartoon Rastafarian mouse? That's political correctness gone mad!'

'Actually asian actors playing asian roles? That's political correctness gone mad!'

You get the picture.

And however much you come back with an argument like, 'They are qualified for the job', or 'why not?', or 'we should strive for representation so our children feel they have more choice' or even 'because why does everyone have to be white all. the. time?'

ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW

Sometimes you don't quite have the data to back your opinion up.

Thankfully, every now and then, there is a nerd (we use this phrase very fondly by the way, we should all strive to be nerds) lurking, ready to debate their bums off and win you the argument on totally valid, factual, incontrovertible grounds. Huzzah!

In this case, it's the turn of notionally right wing writer and talking head Paul Joseph Watson, who has a website called Prison Planet. He posted a screenshot of a children's BBC show, depicting a cartoon family in Roman Britain.

He captioned the shot on Twitter, 'Thank God the BBC is portraying Roman Britain as ethnically diverse. I mean, who cares about historical accuracy, right?'

Whilst some of us might simply think, 'well yeah, I might actually prefer for my children to see ethnic diversity on their screens. I'm pretty sure this show doesn't include all of the details of Ancient Rome (washing their mouth out with wee, all the phallic art in Pompeii etc)'.

Others have appeared to agree with Watson, suggesting that a so-called leftwing agenda doesn't need to be pushed into every crevice of every media.

ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW

Well, before we had a moment to think about how to respond, Mike Stuchbery turned up in the comments.

Mike is a historian and someone who clearly takes his profession - and Roman Britain - very seriously.

View post:

This History Buff's Take Down Of A 'Political Correctness Gone Mad' Tweet Is Everything We Needed Today - ELLE UK

Updated July 26, 2017 17:56:32

Older Australians are sick of the younger generation's manners, obsession with technology, punctuality and political correctness, which they say is ruining society.

That was the verdict on the nation's young which emerged from a study commissioned by the Australian Seniors Insurance Agency (ASIA).

Of 1,000 people aged over 50 surveyed by CoreData for the ASIA, 88 per cent thought people in modern Australia were too politically correct.

As well, 74 per cent of seniors said people who strived to be politically correct annoyed them, and 45 per cent said they tried to avoid being politically correct just for the sake of it.

And 86 per cent of those surveyed said the drive to be politically correct was ruining society.

Nan Bosler, president of the Australian Seniors Computer Clubs Association, said seniors found it difficult these days when it came to simple things, such as certain words they used day to day.

"Names we have known things by all our lives, they weren't there out of disrespect or anything like that, it was just a name we knew things by," she said.

"And if we have to always modify what we're saying, it's a little distracting, it's a little bit frustrating.

"We of course do respect other people, so we understand about political correctness.

"But we don't always think it's the way we want to go we want to be true to ourselves."

Ms Bosley said too much sensitivity about the meaning of words and phrases acted as a barrier between younger Australians and people aged over 50.

"I think we can just be too politically correct," she said.

"I suppose it's for the majority that the minority have to sometimes think well 'ok, can't say that anymore, I must remember that'."

CoreData also surveyed Australians over 50 about their views of millennials, which it defined as Australians aged 19 to 35.

The survey found 85 per cent of older Australians found millennial social etiquette confusing.

Ms Bosley said it worried her when she heard "younger people" in restaurants being rude to staff.

"That's probably our upbringing we were respectful to other people, and sometimes young people just don't do that," she said.

Respondents aged over 50 also said they were worried about young people spending too much time on their phones and online.

In fact, digital distraction and over-reliance on technology were two of the top five things that those over 50 thought were the biggest social taboos ranked after racism, smoking and swearing.

Mark Young helps older Australians navigate computers at a computer club in Sydney.

He said older Australians found the digital "distraction" among younger people frustrating.

"The grandkids come round and just spend their time on the phone and looking at that and not talking to them, and they have to kind of butt in in order to get a conversation going," Mr Young said.

"They don't like that, they think that's poorly mannered."

He explained how older Australians often felt pressure to sign up to social media networks such as Facebook.

"They feel kind of left out, that people won't interact with them if they're not on it, yet they don't really want to," Mr Young said.

"So there's the pressure there that they don't like."

Mr Young said for many older Australians, the pace of social change over their lifetimes had been a bit disconcerting.

And that, he said, was likely why such a high proportion of them who said they were worried about political correctness.

"I think that they're used to being able to talk to people that were like them, similar to them," he said.

"And therefore it was easy to say what you wanted to say because you knew the people would agree.

"But they're dealing with a wider range of people, more diversity and we're all taken in by the need to tolerate diversity these days.

"Whereas in the past Australia wasn't as diverse and we didn't have to think about things like gay marriage and stuff like that."

Topics: older-people, youth, community-and-society, australia

First posted July 26, 2017 17:07:05

The rest is here:

Australia's seniors say the political correctness of millennials is ... - ABC Online